The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 4, 2018, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I’m pleased to rise in this House to speak on Bill 32, the Access to Natural Gas Act, and the cancelling of the $100-million fund to expand natural gas infrastructure. This fund would give access to natural gas to rural and northern communities and businesses in a more cost-efficient way. The NDP supports expansion of natural gas into rural and northern Ontario, and eliminating the $100-million fund will result in making this very difficult, if not practically impossible, for rural and northern communities to access the natural gas grid in an affordable and efficient manner.

What this government is doing is merely leaving it to the private sector to decide on its own when and how to develop energy infrastructure. The Liberals did the same thing with Hydro One, and we know how that turned out: Families and businesses saw their bills go up. For the companies, if it’s not cost-efficient, or the return on their investment is not quick enough, they will not make the investment and link those communities. This is where the $100-million fund came in. The $100 million would have offset the cost and given natural gas services to rural communities and businesses at a cost-efficient price to the natural gas companies, all the while giving access to natural gas to rural residents who currently don’t have access to the service.

Communities in my riding like Kitigan, eight kilometres from Kapuskasing on Highway 11, do not have full access to natural gas. The natural gas line goes to Kitigan, but only six residents have natural gas.

I spoke to one of my constituents who requested to be connected to the natural gas grid and got denied. The line would have to be extended for just two more kilometres, which would give access to another 20 houses and two commercial businesses. He was told that the line would cost $140,000. This gentleman told me that it currently costs him $5,000 per year to heat his home. That is double what he would pay if he had natural gas. Instead, he uses firewood and oil to heat his home. If he would use propane or electricity, it would cost him even more. This is one example where keeping the $100 million would help these 20 residents and two businesses, and many other Ontario families, to lower their expenses and to keep them warm during the winter.

In Moonbeam, another community in my riding, another constituent who has just built a new home verified the cost to connect to natural gas. The connection stops approximately 800 metres from his home. The natural gas company is requesting $12,000 to connect his residence to their natural gas line. Building a home in today’s market is not cheap, and to pay an extra $12,000 makes a huge difference in somebody’s budget, not to mention getting plugged in or not. Again, this is where the $100 million would help and make a huge difference on this homeowner’s heating bill.

J’ai aussi eu la chance de parler au président de la régie des services publics à Hearst, M. Frédéric Potvin, un commettant de Lac-Ste-Thérèse—j’en ai déjà parlé dans la Chambre—à 17 kilomètres de la connexion la plus proche pour le gaz naturel. M. Potvin, par l’entremise de notre bureau de circonscription, a fait une demande pour une connexion de gaz naturel.

Mr. Speaker, this is the response we received. I will read you the email:

“We are in receipt of your memo inquiring about a request for natural gas in the community of Lac-Ste-Thérèse. During our April 26, 2018, phone conversation, I explained the process of how Union Gas expands pipelines to unserved communities and to unserved portions of communities that already have access to natural gas.

“As it relates to the inquiry for Lac-Ste-Thérèse, based on the information provided, Union Gas has determined that this project is not economically feasible because the distance to this community is more than 17 kilometres from our closest natural gas connection point.

“Furthermore, when the inquiry was evaluated, the interest came primarily from residential property owners. If a large commercial or industrial operation were to be included in the evaluation, it might impact the feasibility of this project. Union Gas has not been made aware of any such enterprise in the same inquiry area so the evaluation has not changed.

“For these reasons, the request will not be reconsidered at this time. We will hold the inquiry in our database for future reference.

“Sincerely,

“Nicole Lehto”—she’s the manager of construction and growth for Union Gas Ltd., an Enbridge company.

Speaker, leaving the decision to connect residents to natural gas companies and to remove the $100-million fund will result in rural and northern communities getting similar letters. Monsieur Potvin told me in response to the email that there are actually two industries mid-point between the community and the line: Rheault Distillery and Villeneuve Construction. As for the number of residential homes, there would be 109 families who would benefit from the extension of this line.

One point he wanted me to share with you is that the only option they have to heat up their residences is firewood. The previous Liberal government taxed and increased the cost of the wood-cutting permit. Monsieur Potvin heats his home with wood and consumes a whole truckload. This is not a pick-up truck we are talking about but an 18-wheeler, at a cost of $1,800 per year. This is not to mention the time and money to cut the tree lengths into a manageable size.

Monsieur Potvin also told me that while oil heating is an option, its price is extremely unstable, and the oil cost for a normal-sized house, such as that of a disabled resident, would be close to $1,000 per month during the winter. That is a grand total of $5,500 per year. He also said that propane is another option which is getting more and more popular, yet to heat up a three-bedroom house would cost close to $3,300 per year. Monsieur Potvin said that another resident was heating his house with electricity, propane and wood pellets at a cost of $6,000 per year. I can’t imagine Toronto residents going through these hustles and costs in order to heat up their residences.

0910

Si on se base sur la réponse de la compagnie de gaz naturel, nous ne verrons pas d’expansion dans les années à venir, car ces compagnies sont en affaires pour faire de l’argent, pas pour en dépenser. Je sais qu’au comité, notre parti a proposé 16 or 18 propositions pour incorporer le Nord et les Premières Nations. Toutes ces propositions-là ont été déniées par le gouvernement.

Je pense que c’est une erreur de laisser aux compagnies de décider où ils vont brancher la ligne des résidents, parce que la lettre que j’ai lue, vous allez voir, il va y en avoir de plus en plus, et de plus en plus de commettants vont se voir refuser d’être branchés sur le gaz naturel. Je pense que c’est une grosse erreur qu’on fait. On devrait le reconsidérer et y mettre les communautés du Nord et les Premières Nations pour qu’on puisse avoir la connexion comme le reste de la province, ce qu’on mérite parce qu’on ne devrait pas être considérés des citoyens de deuxième classe à cause qu’on demeure dans le Nord.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to stand in this House and speak to the views of the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay regarding the natural gas legislation. As most of you are aware, we voted in favour on second reading of this legislation because we believe that it’s essential that people in northern and rural Ontario have access to natural gas.

One of our big problems with this legislation is that there is nothing in it that actually guarantees or even demonstrates that this actually will help people in rural and northern Ontario to get natural gas. This legislation simply allows cross-subsidization for new gas infrastructure, and it allows the companies to pick where this should be done. A private company will do what a private company does, and it will pick where it makes the most sense economically.

So, basically, this bill is going to help new subdivisions put in cheaper gas infrastructure, and there is no guarantee that it will actually help the farm community, because when I asked the gas companies if this cross-subsidization from residential customers could be used to put in gas lines for farms and for industrial sites, the answer was no, it can’t be, because they are in a different class. So if you’re on a back road and you’ve got a grain dryer or you’re heating your chicken barn and you’re thinking that you’re going to get gas because of this bill, it’s not the case.

That’s why we are going to vote against this bill, because we believe—and if I am proven wrong, I will be happy to be proven wrong. I will be happy if rural Ontario and the farmers of rural Ontario are actually served by this bill, but so far, it’s more of a PR exercise. It’s a bill to get gas into subdivisions at a cheaper rate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? I recognize the member from Spadina-North York—

Mr. Chris Glover: Fort York.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: Yes, you put me too far north. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, it was nice to hear my colleague from Mushkegowuk–James Bay because I used to live in Geraldton, and I used to drive by places like Moonbeam on the way up there on Highway 11.

I want to say that the NDP are all very supportive of getting natural gas into rural communities. It brings back to me a memory. When I was a kid, Ontario Hydro used to have these commercials on TV. They showed the installation of hydro lines in northern Ontario. My father said, “We’re paying for those hydro lines for electricity for people in northern Ontario,” and I said, “Is that fair?” It didn’t seem fair. He said, “No, no. We’re all Ontarians, and everybody has the right, and everybody deserves affordable electricity.” It’s the same with natural gas: Everybody deserves affordable natural gas. The problem with this bill is that it’s not actually going to get it to the communities.

I sat in on the committee meeting where this bill was being discussed. The NDP brought forward 18 amendments. Among the amendments was that we add in the wording that this is to provide natural gas to rural, northern and First Nations communities. That was in about five of those amendments, and each time, the governing Conservative Party voted those amendments down.

Another amendment was that energy bills not be used for partisan advertising. That seems just so obvious, that energy bills should not be used for partisan advertising. It’s something that the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for doing in the last term, and yet again, the Conservatives voted down that amendment.

This bill says that it is going to get natural gas into rural communities, but it’s not actually going to accomplish that goal. We don’t actually know what the goals are with this bill, except as a PR stunt.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now return to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for final comments.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Oh, hold on. Just one moment, please.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Can I do one?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Would you like to do one?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sure.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Well, of course, then. It’s Christmas.

I recognize the member from Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was the night before Christmas, and all through the house—no, no, no. I ain’t going to go there.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Because I’m not a poet. You’ll find out that there other people in my caucus who are better poets.

To the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay—I want to echo what he’s saying, because I represented the same riding for a number of years.

I know Monsieur Potvin quite well, actually. He has talked to me about that very same issue. It’s the reality: There are a whole bunch of places across rural and northern Ontario where this bill will not bring natural gas. If you live in a small hamlet somewhere or you live in a small municipality where there may already be some gas infrastructure in place, there will be an incentive in order for the gas company to expand infrastructure in those kind of urban rural areas. And that’s a good thing; that’s not a bad thing. I think it’s something that should happen.

But the reality is, this bill is not going to bring natural gas down the rural road. If you’re living in Moonbeam, or you’re living on Mountjoy Road 4, or you’re living somewhere down by Charlton, or wherever it might be, if you’re down a rural road, and you happen to be three, four, five, six customers down that road and you happen to run a farm or you happen to run some sort of a business on that rural road, you’re not going to be getting gas infrastructure to your property.

As we all understand, especially in northern Ontario, if you’re having to heat your barn, having to heat your shop, having to heat your home or whatever it might be, it’s far more expensive to do it with electricity, and wood is not always an option for people. There are some people who have the means, and they’re there. They can keep the wood stove going all the time and keep the boiler going to keep their buildings hot, but it’s not everybody who can stay home all day. Most people work for a living and may not be able to do that.

It is an expensive option. I stopped burning wood in my own place. I have a wood-electric unit because I don’t have natural gas. I’ve stopped burning wood because of the economics around the insurance. But that’s for a whole other debate.

I just want to say to the member that he’s right: There’s a whole bunch of people in rural Ontario who will not be serviced by natural gas.

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

Now I return to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for final comment.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I want to thank my illustrious colleagues who spoke on my comments: Timiskaming–Cochrane, Spadina–Fort York and my colleague from Timmins.

My colleagues are right when they’re saying that we won’t be connected. This bill will not address connecting northern communities.

0920

I’ve had a chance also to speak to other constituents. They’re getting older and they say, “Guy, the problem is that people don’t realize that firewood is a lot of work, and it’s not cheap.” They’re getting to an age where it’s getting harder and harder. They say, “Eventually, we can’t do firewood anymore, and electricity, oil and propane are costly. We want to have natural gas.” But this bill won’t address that for these constituents, these people in my riding. This is why the $100 million was so important, to give companies an incentive to connect these communities. But this won’t happen.

All I want to say is: Reconsider adding northern communities. It’s important for the people in my riding, because, like it or not, we are not second-class citizens in the province. We should have the same access as everybody else. This bill addresses new suburbs, but it will not address the First Nations or isolated communities in my riding.

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

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill, Bill 32. I’m pleased to rise to speak to this for a couple of reasons: Not only is it a government bill that I’m very supportive of, but it makes me laugh a little.

Just after my by-election success last June—the June prior to the last one—I got a phone call the very day after the election from a constituent who happened to be a teacher of mine in elementary school. The first thing she wanted to say to me after congratulating me on having success the night prior was to ask me if there was some way I could help to get natural gas to her residential area, a community that is within the city limits of Sault Ste. Marie but that does not have natural gas.

When we first discussed this, I was quite pleased, because there is a significant portion of my community—almost a full ward of a then six-ward system—that does not have natural gas and has to rely on electric heat and/or propane. That can get very expensive, as many know, certainly if you’re paying for electric heat—very expensive for residential consumers. There is the added benefit, obviously, to small businesses and other businesses as well. The savings just on the residential side alone, from being able to move to having natural gas as opposed to using electric, would be anywhere from $800 to $2,500 a year. That’s a significant disparity, obviously, from $800 to $2,500, but the savings are real.

During the campaign, we ran on a couple of principles. The most notable one was that we really wanted to help people out by trying to keep more money in their pockets. That was something that the Premier spoke about a lot, that we as candidates all spoke about. I think that’s something that everybody in this House, regardless of any partisan lines, would want to be able to do: to try to keep money in their constituents’ pockets. That’s ultimately what speaks the most volumes to our voters, our constituents. The more money in their pockets, the more money they have to spend on their families, the more money they have to spend on their own households, their savings, debt management—all of those things. It’s really critical that we find ways to save people money, to keep more money in their pockets. Certainly, through this initiative, residential consumers will see a significant benefit.

The added benefit to businesses, as we indicated as well: As we’ve said many times, we want to be open for business and we want businesses to be able to have the conditions in which to succeed. It’s important that we create a more competitive environment for all of our businesses, small businesses especially, to be able to have those abilities to compete—to have a stronger ability to compete, I should say. Certainly, this is very helpful to ensuring that businesses can be more competitive.

The expansion of natural gas will certainly send that message to residential users that we will do everything in our power to put more money in your pocket. That’s a promise we made and it’s a promise we have been keeping and a promise we intend to continue to keep.

With respect to businesses, obviously, allowing them to be more competitive: That’s of critical importance for them to be able to have more money to spend on, hopefully, hiring other employees and keeping that cycle going in a positive way.

Formerly, under our previous government’s restrictions into natural gas, there were a lot of limitations, and some private sector groups were actually almost prohibited from entering into the expansion programs which were then managed by a taxpayer-funded grant program.

The proposed natural gas expansion support program charge would come at a very low cost to consumers, and it would be more than offset by the savings to both families and businesses through the cancellation of the cap-and-trade carbon tax. That was obviously something that was tabled earlier, and we’ve seen that the savings alone for residential consumers would be in the range of $80 a year and, for small businesses, $285 a year. As indicated, those savings would more than offset the cost of entry into this natural gas expansion program.

So it is something that I’m very pleased with. I’m very pleased that I’m able to keep—I always hesitate to say names, but I will say to my grade 5 elementary school teacher that I’m very pleased that I’m able to keep a promise to her and numerous other residential consumers, constituents of mine, who really wanted this and who specifically took the time to contact me the morning after my first election victory to say, “Ross, you need to do something about natural gas in our area of the community. It’s not right.”

Just by way of background, Sault Ste. Marie, from the residential tax side—we pay amongst the highest taxes in the province. The statistics are quite staggering with respect to the significant taxes that are paid, residentially. In this area I’m referring to in our community, people are paying anywhere from, bottom end, $6,500 to $7,500 a year in taxes; if they have a residence on the property, upwards of $15,000 to $16,000 a year for a home that is—in some cases they’re larger homes, obviously with larger taxes, but these are properties that pay extraordinarily high tax rates. Not only that, but they’re paying such a significantly higher cost every month to heat their homes because of the unavailability of natural gas.

So this is something that benefits so many users in so many parts of the province, but most notably those parts in rural and northern Ontario where natural gas expansion just hasn’t occurred the way it has happened in the larger community centres, larger urban centres, like here and many others throughout the province.

I take the member from Timiskaming’s point, but I would say that—again, the first day I rose to speak to Bill 32, and now at this time, I’ll repeat that there aren’t a lot of places other than rural or northern Ontario that do not have natural gas. There are not a lot of places where you’re going to find the lack of natural gas. Anything we can do as a government, all together, to be able to create those opportunities for users is of benefit to us all, and certainly to all of our constituents. I don’t think anybody can question the significant savings that people would realize in being able to heat their homes or businesses by natural gas, as opposed to electric.

I am certainly very supportive of this bill. I’m very happy that we are moving it forward. I will conclude my comments at this time, or at least into a temporary hiatus, and say that pursuant to standing order 48, I would now move that the question be put.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to ask the table Clerk how many hours of debate we have come to, before we deal with this matter.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): To answer the point of order: seven hours and 38 minutes.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the point of order: Normally the threshold is somewhat higher. We have another speaker who wants to speak, and I would ask that that member get the ability to do that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member has put the question. Therefore, I am obligated to follow through.

Mr. Romano has moved—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order. Just on a point of order, I’m not—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The gentleman has actually put the question, and I have responded to your point of order. So I would ask that you be patient and allow me to go through this.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My argument is that we have not reached the normal threshold.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No, we have. So we’ll start this again.

Mr. Romano has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I did hear a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day?

Hon. Steve Clark: No further business, Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Listen, I don’t want to belabour the point, but what we’re doing here inadvertently is moving the threshold down on when the question can be asked, and I think that is wrong.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day?

Hon. Steve Clark: No further business, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No further business. This House now stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 0932 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In the Speaker’s gallery today I have some special guests: my sister, Debbie Jackson, from Barrie; my first cousin, Zoie Tassoni, from Etobicoke; and my first cousin, Cindy Wallwin, from Barrie. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I was thrilled this morning when I was getting my scrambled eggs and tea to see Dan Millar, the area director of public relations for the Salvation Army. I’ve already signed up to ring my bells. He was with a few other people I see over there. Thank you for joining us today.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome Bruce Schieck from Drayton, Ontario, to Queen’s Park today. Bruce is a retired school board trustee with the Upper Grand District School Board. He’s also a great supporter of Drayton Entertainment.

Bruce is the proud grandfather of Ethan Russell, who is participating in the page program. Ethan has the honour of being the page captain. Please join me in welcoming Bruce to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome back to Queen’s Park former page Annabelle Rayson from Sarnia. Annabelle is here with Cindi Rayson, Eric Rayson and Stephanie Lobsinger. Welcome back. It’s great to see you.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I’d like to introduce my amazing parents: my mother, Theresa Lecce, and my father, Ray Lecce, who have endured me for 32 years. To my mom and dad, welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I am pleased to welcome Larry O’Malley, president of the Ontario Principals’ Council; executive director Allyson Otten; and the principals and school leaders from across Ontario who are here today meeting with members. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: It’s an honour to rise in the House today as MPP for Carleton to introduce a very special delegation here at Queen’s Park. The Salvation Army is an international Christian organization that began its work in Canada in 1882. As an international Christian church, its message is based on the Bible and its ministry is motivated by love for God and the needs of humanity.

The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs and be a transforming and positive influence in our communities. Their three core values are salvation, holiness and intimacy with God.

As the largest non-governmental direct provider of social services in Canada, the Salvation Army provides unprecedented daily support to society’s most vulnerable people in 400 communities across Canada and over 125 countries around the world. They offer practical assistance and critical aid for 1.9 million Canadians every year through social and community service programs focused on nurturing the capacity, skills and strength of individuals rather than just meeting their needs.

Today it’s my honour and privilege to host the 2018 Salvation Army delegation in the members’ gallery here at Queen’s Park. I’d like to welcome Mr. Glenn van Gulick, who is also a constituent of mine in the riding of Carleton; Ms. Sylvia Scott, Lieutenant-Colonel Sandra Rice, Major Everett Barrow, Major Patricia Phinney, Mr. Dan Millar, Major Karen Puddicombe, Major Robert Russell, Mr. Jonah Bulgin, Ms. Hannah McNeilly and Ms. Joanne Tilley.

I’d like to invite all members to join us for a photo on the grand staircase after question period, and to join us at the Salvation Army’s MPP meet-and-greet from 11:45 to 1 p.m. in room 230.

Thank you to the Salvation Army for joining us here today at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In the interest of time, I’m going to ask the members to keep their introductions as brief as possible.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m pleased to welcome Alex Sakhnovich from Stephen Lewis Secondary School. He’s my co-op student, and he’s here today with his fantastic teacher, Ms. Dianne Boehm. I want to thank her for sending such a fantastic kid to help in my constituency office. We’re having a great time.

Rebecca Engelberg is here with her parents, Nancy and Jack. Rebecca works in my constituency office. Welcome to Queen’s Park. They’re here to help us light the Hanukkah menorah on the south part of Queen’s Park, south of the flagpole—you can’t miss it—at 4 o’clock.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent that the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North ask a question on behalf of the member from Don Valley West today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re still doing introductions of visitors. But the member for Orléans is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North to ask a question on behalf of the member for Don Valley West. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s very much a pleasure to recognize that today is Principals’ Day here at Queen’s Park, and to introduce specifically the ED, Allyson Otten, and President Larry O’Malley. Allyson, once upon a time, had the amazing opportunity to represent Oxford county and the agricultural industry, and Larry O’Malley is from Teeswater, Ontario. A fun fact: He was president of the student council when I first started at F.E. Madill Secondary School.

Mrs. Robin Martin: It gives me great pleasure to recognize, in the public gallery, Jack Borins, who was a great volunteer on my campaign. With him is his grade 12 class from Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute and their teacher, Ms. Basa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I would also just like to welcome, from the Lung Association, George Habib, Peter Glazier, Eric Pegolo and Monica Kocsmaros. I look forward to meeting with them later today to discuss how lung disease impacts our health care system.

Mr. Dave Smith: I don’t see her here yet, but my daughter, Lindsay Smith, is on her way in from Guelph. I’m happy to introduce her to you when she actually gets here.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I would like to take an opportunity to introduce a constituent of mine and great friend and supporter, Jason Lodder, who’s here today.

Mr. Will Bouma: It gives me great pleasure, and it has been a great joy, actually, to have a page from my riding, from my town, Ethan Russell, here over the last few weeks. Today is his page captain day. I’d just like to welcome him and his parents, Shelley and Jason Russell; his grandfather, Bruce Schieck; and his uncle, Tom Schieck, to the House today.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It is Principals’ Day at Queen’s Park. I had the opportunity to meet with Larry O’Malley and Allyson Otten. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature, as has already been done.

Also, I would like welcome other principals, including Ann Pace, Dave Westaway, Peter Creer and Nancy Brady. Welcome to the Legislature, and thank you for all you do.

The Shoebox Project

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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Speaker. This is a point of order.

I would like to invite all members tomorrow between 10 and 10:30 to bring their shoeboxes, which their staff and they put together, to the grand staircase, where we will be accepting them underneath the Christmas tree.

We would very much like to say thank you to all members of the assembly who took up the challenge to support the Shoebox Project Canada, which was started by my seatmate, the Auditor General—the Attorney General. I’m giving you a promotion.

1040

Oral Questions

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question is to the Premier. Last week, cabinet appointed a close friend of the Premier’s to the role of commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, after the job criteria were changed in a way that allowed him to apply. The Premier led the cabinet discussion that resulted in the appointment of his friend. Why didn’t the Premier recuse himself?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Superintendent Ron Taverner is one of the most decorated police officers in the country—the longest-serving police officer in the country. Accolades from across the country came in supporting Superintendent Ron Taverner.

When we talk to OPP officers and police officers around this province, the morale is low—very low. We need someone in there that connects with front-line people, that connects with communities, that has a record of going after guns and gangs. There was no better choice—a transparent choice, by the way, that I wasn’t involved in whatsoever. There were three individual people on a panel who made that decision. I didn’t know the decision until the day it was made. But I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition trying to go after a great police officer, a person who has served his country for 50 years.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On the contrary, Speaker: It’s the Premier I’m going after, not Mr. Taverner.

Look, the Premier has stated that he had no role at all in Taverner’s appointment, even though he led the cabinet discussion that resulted in his appointment. My question, then, is: When did the Premier learn that Ron Taverner was submitting his name?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We understand that the opposition, every time it’s about the police—they don’t like the police. It’s very simple: They don’t like the police.

Let me give you a couple of quotes from reputable police officers and presidents of police associations. This quote was from Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association: “I can’t think of a more qualified and dedicated leader for the job. Ron Taverner is a huge asset for the people of Ontario. He’s been a strong advocate for the community and our city. The OPP’s gain is Toronto’s loss.”

Here’s another one, from the OPP Association. This is a person, Rob Jamieson, who talks to OPP officers every single day on behalf of all uniformed and civilian members of the OPPA: “I would like to welcome our new commissioner. We look forward to working collaboratively with Commissioner Ron Taverner, someone who has such a proven track record in law enforcement.”

Here’s another one—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, with all due respect, this is about the Premier, not about Mr. Taverner.

The initial job criteria laid out in the job posting would have made it impossible for Ron Taverner to apply for this position. Did the Premier discuss the job criteria with Mr. Taverner or anyone else before the criteria were rewritten on October 22?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: The answer is, absolutely not.

Let me continue on. This is Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario: “I’ve known Superintendent Ron Taverner for 30-plus years. He’s a hard-working, progressive and dedicated officer. Ron is a great choice to lead the Ontario Provincial Police.”

Here is one about Ron Taverner from the chief of police of Toronto: “After serving Toronto police for more than 50 years, there are few people who will leave behind a legacy so rich in community service as Ron Taverner.... I wish him every success as he begins a new chapter with the Ontario Provincial Police.”

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Deputy Minister of Community Safety, Mario di Tommaso, sat on the Premier’s selection committee tasked with finding a new OPP commissioner. He also is a close acquaintance of Ron Taverner’s and his former supervisor.

Did anyone at any point raise concerns with the Premier about this possible conflict of interest?

Hon. Doug Ford: It’s very clear. I just can’t believe we have the Leader of the Opposition trashing a person that has dedicated 50 years of his life—the longest-serving police officer—trying to degrade him.

This man is a man of integrity. He’s a man of honesty. He’s going to change the OPP. He’s going to make sure the front-line police officers are listened to. He’s going to work with the community. He’s going to get rid of the guns and gangs in these large cities. You couldn’t ask for a better OPP commissioner than Ron Taverner.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members please take their seats.

Start the clock again. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There the Premier goes again, calling people names, but I do have a job to do, so: Throughout a process in which a close friend—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Throughout a process in which a close friend of the Premier was given a job, another close friend sat on the selection committee and the job description was rewritten in a way that would allow the Premier’s friend to apply. Is the Premier saying that no one, at any point, flagged any concerns about possible conflicts of interest?

Hon. Doug Ford: I take great, great exception with what the leader and the NDP are saying. I have thousands of friends, unlike maybe the leader of the NDP. I know thousands of people that support us.

As for the deputy minister, Mario—to be honest, I don’t know his last name. He’s not one of my close friends. He’s a professional that was hired through the secretary of cabinet, and what a great choice the secretary made.

But, again, this goes back to reforming the OPP, not going with all the insiders, the brass and everything. This is about making sure that the OPP have a reputable person at the head of the OPP, someone that can relate to the front-line officers, someone that will relate to communities across this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I actually believe that the police play a vital role in our province, protecting the public and enforcing the law. We put an incredible amount of trust in them. We count on them in every part of our province.

When we fill key positions like this one, there can’t be questions lingering. Does Premier agree that we need to clear the air and allow the Integrity Commissioner to look into this appointment process and make his report public?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the leader of the NDP is saying they support the police, but she wouldn’t ask her own member from Brampton East to step down during the election when he was running around with, “Eff the police.” Who does that? No one in my caucus would ever say that. If someone said it, they wouldn’t be here. They don’t like the police. They don’t like our military. They don’t like anyone in uniform. That’s the—

Interjections.

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

I’m going to caution all members on the use of intemperate language which causes disorder in the House. I would ask them to keep that in mind as they phrase their responses as well as their questions.

Start the clock. Next question.

Government accountability

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Since the Premier wouldn’t answer the questions, I’ll ask the questions to the Minister of Community Safety.

The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to ensure that key appointments, like the OPP commissioner, are conducted fairly and transparently. Was the minister aware of the Premier’s friend and the Premier’s friendship with Ron Taverner when he applied for the job? And, if so, what steps did she take to ensure an impartial process?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The opposition should be ashamed of taking a five-decade candidate and suggesting that there was anything inappropriate about him applying and ultimately receiving an endorsement with 100% support—and 100% support from me and our cabinet on Thursday when we endorsed that independent hiring.

1050

I am embarrassed that you do not believe that Ron Taverner is an appropriate choice. I will go back to the president of the Ontario Police Association: “On behalf of the uniform and civilian members of the OPPA, I would like to welcome our new commissioner.” It is very unfortunate that the NDP don’t have the same integrity to thank him for serving.

Interjections.

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

Once again, I’ll remind members that intemperate language does not add anything to the debate. It only causes disorder in the House.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Yarde: We’ll try it one more time: The minister had a role to play, and there are now serious questions about whether she took the steps required to ensure a fair and transparent process. The top policing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Government side, come to order. I can’t hear the member for Brampton North.

Start the clock. I apologize to the member for Brampton North.

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll start again. To the minister: The minister had a role to play, and there are now serious questions about whether she took the steps required to ensure a fair and transparent process. The top policing job in the province has gone to a close personal friend of the Premier. The Premier did not recuse himself.

Did the minister at any point raise concerns about the Premier’s obvious conflict of interest, and if not, why not?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, allow me to share some of the facts of this story: First, an independent hiring commission 100% endorsed Ron Taverner. Then we moved from there to cabinet—a 100% endorsement of Ron Taverner as the OPP commissioner.

And I must remind you that Bruce Chapman, the president of the police association—“I’ve known Superintendent Ron Taverner for 30-plus years. He’s a hardworking, progressive and dedicated officer.”

I do not understand why the NDP refuse to endorse what everyone else sees: a quality candidate who is going to serve the province of Ontario well as the OPP commissioner. I’m proud to endorse Ron Taverner. I’m disappointed that you don’t understand that that—

Interjections.

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

Once again, I’ll remind the House that when the standing ovation erupted, the volume of the standing ovation was such that I could not hear the minister complete her answer. I had to stand up and cut her off.

Start the clock. Next question.

Biens provinciaux / Government assets

M^me Natalia Kusendova: Ma question est pour le ministre des Services gouvernementaux et des Services aux consommateurs.

Hier, le ministre, en collaboration avec le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement, a annoncé le plan de notre gouvernement visant à remettre les biens excédentaires à un usage productif.

I’m sure that many members of this House have wondered about how the vacant provincially owned buildings in their ridings will be put to better use for the taxpayer. Currently, surplus government properties are draining the Ontario treasury of nearly $10 million every year. This is a staggering sum, and it is all to just maintain properties that are of no use to the people of Ontario. We are not using these properties, and we are not benefiting from the services that they could provide. This money is being wasted on snow removal, grass cutting and structural maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform this House of how he intends to deal with these properties and get this money back into productive use for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to thank my colleague from Mississauga Centre for her question.

Ontario currently has hundreds of vacant surplus properties across our great province, costing the government and taxpayers millions of dollars a year to maintain. Yesterday, we announced a more efficient process for selling surplus government properties. The improved plan will reduce red tape, create more affordable housing and long-term-care spaces and put more money in people’s pockets.

We announced the process to accelerate the disposition of 243 properties—properties that are currently sitting empty and unused while taxpayers fund snow removal, grass cutting and regular maintenance.

We streamlined the process, which will remove an estimated 150 days of administrative time, generate between $105 million and $135 million in revenue after four years and save the government an estimated $9.6 million in liabilities a year.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are taking a sensible approach. We are implementing a more efficient process to put surplus properties into productive use, and more money into programs and services for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

M^me Natalia Kusendova: Monsieur le Président, par votre entremise, je remercie le ministre pour sa réponse. Je tiens également à le remercier, ainsi que le ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement, pour leur travail acharné dans ce dossier et pour aider à mettre de l’ordre dans les finances de l’Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Minister, as you have explained, these properties are costing Ontarians millions of dollars every year while offering no benefit to them or their communities. I would like to know what benefit taxpayers can expect to see from the selling-off of these properties. What process will be used to ensure their value is maximized for local communities? More importantly, how can we ensure these properties are finally sold in a quick, responsible manner, rather than being left on the province’s books for another 10 or 15 years?

Hon. Bill Walker: My colleague asked a very important question, one that has been at the heart of how we are addressing the issue of surplus properties. We need to ensure that these properties are put to the best use of taxpayer dollars. That is why we are implementing prudent reforms and removing unnecessary red tape.

By removing unnecessary red tape, we can remove an estimated 150 days of administrative time. This will put properties on the market in a shorter time frame and, by putting them into productive use, help local economies and create jobs.

I’m also happy to report that our plan will also support Ontario’s most vulnerable. We’ll be identifying properties within the portfolio that can be repurposed for affordable housing and long-term-care spaces.

I’ll be working with my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to pinpoint surplus properties that can help our most vulnerable.

Our plan is about working harder, smarter and more efficiently, so we can reduce costs, generate much-needed revenue and make life better for the people of Ontario.

Premier’s comments

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, former OPP commissioner Chris Lewis is a decorated police veteran who served the OPP and our province for 36 years. As the Premier knows, Lewis has questioned the wisdom of the Premier’s appointment of the new OPP commissioner, calling it “a travesty.”

Yesterday, the Premier responded by questioning the integrity of this decorated former commissioner. Will he take the opportunity to apologize to former commissioner Lewis today?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, I find this very ironic. The commissioner, Chris Lewis, I’ll tell you, lost a lot of respect from police officers right across this province with his comments. He keeps throwing rocks in a glass house. He has more baggage that he carries than a 747 going across seas.

You know something? You don’t throw rocks in a glass house. As a matter of fact, maybe the media should look into Chris Lewis’s background. That’s what they should be doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a wonder: The Premier’s caucus barely could conjure up a round of applause for that answer. It was terrible—one of the worst answers I’ve ever heard in this place.

Applause.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, you can clap for me.

We know that the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: We know that the Premier has had a lot of first-hand experience and challenges, facing law enforcement. But questioning the integrity of a decorated former commissioner who spent over three decades serving the OPP and the province of Ontario is a new low for this Premier.

Will the Premier show a little respect for this dedicated police serviceperson and former commissioner, and use this opportunity to do the right thing, show some respect for our forces, stand up and apologize to former commissioner Lewis?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Again, there was a transparent process with Odgers, with the deputy minister making the decision, and the secretary of cabinet. Guess what? It was unanimous.

The person from Odgers, a reputable firm, one of the largest in the country, said he’s never received more accolades about a candidate ever in his career of 30 years.

1100

Government contracts

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Yesterday, our government for the people voted to pass third reading of Bill 34, the Green Energy Repeal Act. The Green Energy Act paved the way for the signing of horrible contracts that lined the pockets of insiders. No family should ever have to choose between heating and eating, and yet this is exactly the burden the last government put on our families. I was proud to stand with our government in cancelling the Green Energy Act, one of the worst bills in Ontario’s history. For a decade and a half, we had to suffer the impacts of failed policies by the governments of Dalton McGuinty and the member from Don Valley West.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister elaborate on why the Green Energy Act contracts were bad deals that took away the decision-making authority of municipalities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for her important question. As I’ve said in this place before, the only thing green about the Green Energy Act was the green that lined the pockets of Liberal insiders as these projects cost ratepayers, folks who pay their bills every month, for energy in Ontario.

In keeping with quotable quotes, let’s take a look at a few here. Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun said that the Liberals called their Green Energy Act “fair.” “It was certainly fair to wind power developers, who received absurdly generous government subsidies ... to produce wind power.”

Rex Murphy: “Ontario’s Green Energy Act was a horror for business, a gross invasion of municipal authority, and sent successive Auditors General to whatever is the chartered accountants version of a hospice centre.”

Mr. Speaker, our government was elected to raise Ontario up from the energy policy sinkhole we found ourselves in. We cancelled those 758 renewable energy contracts, and now we’re going to march forward, repeal this act, and lower hydro rates for the—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the Minister of Energy: The expensive wind and solar projects our province did not need added a significant cost and burden to our province, and that’s money that is coming out of the pockets of people right across Ontario. A 2015 Auditor General report found that ratepayers paid $37 billion more than the market price for electricity between 2006 and 2014, and would overpay another $133 billion by 2032.

Over the years, the Liberals spent billions of taxpayer dollars to fund projects that simply weren’t needed. These purchases were fuelled by an ideology that favoured expensive, unreliable forms of renewable energy supplied by Liberal insiders.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to energy, could the minister confirm that the culture of waste at Queen’s Park is over?

Hon. Greg Rickford: These questions get me worked up, Mr. Speaker.

Listen to Kevin Libin from the National Post; he said it best: “The only” businesses “that need to worry are the government cronies whose sweetheart deals have long ripped off taxpayers.”

Mr. Speaker, these municipalities will now have the power to ensure they don’t become home to wasteful energy projects our system doesn’t need and many communities don’t want. We believe that the people of Ontario should have the final say about what gets built in their community, that municipalities should have the power to stop expensive and unneeded energy projects in their community.

Moving forward, we will have a process that listens to the voices of municipalities. We will have lower costs that help get Ontario open for business, and less expensive bills for families and businesses who pay an energy bill at the end of the month. Mr. Speaker, it’s a great, great day today. We’re going to be repealing the Green Energy Act. It’s a victory for the people of Ontario, and it’s worth—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Energy conservation

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Minister of the Environment. Not too long ago, we had a program in Ontario that helped homeowners to reduce their carbon footprint and save money. The program also created jobs for renovators and manufacturers of energy-efficient windows and doors.

Why did the Premier kill a program that helped ordinary families and small businesses and replace it with a climate change plan that forces people to give millions of dollars out of their own pockets to large polluters?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member for his question. In one sense, the member is correct. We did cancel the wasteful programs of the previous government, which the NDP supported. We cancelled programs that, frankly, got in the way of consumers making their own decisions and cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize businesses to let the government pick winners, not the market pick winners. We cancelled those programs.

In their place, we put a sensible program, a program that makes sure that Ontario meets the international obligations that the federal government has set, to hit the Paris targets, and in a very sensible, understandable, common sense way delivers on greenhouse gas reductions and supports homeowners in the ways they want to be supported, preparing for climate change.

Surely the member opposite would support the fact that we are going to be helping consumers to do things like deal with their flooded basements. Those are the things that homeowners care about. Surely the member opposite will support that part of our program.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: An extraordinary answer.

Again to the minister: When the Premier killed the Green Ontario Fund, Ontario families lost out on programs to help them conserve energy, reduce their carbon footprint and save money. He got rid of programs that helped them save money.

Window installers were forced to cancel hundreds of jobs and lay off workers. Some of them had to pay huge penalties to cancel custom window installations that were already under way.

The Premier killed a program that helped families and businesses and replaced it with a plan that forces those same families and businesses to give millions of dollars out of their own pockets to large polluters.

Why does the Premier think it’s fair to hurt thousands of families and small businesses while giving millions of tax dollars to polluters?

Hon. Rod Phillips: As the member likely knows but won’t admit, the program that we cancelled that families in Ontario had had enough of was the cap-and-trade carbon tax. It was a cost, a tax, on families. It was a program and a cost that was taking money out of pockets, not putting money back into pockets; not making decisions for families about whether they needed a certain kind of window, but letting them make those choices. That’s the kind of program that this government will not support: a tax on families, a tax on businesses, a tax on jobs.

The member opposite has asked for our plan and asked for our targets. We’ve delivered our plan and our targets. I asked earlier in the week: Where is his plan? Where are their targets? What targets do they want to impose on Ontarians? We’ve picked the targets from Paris. We’ve picked the targets the federal government set. Where is their plan? Where are their targets?

Northern highway improvement

Mr. Michael Gravelle: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and Indigenous Affairs. The Northern Highways Program is a crucial part of infrastructure investment all across northern Ontario. It focuses on the rehabilitation and the expansion of the provincial highway system in the north.

A number of major projects have been undertaken over the last 10 years, including the four-laning of Highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon and the four-laning of Highway 69 between Parry Sound and Sudbury. I’m also very conscious that another priority project is the four-laning between Kenora and the Manitoba border, which I understand will get under way next year.

My question to the minister is this: Will you continue to support all three of those projects when the allocation of funds are made to the Northern Highways Program?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’ve travelled many of those roads over the years and I understand their importance.

1110

I want to thank the member for this question. He had me up until “northern roads.” These are important investments. I’ve had an opportunity quite recently to serve notice to the Indigenous communities across this vast region about our commitments to those roads, but the discussion around the twinning of the highway, Mr. Speaker, is a sore spot for me. There are twinning projects going on across the north, except for one place. An announcement was made by Premier McGuinty in 2008, with our then Prime Minister, whom I served, Prime Minister Harper, and 10 years later, nothing got done. We know that the province of Ontario is responsible for developing those highways. Nothing happened out there. We’re hopeful that something will happen. We’re working with our communities to ensure that that section of the highway gets twinned and starts as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the minister for the response. May I say that the significant consultations that took place leading up to the work that is moving forward on the Kenora and Manitoba four-laning is crucial. I’m pleased to hear that indeed you are working with the communities to move that project forward. That doesn’t make it any less important for us to look at the other major projects all across northern Ontario: the four-laning between Thunder Bay and Nipigon and the four-laning between Parry Sound and Sudbury. I know also that Minister Rickford was a great supporter as a federal cabinet minister, making an announcement related to some funding assistance for the section between Thunder Bay and Nipigon.

My question to the minister is: Does he believe the federal government has a major role to play in making sure the funding is there so that all these projects can be completed?

Hon. Greg Rickford: At one time there was a $50-million commitment from the federal government with the provincial government at that time. There’s a question out there, Mr. Speaker. It was designated to be one of the most dangerous sections of the highway across northern Ontario right at the Manitoba border. Where did the money go? One hundred million dollars was committed between the federal and provincial governments at that time. There’s no money left.

We understand and respect—and I know my colleagues across the way from northern Ontario understand and respect—that twinning of the highway, making our road network safe, is a top priority. We’ll be working with our communities in short order to ensure that we make the right investments in the right sections of highways that are consequential to the flow of Canadians across this great country and, tragically, to the loss of lives in this province.

Food packaging

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Health Canada, as part of its healthy eating strategy, has proposed revisions to Canada’s Food Guide and is proposing mandatory front-of-package labelling for foods high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat. While our government fully supports improving public health outcomes, it seems the federal proposal would include things like dairy products.

At a time when some of those in the agri-food industry are being hit hard by the new USMCA deal, the federal government, without adequate consultation with the sector, is implementing changes that include numerous consequences like burdensome costs associated with the implementation of new labelling requirements. Can the minister please provide more details on these burdensome changes?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much to the member from Brantford–Brant for the question and his leadership on this important issue. Our government and Ontario food processors are supportive—

Applause.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Yes, give him an applause.

Our government and Ontario food processors are supportive of efforts to help Canadians make healthy food choices. However, the proposed front-of-package labelling requirements will be costly, with little proven benefit to health outcomes in some areas.

An example of unintended consequences is the change that some foods that may have more nutritional value, such as some cheeses and ground beef, now may require a front-of-package label for high fat content, while other foods that might have less nutritional value—for instance, diet soda—would not require a front-of-package label.

Mr. Speaker, we support our farmers, and we’re concerned with the proposal to put warning labels on products that are 100% real juice. Our government is committed to lowering business costs and removing unnecessary regulations—

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his answer. Dairy farmers in my riding are particularly concerned with these proposed changes as they are facing real challenges in their industry already with the new USMCA deal, and now with new labelling requirements and new recommendations for protein intake.

Any new food guide should continue to acknowledge that milk and dairy products are important in promoting healthy eating for Canadians. Dairy farmers are already facing many pressures, and the proposed revision to Canada’s Food Guide may exacerbate the situation.

Can the minister please tell us what this government is doing to oppose these burdensome changes and support our farmers?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you to the member for the supplementary question. With the new USMCA, dairy farmers are already facing many pressures. The Dairy Farmers of Ontario are concerned that the proposed changes could send a mixed message to Canadians about the value of consuming a variety of proteins. The proposed changes to the front-of-package labelling for cheeses or other milk products such as yogourt may also negatively impact our dairy farmers and producers with new, burdensome costs and regulations.

That’s why both myself and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade have written a letter to the federal Minister of Health asking the federal government to re-examine the implementations of these amendments to ensure consumers have appropriate and balanced information in a manner that does not contradict science, add undue cost to businesses and negatively impact competitiveness.

Our government looks forward to working with the agri-food sector and the federal government on this matter. Thank you very much for the question.

Affordable housing

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday, the government announced the sale of 243 government properties at a shockingly low price of between $105 million and $135 million. This is a rock-bottom, fire-sale price, Speaker.

What regulations will the government put in place to ensure that the funds from publicly owned lands sold for rock-bottom prices to developers will be used for affordable housing?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member, I was proud, quite frankly, to be asked by the Minister of Government and Consumer Services to be at his announcement yesterday. I made it very clear that my message to not-for-profit housing providers, to municipalities, to stakeholders interested in using some of these properties for affordable housing was that our door was open. We look forward to working collaboratively with anyone who sees an opportunity to use one of these properties for an affordable housing use.

I have to say to the honourable member that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care was also mentioned because we believe, on this side of the House, that issues around affordable housing and future long-term-care beds are extremely important. So if there is an organization, group or municipality that wants to sit down—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Todd Smith: —and create that opportunity, we’re going to be there for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Suze Morrison: Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Our province is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, and this government has decided to ignore evidence and deregulate rent for new units and new buildings in Ontario.

Will the minister inform the House why, as more and more people are struggling to pay their rent, this government has taken rent control off the table?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, we’ll jump from our announcement yesterday to the fall economic statement. In the fall economic statement, our government for the people made a decision on that rent control exemption. We wanted to send a very direct message that we want to create more housing. I’ve said, quite frankly, in response to members from the opposite side—sorry, I don’t want to disparage our members on the other side. I want to say to the members of the official opposition that supply is a very big problem. We have a crisis situation in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. We want to signal to our stakeholders that we want to work with them.

Again, I want to challenge this member and I want to challenge all of the New Democrat caucus to go on to our website: ontario.ca/housingsupply.

1120

I want you to have a round table. I want you to give us some suggestions on how to increase housing supply. We want you to be part of the solution. You keep indicating you’re going to continue to—

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

Interjections.

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

Manufacturing sector

Mr. Stephen Lecce: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Conservatives understand full well that manufacturing is vital to Ontario’s economy and to our future prosperity. According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, this industry employs more than 770,000 Ontarians in high-paying jobs and indirectly supports another 1.5 million.

This sector has been hit hard by the former Liberal government. In 2017, Ontario had the dubious record of being the only province to see manufacturing exports fall. Manufacturing sales growth was three times slower than the national average.

This Premier is totally resolved to create a competitive advantage and to fight to keep these jobs here in Ontario. We are resolved to fight against Justin Trudeau’s job-killing carbon tax. Can the minister update this chamber on how our government will stand with our workers and stand up for the future of Ontario’s manufacturers?

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s a great question from the member from King–Vaughan. It’s great to have his parents here for the question today, too. Clearly he comes from good stock.

This fall, we’ve taken remarkable strides to make Ontario open for business after 15 years of increased taxes, increased costs and increased red tape in Ontario. Bill 47, which we passed earlier this month, is going to make it easier to get more Ontarians into the trades. That’s how we’re going to deal with closing the skills gap, Speaker.

By improving the rate of capital cost depreciation, which the finance minister announced in the fall economic statement a couple of weeks ago—prompting the federal government, I might add, to follow Ontario’s lead—we’re making it easier for businesses to invest in new technologies and stay competitive.

But, Speaker, by no means is our job complete here in Ontario. You don’t roll back 15 years of damaging, job-killing Liberal policies in six months. We’ve got more to do, and we’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Thank you, Minister, for not giving up on this sector and for never giving in on the workers of this province.

Under the Liberals, Ontario fell behind. Ontario slipped to 14th place in global manufacturing output, down from ninth just 20 years ago.

Yesterday, I was privileged to join the parliamentary secretary and member from Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill. We met with manufacturing leaders from the CME. Our message to these job creators was clear: This government will cut your taxes and your hydro rates. We will reduce your regulations and red tape. We will invest in a skilled labour market. We will open new markets for our job creators and we will never turn our backs on traditional and advanced manufacturing in this province.

With the recent release of our fall economic statement, can the minister outline how we will support the rebirth of Ontario’s manufacturing sector?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again for the question from the member for King–Vaughan. I want the House to know that I take the federal minister’s challenge from the fall economic statement seriously. We have to reduce red tape by 25%, and we’re committed to reducing red tape by 25% by 2022.

Now, I know members opposite have said there isn’t 25% of red tape or overregulation that you can cut in Ontario, but we have heard from industry that you certainly can. Ontario has over 380,000 regulations—a lot of duplication. British Columbia only has 169,000, and British Columbia seems like a pretty nice place to live and a nice place to invest. If you can get by with 55% fewer regulations than Ontario, I know that we can cut 25% of our regulations here in Ontario.

I know the members opposite—the members of the NDP and the members of the Liberal government—like bigger government. But we believe in getting government out of the way so we can create new growth, new jobs and new industry here in Ontario.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jamie West: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. For years now, Health Sciences North, Sudbury’s regional hospital, has been massively underfunded. Funding cuts by previous Liberal and Conservative governments have forced the hospital to claw back health care services available to the good people of the north.

Most recently, people in my community rallied together to protect the hospital’s breast cancer screening clinic. Anne Matte, who helped establish the clinic two decades ago, and Sharon Murdock and dozens of other women held protests and meetings. They distributed petitions and demanded that the lives of patients not be put on the line for cost savings.

Will the minister listen to the people of Sudbury and fund our hospital properly?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. In fact, as I’m sure you are aware, Health Sciences North is facing financial problems, including an $11-million deficit in 2017-18. They have been working very hard with the LHIN, however, to deal with some of those financial concerns. We are committed to working with them and with the LHIN to make sure that they can come back to financial health.

With respect to the breast screening assessment service, I think it’s important to mention that it is not closing. The LHIN has been working closely with Health Sciences North to help the hospital ensure that mammograms, diagnostic imaging services, biopsies and navigation will all be continuing, uninterrupted, as they are working through their financial difficulties.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you to the minister for her answer. I am well aware of the budget. The budget is there because of years and years of Conservative and Liberal cuts. They need the money to make ends meet, which is why they’re cutting the breast cancer program.

I want to tell you about Melissa. She was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was only 32 years old. That dedicated team at the breast cancer screening clinic responded quickly to her aggressive cancer. Later, when she developed a rare infection, the clinic helped her navigate the system and ensured that she received the best care.

Melissa is now cancer-free, but she’s worried about how those recent cuts to the clinic will impact patients. She’s worried that other patients will have to wait longer to see a surgeon, or go through unnecessary stress while waiting to hear a diagnosis.

The cost-cutting measures that Health Sciences North has adopted to address the long-term underfunding threaten the services that provide excellent patient care for the women in the north.

Will the minister invest in our hospital and protect this life-saving program?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you: I would like to just correct some of the facts that have been stated by the member on the other side, in the official opposition. The breast screening program is not closing. It is continuing, uninterrupted, because there has been careful work that is being done between Health Sciences North, the LHIN and the ministry.

We recognize that these services need to continue as they work through their financial difficulties, but that does not mean restricting patient care. What we want to do, and what we were elected to do, is bring more money into front-line care.

After 15 years of the former Liberal government not developing a comprehensive plan, we are going to develop that plan. We are going to make sure that hospitals have the services they need. We’re going to make sure that those essential patient services, such as the breast screening assessment program, continue.

Energy rates

Mr. Deepak Anand: My question is also for the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

I know that the honourable minister has been working tirelessly since day one. From the beginning, our government for the people has committed to making energy more affordable in this province. We know that Ontario families have been hurt by the bad energy policy decisions of the previous government. This is why our government is working hard to provide relief to families and businesses across our province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister spoke at the Toronto Region Board of Trade last week. Can the minister please tell the members of this House about his remarks last week, and how this government is restoring affordability for job creators in this province?

Hon. Greg Rickford: What a great question, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Malton for that question and for the great work that he does for his constituents—an outstanding colleague.

I also want to thank the Toronto Region Board of Trade for having me speak at their Power Breakfast. It was themed “Restoring Ontario’s Energy Advantage.” We discussed and reflected on a province that led this country at one point.

1130

Manufacturing jobs were here. Miners and foresters were hard at work in northern Ontario. But slowly, surely, then almost declivitously, it went away. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because we didn’t have that energy advantage. Because the NDP and the Liberals got together and made it a whole lot less affordable for those manufacturers, for those mining operations and for those foresters to do their work and contribute to our economy.

There was a time when Ontario led. We’re looking for that Ontario energy advantage, and we’re going to get there.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you, Minister. I’d like to thank the minister for taking action that is helping my constituents of Mississauga–Malton, and not only them but everyone in Ontario, keeping more money in their pockets.

Our government has been working hard to make sure that we create an environment that encourages business to grow and create good-paying jobs. I know that restoring Ontario’s energy advantage is a crucial part of protecting jobs and growth in this province. Can the minister tell the members of this House more about how our government has been taking action to protect and create good-paying jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: What we’re doing is protecting that skilled workforce, particularly in the nuclear sector, that contributes so significantly to Ontario’s electric supply—60% coming from our nuclear assets.

Now, we’ve been talking about process today. Let’s just walk through a process that may have occurred on June 7. Had the NDP been elected: 7,500 high-paid workers in the nuclear sector cut loose. Imagine the chaos that would have ensued, with massive unemployment in the Durham region, particularly in Pickering. How many homes and businesses would be without electricity? That’s why we wasted no time in working towards repealing the Green Energy Act, cancelling wasteful contracts that communities didn’t want and the grid didn’t need.

The NDP deals in chaos; we deliver in confidence. The NDP—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Government services

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. The ServiceOntario office located in the town of Wawa in my riding is only open four hours per day, four days per week. During those short operating hours, residents must often wait for long hours for basic services.

These inadequate operating hours not only hurt individual residents, but also hurt small businesses that directly rely on the ServiceOntario office. A local power sport equipment dealership in Wawa must wait until customers register for a licence before finalizing a transaction. Scheduling purchase pickups around ServiceOntario hours forces customers to travel twice or reconsider their whole purchase. This is damaging to our local economy and to our small businesses.

Can the minister explain to Wawa small business owners why they don’t deserve better service than that?

Hon. Bill Walker: Mr. Speaker, through you to my colleague: Thank you for the question. We do a lot of good work, being on either side of the Chi-Cheemaun.

It’s always our best intent that we want to have those services out there for the community when they want them. ServiceOntario is a very valued contributor to all of our communities across Ontario. Certainly there are some challenges there, but we’re working through that.

As you’re well aware, I’ve only been in the role for about three weeks, but I’ve had a briefing already. I’ve met with some of the service providers directly, and we are looking to do that. We want to ensure that we restore accountability and trust across government for the people of Ontario. We want to make life more affordable. We want to provide consistent and good services. I’m happy to work with you to see what we can do to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Well, Speaker, my friend, it’s time that we jump into that big canoe and let’s row in the same direction together.

In addition to inadequate ServiceOntario operating hours, community members from Wawa and Chapleau are forced to wait months to book their drive tests. Then, after waiting for months, they arrive for their appointment but are told that there are no qualified staff members available to conduct exams for special DZ licences. These licences are necessary to drive vehicles such as dump trucks, cement trucks, garbage trucks, rescue and fire trucks and guess what else? Snowplows. This is creating a barrier to employment and causing unnecessary hardship for small businesses by neglecting secondary industries that require specialized trained drivers.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier—can the minister please tell residents when they can expect to see fair service delivery in northern communities?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you very much for that kind promotion, my friend.

This is an excellent reason why we need to modernize our public services in a way that puts reliability and taxpayers at the centre of everything we do, and puts structures in place that create a culture of efficiency.

We’re doing a line-by-line review. We’re going to modernize services and better utilize digital and shared service models so we provide better services for all Ontarians, through finding more cost-efficient ways of administering government, by ensuring government funding is directed to those that require it most, and finally, by maximizing the value of government assets and putting them to their most productive use.

To my colleague across the road: We are committed—and I want to applaud all of the people at ServiceOntario and the people in my ministry, who are doing their best to modernize and ensure that we have as many services in a timely and effective manner as possible.

We want to keep people working. We’re going to work our best to make sure we have those services available. We want to make sure that Ontario is a better place because of the public service.

Special-needs sports programs

Mr. Dave Smith: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

In Ontario, we have more than 70 organizations involved in special-needs hockey. Athletes have a range of different exceptionalities, including Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and autism, just to name a few.

We know there’s more than just a health benefit from participating in sports. Through sport, we build a camaraderie, a sense of being, and a purpose from working together that has a greater impact than something that any of us does as an individual.

Can the minister explain how our government for the people is working to promote and support great initiatives that Special Hockey International is working on?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, through you: I would like to thank the member for Peterborough–Kawartha for this important question, and also for the great work that he does, advocating on behalf of people with special needs.

Through my ministry, our government provides support for many sport initiatives, which includes supports for sports programs for those with special needs.

In our fall economic statement, we committed to marking a new Special Hockey Day in the province. As outlined, the government proposes to formally recognize March 27, 2019, as Special Hockey Day. This will coincide with the start of the 25th annual Special Hockey International tournament, which will be hosted right here in Toronto.

Recognizing Special Hockey Day will bring awareness about the many special hockey organizations across Ontario and celebrate the contributions of teams, players and organizers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the minister for his response. As he said, March 27th is the opening ceremonies for the 25th anniversary of the Special Hockey International Tournament. It’s the first time it is back in Ontario since my riding of Peterborough–Kawartha hosted the tournament in 2016. We had the pleasure of having more than 1,000 athletes from 58 teams, some from as far away as Sala, Sweden. It even included the Werewolves of London.

The celebration is being held this year in Toronto at the Mattamy Athletic Centre. It’s being hosted by the Grandravine Tornadoes.

Can the minister update the Legislature on how the Doug Ford-led government is working to champion those with special needs through sport?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you once again, Mr. Speaker, for that question from the member from Peterborough–Kawartha.

As I stated in my first response, our government is committed to helping communities host major amateur sporting events across Ontario.

I would also like to note that Special Olympics Ontario is a recognized provincial sport organization and receives funding through the Ontario Amateur Sport Fund. We also provide project-based funding to help deliver national and international amateur sport events in Ontario, like the 2019 international Special Olympics Ontario Invitational Youth Games being held here in Ontario.

Our government recognizes how powerful sport is in bringing us together. This tournament does exactly that, and I look forward to special hockey players from all over the world coming to Toronto and for us, as Ontarians, to celebrate the first-ever Special Hockey Day in Ontario.

1140

GO Transit

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. A few weeks ago, when I asked about two-way, all-day GO to Waterloo region, the response was “Stay tuned.” Well, we’ve tuned in, but what we’re seeing isn’t positive at all. Metrolinx’s new 200-page business case for GO expansion takes two-way, all-day GO to Kitchener out of the main plan and pushes the completion date to as far away as 2030.

What does the government have to say about following in the footsteps of the Liberals and stringing the people of Waterloo region along again?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you for that question from the member opposite. I said, “Stay tuned.” I don’t think you’ve tuned in to the right frequency yet. But seriously, we’re going to have an announcement forthcoming that I think you’ll be happy with. We’re finalizing details of what we’ve been doing for the entire province. We’ve been reviewing all the plans and procedures that had been put forth by the previous government. We’re making sure that all our decisions for the people of this province ensure that we’re opening up for business, and I think the people of this province, especially in the GTHA, particularly in Cambridge and Kitchener, are going to be pretty happy with how this government’s going to proceed with transit projects across this province.

As the Premier has said, we’re opening this province up for business, and the best way to do that is to get people moving. This province is going to get the people moving.

Ms. Catherine Fife: That answer is not going to fly in Waterloo region. We hear radio silence from this government on progressive transit plans.

Our province will never be able to compete globally if Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto are separated by a 100-kilometre-long parking lot, and that’s from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

People in Waterloo region are frustrated, and for good reason. The Metrolinx report doesn’t make them feel any better. This is what the report says, for the listening pleasure of the minister: “As part of GO expansion, the Kitchener line will see significant upgrades between Bramalea and Union Station.”

Minister, what about the rest of the line? What about Brampton and Guelph and Georgetown, and what about Kitchener? We’ve waited too long.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Again, Speaker, through you to the member opposite: I’ve been working with members in my caucus. They’ve come forward with ideas on improving GO service between Kitchener and Toronto. I wish you’d come over and have that conversation with me and have that discussion instead of asking and yelling and screaming in the House. It’s better to sit down at the table and have a discussion to ensure that we can make what’s best for this province. So I invite you to come over and have a discussion with—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. That concludes our time for question period. Once again, I remind the government that as soon as the ovation started, I couldn’t hear the minister. I had to cut him off.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m not sure I heard correctly, but what I heard I hope wasn’t a sexist comment towards my member.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. That’s not a point of order.

Visitor

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, with your permission, I notice we have a guest in the gallery, a former member, a former minister, Teresa Piruzza from Windsor West. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I too wanted to welcome the former member representing Windsor West in the 40th Parliament. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Annual report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: the 2018 annual report from the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

Deferred Votes

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

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We now have a deferred vote on a motion for closure on the motion for third reading of Bill 32.

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

The division bells rang from 1145 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the members please take their seats?

On November 22, 2018, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved third reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. Mr. Romano has moved that the question now be put.

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

Ayes

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

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

• Phillips, Rod
• 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.
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Wai, Daisy
• Walker, Bill
• 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
• Bell, Jessica
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Bourgouin, Guy
• Fife, Catherine
• Fraser, John
• 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
• 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
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Wynne, Kathleen O.
• Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 67; the nays are 39.

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

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved third reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carries? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

Interjection: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Same vote?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No.

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1155.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved third reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

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

Ayes

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

• Hillier, Randy
• Hogarth, Christine
• Jones, Sylvia
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Karahalios, Belinda
• Ke, Vincent
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Kramp, Daryl
• Kusendova, Natalia
• Lecce, Stephen
• MacLeod, Lisa
• Martin, Robin
• Martow, Gila
• McDonell, Jim
• McKenna, Jane
• McNaughton, Monte
• Miller, Norman
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Nicholls, Rick
• Oosterhoff, Sam
• Pang, Billy
• Park, Lindsey
• Parsa, Michael

• Pettapiece, Randy
• Phillips, Rod
• 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.
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Wai, Daisy
• Walker, Bill
• Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

• Andrew, Jill
• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Arthur, Ian
• Begum, Doly
• Bell, Jessica
• Berns-McGown, Rima
• Bisson, Gilles
• Bourgouin, Guy
• Fife, Catherine
• Fraser, John
• Gélinas, France
• Glover, Chris
• Gretzky, Lisa

• Harden, Joel
• Hassan, Faisal
• Hatfield, Percy
• Hunter, Mitzie
• Karpoche, Bhutila
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Lindo, Laura Mae
• 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
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Wynne, Kathleen O.
• Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 68; the nays are 37.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1500.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Pursuant to standing order 8(e), I’m rising to inform the House that there will be no business called during orders of the day tomorrow morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 8(e), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has indicated that no business is to be called during orders of the day tomorrow morning. Therefore, when the House adjourns today, it will stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Members’ Statements

School facilities

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: The government has previously said in this Legislature that there will be no pause or delay when it comes to funds promised to the Thames Valley District School Board, and yet teachers and parents at Masonville Public School are still waiting for the government to sign off on the funds needed to expand and repair their school.

Masonville is relying on this investment to address critical overcrowding. Half of their students are stuck learning in the school’s over 13 portables, two of which are in the parking lot. Some 300 students are forced to share a single washroom, and the boys’ washroom has only two stalls. Currently, the school’s gymnasium can’t even fit all of its students inside.

Speaker, Masonville students deserve better. Under the school’s new design, the gym will be expanded to include a general arts room, a beautiful stage and room to host athletic events. Students and their parents deserve a place where they can gather as a community and celebrate their academic, artistic and athletic achievements. Funding for the school’s expansion will do just that. The designs are completed. All the legwork is done. We’re just waiting for the government to act, and not engage in an overly difficult review process.

But if these funds aren’t issued soon, construction could be delayed for yet another year. Masonville had to wait long enough under the previous Liberal government. Enough is enough. It’s time this government stopped playing politics with London’s children. Let’s release these funds so that London students can attend the school they deserve.

West Parry Sound Health Centre

Mr. Norman Miller: I’m excited to rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of the West Parry Sound Health Centre. This week, the West Parry Sound Health Centre has been awarded Accreditation Canada’s “accreditation with exemplary standing” for the second time in a row. Accreditation Canada’s criteria balance global best practices with community needs to assess all aspects of a health organization. West Parry Sound Health Centre was compliant with 100% of the required organizational practices, and has a 97.6% compliance rate with over 2,000 accreditation standards.

CEO Donald Sanderson proudly accepted the recognition on behalf of West Parry Sound Health Centre, crediting this award to their team’s commitment to “quality improvement and the delivery of compassionate, patient-centred care.”

The West Parry Sound Health Centre has always been an icon for compassion within the community. They have a long-term-care facility, acute-care programs, six nurse practitioner-led clinics that deliver services to rural communities. They continue to offer innovative health programs, while simultaneously being recognized as a pace-setter hospital for their consecutively balanced budgets.

I want to thank Accreditation Canada for their work maintaining a high standard of care in our health system and offer my congratulations to the front-line team members, physicians, health professionals, volunteers, board members and staff of West Parry Sound Health Centre for this tremendous accomplishment.

Dieter Poenn

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to recognize Dr. Dieter Poenn from Little Current. He received Canada’s family physician of the year award.

“Working in rural and remote areas is one of the most difficult jobs in Canadian medicine. One requires a high level of expertise, broad skill set, excellent interpersonal skills and leadership abilities.” That is according to W.E. Osmun, MD.

Other friends of his—Dr. Stephen Cooper said, “He is a very capable, competent physician and throughout his career he has demonstrated his ability. His skill set and knowledge make him stand above. He is a silent leader, not an in-your-face kind of guy, but he knows what is right” and at the right time he delivers it in every situation.

From Dr. McRae: “Dr. Poenn is wonderful. He has served the community for a long time and is most collegial with doctors in other communities. He also takes fitness very seriously and he practises what he preaches.”

From Dr. Hamilton: “It is an award ... well deserved. He has also been involved in teaching for many, many years.”

From Dr. Maurianne Reade: “As a rural physician, Dr. Poenn has practised the full range of practice.” She notes that for some two decades, Dr. Poenn has served as a coroner on Manitoulin Island. “He has served as an important role model for the (Northern School of Medicine)....”

Dr. Roy Jeffery noted that Dr. Poenn’s own special interest in sports medicine has been a tremendous asset to the muscular-skeletal ailments segment of the medical students’ curriculum.

Speaker, he deserves all of the accolades that we can provide him. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dr. Poenn.

Violence against women

Mr. Billy Pang: Last Sunday, I attended a Walk a Mile In Her Shoes event hosted by Yellow Brick House at Markville mall in my riding of Markham–Unionville. This event entailed many men and women marching together in women’s footwear, like high heels, to demonstrate their solidarity with victims of domestic abuse.

This form of abuse is all too common in our communities, and not all victims have the opportunity to seek help. However, these sorts of events contribute to raising awareness of these occurrences, which may help women and children enduring this form of abuse to come forward with their grievances to those who can help them.

Our government has proven to the people of Ontario that we care about women’s issues, and are employing efforts to alleviate the severity of domestic abuse in our province. Just recently, our government has pledged to invest $11.5 million in supporting our shelters and is appointing a consultative committee on violence against women. This decision will help vulnerable women and children and is a concrete step towards resolving this issue.

We are collecting shoeboxes to support shelters this week, so please support it.

Food banks

Ms. Sara Singh: Last night, I had the pleasure to attend a community meeting at the Knights Table in Brampton that was organized by the Peel Poverty Action Group, Tough Times newspaper and Annie Bynoe, the executive director of the Knights Table. The Knights Table is a food bank in Brampton, in my riding, one of the ones that we have access to in Brampton.

At this meeting, many community members shared with us their concerns around cuts to social assistance programs and the very services that they were dependent on.

One gentleman in particular shared his concern about not being able to purchase a new pair of shoes. He asked that I bring this concern here to the Legislature, and perhaps even ask our Premier if he would be willing to take his shoes and try to walk a mile in them. I hope that I do have an opportunity to discuss that with the Premier in the very near future.

The Knights Table has seen a dramatic increase in their usage—doubling, in fact. Last year, they served 3,879 people in the city of Brampton. That’s a staggering number of people accessing our food banks.

As we head into the holiday season, I just want to take this opportunity to remind us all: Wherever you are in the province, please find your local food bank, learn how you can engage with them, hold a food donation drive, or in fact, just take a couple of non-perishable items to your own local food bank and make sure that everyone can have a very happy holiday, a merry Christmas and a very happy new year.

1510

Mike Foley

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to say a few words about Mike Foley, who was a member of Ottawa’s hockey community. Mike passed away on November 17. He was a devoted and caring son, an older brother and a great husband, father and grandfather.

Mike dedicated his life to hockey as a player, a coach, a fan and a photographer. He was a member of the Ottawa Senators’ equipment staff for 26 years. He coached his daughters, cheered on his granddaughters and continued to play hockey on Sunday mornings.

Mike and I were friends when we were teenagers at our cottage in Norway Bay. We spent a number of really glorious and fun summers together and even though I haven’t really seen Mike much in more than four decades, I know that he continued to be the kind, fun-loving and always-willing-to-help person that he was then.

To his mother, Gwen, his wife, Nancy, his brother, Jay, his daughters Julie and Allison, his grandchildren Hailey, Kamryn, Tessa and Hannah, and to his Ottawa Senators family, Mike was truly the kind of person we all want to be: generous with his time and loving to others around him.

Although I haven’t seen him, as I said—in almost four decades, I have seen him a few times—I’m really proud to have known him.

On behalf of Mike’s family, I’ll put this across; it was in his remembrance in the paper: “Mike would like you to take the time and say hello to everyone you come across; even if you can’t stop to talk, just say hi. He’d like that.”

Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital

Ms. Lindsey Park: I rise today to voice my support for the Lakeridge Health Bowmanville Hospital redevelopment and expansion project. The Bowmanville Hospital has long been in need of a substantial renovation and update. The incredible front-line health care workers are challenged daily to meet the demands of a growing community. Durham is one of the fastest-growing regions in Ontario and the Bowmanville Hospital had its last expansion approximately 30 years ago.

One of the major priorities our party set and communicated in this year’s election campaign was ending hallway health care. In order to bring an end to hallway health care in Durham, we must make an outdated and overcrowded hospital a thing of the past. My constituents in Durham will only increasingly rely upon the services provided by our community hospital in Bowmanville in the years to come. We need to make sure the services are there when people need them most.

I will continue to be a strong voice of support as Lakeridge Health works with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to move forward in the approval and planning process. I want to thank the minister and her hard-working team of staff and officials for their commitment to ending hallway health care in Durham and province-wide. I want to specifically recognize the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation for their ongoing efforts to raise funds for this important project. Together and with the support of the municipality of Clarington, we will make this redevelopment project a reality.

Temagami Country Christmas

Mr. John Vanthof: On Friday night, I had the pleasure of attending Temagami Country Christmas, one of the most beautiful light shows, I think, in the province. As you know, lights form an important part of the holiday season.

For those of us in the Christian faith, probably the most important light was the Star of Bethlehem. Everyone knows the story of how the wise men followed the star to find the Christ child. A part of the story that isn’t told as often is that the wise men stopped first to visit King Herod. They told the story of the Christ child and King Herod became envious and jealous, and decided to do what was in his power to eliminate what he felt was a threat to his kingdom.

Mary and Joseph and the Christ child had to cross the border into Egypt. At that point, the Christ child was an asylum seeker.

We in the Christian faith and many other faiths have to realize that at this time of year we have to be lights—lights of mercy and lights of compassion—because the person on which our faith was built at one time needed the help of others, and he was given it. We always have to remember that.

Merry Christmas, joyeux Noël, prettige kerstdaggen.

Boys and Girls Club of Peel

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Today I would like to highlight the great work that’s being done in Brampton and across Peel region by the Boys and Girls Club of Peel. I am proud to announce that the Boys and Girls Club of Peel, which happens to be located in my riding, received a three-year grant of $659,900 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

The focus of this funding is to help improve the family dynamic and strengthen the relationships between parents, children and the community. This is achieved by providing educational workshops, physical activities such as exercise classes, support groups such as social groups, gardening clubs, sewing clubs and family nights, and many other parent-led initiatives. The programs are currently focused on helping families and youth in two local low-income neighbourhoods. Now with the OTF funding, I am thrilled to announce that they will be able to expand into two more areas in both Brampton and Mississauga.

The Boys and Girls Club of Peel has been providing vital programs for young people in our community for many years. I am pleased to see that the Ontario Trillium Foundation is supporting this community organization and the great work that they have been doing across the region. I want to thank the Ontario Trillium Foundation for seeing the true value of the Boys and Girls Club of Peel and what they bring to the community.

Our government for the people is committed to making life easier for Ontario families and businesses, and we continue to deliver on that promise.

Mississauga Santa Claus parade

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to take a moment today to talk about the Mississauga Santa Claus parade that happened last Sunday, December 2, in my beautiful riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills. This was the second annual Santa Claus parade happening in Mississauga–Erin Mills. A ceremonial parade that celebrates Christmas, it is an initiative presented by the Mississauga News and Mississauga’s Erin Mills Auto Centre that I am proud of and fully support.

I had the pleasure to walk in the parade with my team and many supporters giving out candies and spreading Christmas cheer, seeing my constituents and the smiles on their faces. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to see the smiles on the faces of children seeing Santa Claus and enjoying the parade and the candy canes—kids and children of all ages and all ethnicities. There were about 30,000 attendees this year, and over 50 groups, floats and entertainers totalling 1,000 individuals, including all of the volunteers.

I want to thank all of the organizers and volunteers for the amazing work they did, and I want to wish Mississauga–Erin Mills and all of Mississauga and Ontario a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and a happy new year.

Visitor

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

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce my daughter Lindsay, who finally got down here from Guelph; her bus was a little bit delayed. I’m happy to introduce her to the chamber today.

1520

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I beg to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 57, An Act to enact, amend and repeal various statutes/Projet de loi 57, Loi édictant, modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 28, 2018, the bill is ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Our Pets Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la protection de nos animaux de compagnie

Ms. Hogarth moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65, An Act to establish the Companion Animal Wellness Review Committee / Projet de loi 65, Loi constituant le Comité d’examen du bien-être des animaux de compagnie.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore like to briefly explain her bill?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: The bill enacts a new act with respect to companion animals, which are defined as dogs, cats or other animals prescribed by regulation, if persons keep the animals for companionship.

Within 90 days after the act receives royal assent, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services is required to establish an advisory committee to inquire into, and report on, the quality of care provided to companion animals by persons who keep them for the purpose of breeding, exhibition, entertainment, boarding, hire or sale.

I’d like to put an end to puppy mills and kitten mills in Ontario.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to recognize the member for Windsor–Tecumseh on a point of order.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to invite all my friends and colleagues in the House to join me in welcoming students all the way from Windsor, from W.F. Herman secondary school. It’s their first visit to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Motions

House sittings

Hon. Steve Clark: I move that when the House adjourns on Thursday, December 6, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2019.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Clark has moved that when the House adjourns on Thursday, December 6, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2019. Debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to let the House know—I’m not going to take a lot of time on this, but there are a couple of things that need to be said. First of all, on the issue of is this a substantive or is this a routine motion, I take the position this is more substantive than routine. I know we’ve been down this road before.

Here are my problems with what the government is doing, and I’ve talked to the government House leader and his team about that. The difficulty in what the government is doing is that I believe there has been a precedent set in this House over the last 100-and-some-odd years, that whenever we move the House adjournment in this way where we change the parliamentary calendar, we have normally done it by unanimous consent. What is inferred by doing it by unanimous consent is that we agree that it’s substantive.

There’s a difference, Speaker—and I’m not going to get into it—as to the difference in a routine motion and a substantive motion. A substantive motion is a more difficult one as a test for the government to pass, because it allows a full debate and it prevents the government from trying to do something that it can do more quickly as a routine motion under this particular part of the day than you would if you had to call it as an order during orders of the day.

I’ve been down this road before. I’ve talked to the government House leader’s office. I’ve spoken to the government House leader and I spoke to the Clerks. We have a real difference of opinion here. The precedent has always been that when we adjourn the House for some reason that we change the calendar, we have normally done so by agreement of the House or it has been moved as a substantive motion. I know; I’ve been part of some of those debates over the years where various governments actually changed when the House was going to sit, either making it shorter or longer, and it was a substantive motion that was allowed to be debated and we allowed that to happen at that time. That the government now decides to interpret the rules to say, “Well, the standing order means we can do it as a routine motion,” I think, moves away from what the tradition of this House has been and what the understanding was when it comes to such an adjournment motion. So I think this is a slippery slope that we’re going down.

As the NDP official opposition House leader, I just want to put it on the record that we believe that this should be more properly moved as a substantive motion and not as a routine motion. I’m not doing this as a challenge; I just want to put it on the record. The reason for that is very simple. A government can decide to do all kinds of things if you interpret the utilization of this particular standing order under “Routine motions” to do all kinds of things, some of which will be shortchanging the democratic process of this assembly and that of the people of this province.

I think if you are going down that way, to say, “The government is not going to sit for a long period of time,” because we choose to, rather than proroguing the House, which is normally the practice—we have seen this under Dalton McGuinty and the previous government, we have seen it under Mike Harris, and we have seen it under Bob Rae and Mrs. Wynne. Every government, at one point, decides that they’re going to prorogue the House. So we have a mechanism—a government has a mechanism should they decide not to bring the House back at a certain date or they want to shorten the time that the House meets or lengthen the time that the House meets. Normally, there’s a way of doing that by use of a prorogation motion and using other parts of the standing orders of the House.

For example, we have called the House back before by the mechanisms in the standing orders, other than a routine motion, in order to deal with all kinds of things. So when the government all of a sudden makes an argument that this is just routine, I think it’s a warping of the standing orders in order to get the government what they want without having to go through prorogation or without having to go through a substantive motion.

I just want to put on the record, for one, that we, as New Democrats and the official opposition, believe that the government is overstepping somewhat. They may be able to get away with this. There is an argument to be had. But the precedent of this House has been different. If a government wants the House to come back at a later date, they normally move a substantive motion or they prorogue the House. If they want the House to come back at an earlier date or a longer period of time, there are mechanisms in the standing orders to be able to do that, either by way of a substantive motion or by other means within the standing orders. So that’s the first thing that I want to say.

The second thing I want to put on the record is that it’s kind of interesting that the government is deciding that the House is not going to come back next week. The government has not exactly had a good time. The government has been caught out on a whole bunch of things that are quite controversial. The government, for example, has appointed a new commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police in a mechanism and in a way that, quite frankly, leaves a lot to be desired. My leader, Andrea Horwath, and our critic and others have raised in this House how problematic that is. The Ontario Provincial Police is an independent police system that has to operate separately from that of the government. When the Premier of Ontario allegedly decides that he is going to appoint his friend to become the head of the OPP, that raises all kinds of alarm bells because we know this government, quite frankly, has already some issues with the OPP, and people can draw their own conclusions as to what that means.

So my point is, the government is adjourning the House today by way of this motion in order to not have the House come back in order to avoid scrutiny that my leader and our caucus are trying to put on the government—because, in the end, there has to be a separation of the legislative, the judiciary and the police system. That is how our system works. The minute that we, as politicians, mix ourselves in with the judiciary or mix ourselves in with the police, it is a slippery slope. I think that the government would be well advised to recognize that what they have done is wrong.

1530

The other thing is, we know that the government has had a number of issues they’ve had to deal with that have been somewhat difficult for them to be able to answer to. I think part of the reason that the government wants out is because they’re trying to duck again the scrutiny on those other issues that are before this House and, more importantly, issues that are before this government. For example, we’re dealing tomorrow with the whole issue of Bill 57. We’re going to lose our Environmental Commissioner, we’re going to lose our child advocate and we’re going to lose—on va perdre le commissaire aux services en français. I know it in French; that’s why I had to go back to French.

My point is, that is very controversial on all kinds of fronts. We have a government that is moving on an environmental agenda that, quite frankly, is going to take money from the pockets of taxpayers in order to give polluters money to maybe do something in the future. That is problematic. It is going to be scrutinized by the Environmental Commissioner, and that’s why they don’t want the Environmental Commissioner.

You have a child advocate who is out there advocating for kids in our inner cities and kids in northern Ontario on reserves, who is doing amazing work, being proactive and trying to make kids safe. We’ve heard my good colleague the member from Kiiwetinoong raise a number of times the issue of child suicide on those reserves. The child advocate has done a lot of work, and the government is trying to take that away.

Insofar as the commissaire aux services en français, on sait que le commissaire fait beaucoup pour être capable d’oeuvrer pour avancer les dossiers importants de la communauté francophone. Le gouvernement décide de nier ce droit aux francophones.

It’s clear that the government is doing this for the reason that they do not want the scrutiny on some of the decisions they have made.

I think the last part—and I will end on this because I don’t want to keep this debate going all afternoon. The other part is, the government has—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Boy, I’ve got to tell you, sometimes members should just—the biggest part of being a politician is listening. It’s the one thing I’ve learned in 28 years. You need to listen.

I would just say that the last point I want to make is this: There are a number of things that the government has going on in the background. I have to ask myself: Is part of the reason this House is not coming back next week because there may be something coming that they know and we don’t, and so that there is no House sitting at the time in order to have question period to hold them to account? I hope that’s not the case; I truly hope that’s not the case. But if it is, I want to put it as a marker today that the official opposition is doing its job to hold this government to account. The government should be sitting in order to allow it to have the full scrutiny of what this assembly provides. The fact that this government is doing what it’s doing in the way that it has I think is wrong.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will end the debate and we will vote on the motion.

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

Hon. Steve Clark: I just want to address a point that the opposition House leader made. I want to refer him to standing order 2, and I want to quote from standing order 2 with regard to a routine motion:

“‘Routine motion’ means any motion, including motions under standing order 6, made for the purpose of fixing the days or times of the meetings or adjournments of the House; or its committees.”

Also, Speaker—because I’m going to be very brief—this is exactly the type of routine motion that was moved twice with NDP support, both in the summer and for the International Plowing Match. I’ll just leave it at that, but with regard to a routine motion, there has been precedent in this House, and I would refer the honourable member to standing order 2. That’s all I have to say, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Any further debate? Seeing none, Mr. Clark has moved that when the House adjourns on Thursday, December 6, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2019.

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 ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1535 to 1605.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Clark has moved that when the House adjourns on Thursday, December 6, it will stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2019. All those in favour of the motion will please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

• Hogarth, Christine
• Jones, Sylvia
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Karahalios, Belinda
• Ke, Vincent
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Kramp, Daryl
• Kusendova, Natalia
• Lecce, Stephen
• Martin, Robin
• Martow, Gila
• McDonell, Jim
• McKenna, Jane
• Miller, Norman
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Oosterhoff, Sam
• Pang, Billy
• Park, Lindsey
• Parsa, Michael
• Pettapiece, Randy
• Phillips, Rod

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

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

• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Arthur, Ian
• Begum, Doly
• Bell, Jessica
• Bisson, Gilles
• Bourgouin, Guy
• Fife, Catherine
• French, Jennifer K.
• Gélinas, France
• Glover, Chris
• Harden, Joel
• Hassan, Faisal

• Hatfield, Percy
• Horwath, Andrea
• Hunter, Mitzie
• Karpoche, Bhutila
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Lindo, Laura Mae
• Mantha, Michael
• Miller, Paul
• Monteith-Farrell, Judith
• Morrison, Suze
• Natyshak, Taras
• Rakocevic, Tom

• Sattler, Peggy
• Shaw, Sandy
• Singh, Gurratan
• Singh, Sara
• Stiles, Marit
• Tabuns, Peter
• Vanthof, John
• West, Jamie
• Wynne, Kathleen O.
• Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 61; the nays are 34.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Visitor

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is—

Interjections.

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

It’s my great pleasure this afternoon to introduce a former member of provincial Parliament, Ms. Donna Cansfield. Ms. Cansfield was with the Liberal Party, representing Etobicoke Centre, in the 38th and 39th Parliaments, and I was honoured to serve with her in the 40th Parliament, in a different party. Again, welcome, Donna.

1610

Adjournment debate

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

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I seek unanimous consent, Speaker, that the late show scheduled for Wednesday, December 5, be considered immediately upon the adjournment of the House today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): All those in favour? It was agreed. So we’re going to move the late show up. How about that? All right. There we go. It was unanimous, right? Yes, it was. I knew that.

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Tourism / Tourisme

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, and the great people of Ontario, I’m honoured to deliver my first statement in this Legislature as Ontario’s Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Today I would like to share the important work our government for the people is doing to strengthen our tourism and culture sectors.

Notre gouvernement sait que le tourisme est un moteur économique clé en Ontario. Nous nous engageons à créer un environnement propice à l’épanouissement des entreprises.

In 2016, Ontario’s tourism sector generated over $34 billion of economic activity and supported 300,000 jobs for our economy.

L’industrie a vu les dépenses des visiteurs augmenter de près de 6 % d’une année à l’autre.

Visitors are coming to Ontario from all over the world to attend conventions and to spend time in our hotels, restaurants, attractions and retail businesses. In real terms, that means $8.8 billion in the Toronto area alone.

All across Ontario, festivals and events create thousands of jobs and generate millions of dollars year after year. By investing in tourism, supporting our partners and promoting the many wonderful things that Ontario has to offer, we not only see visitors returning but new visitors coming to the province. It is an industry that builds upon itself.

That’s why I was proud to recently announce that the application process for the Celebrate Ontario 2019 program is now open. This program benefits Ontario’s tourism sector by offering supports to festival and event organizers across the province. This year, we have streamlined the application process and made it better and faster than ever before. It has a simplified application form to help festival and event organizers reduce their administrative burden.

Mr. Speaker, in 2018-19, my ministry is also proud to continue supporting Indigenous Tourism Ontario, which seeks to develop new and authentic tourism experiences resulting in increased economic activity across the province. Indigenous Tourism Ontario is the province’s first and only dedicated Indigenous tourism organization that focuses on uniting communities, Indigenous organizations and industry leaders to support the growth of Indigenous tourism in Ontario. Ontario’s Indigenous people have a rich culture steeped in tradition, and an understanding and respect for the land on which we live. By working with them, we have an opportunity to educate people from around the world while showcasing their heritage.

Nous recherchons également de nouvelles opportunités d’enrichissement touristique et culturel avec nos résidents franco-ontariens. Plus de 550 000 résidents de l’Ontario considèrent le français leur langue maternelle, ce qui serait suffisant pour constituer la 10^e plus grande ville du Canada.

Our government recognizes the value and importance of Ontario’s French culture. We continue to work with la Société Économique de l’Ontario to trace the Champlain Route, tracing the major expedition of Samuel de Champlain in the early 1600s and working with local communities along that route.

My ministry also operates the Fort William Historical Park, which ensures that local francophone organizations, including l’Association des francophones du Nord-Ouest de l’Ontario, play a lead role in the annual Voyageur Winter Carnival. We also supported the Place des Arts cultural hub project in Sudbury by investing $3.25 million over two years.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government for the people will continue to respect the taxpayers of this province and continue to take real action to ensure that Ontario becomes the economic engine of Canada once again. As Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, I will continue to deliver on our government’s commitments we made to every taxpayer in the province.

Our government sees very clearly the value of Ontario’s tourism, culture and sport sectors, and we will continue to maximize the economic potentials of these sectors by creating stable and good-paying jobs. We will continue to support the work of our stakeholders, who have set the foundation for success. They are experts in their fields. That’s why we launched a process to engage with our partners on the issues that matter to them the most.

My ministry has been hard at work to develop online tourism strategy consultations, so that our government can hear loud and clear from tourism operators and tourists about how we can strengthen our tourism sector. We look forward to launching these consultations early next year.

Our government will work together with the industry to bring consumer spending back and continue to see people from all over the world return to this beautiful province year after year. That’s what the great people of this province deserve, and that is what this government will deliver.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Responses to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport? I recognize the member from Stoney Creek.

Applause.

Mr. Paul Miller: Two in one week. That’s pretty good.

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s my honour to speak on the matter of tourism here in our province, and in particular, the significant impact it has on our economy, culture and heritage. Like many members in this House, I can proudly boast that my riding is home to many wonderful and popular festivals and events that people from around the globe enjoy.

One of the events I am most familiar with, from my hometown, is the Winona Peach Festival, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2017. You can usually find me serving up french fries and onion rings in the Lions Club. It’s during these last days of summer when cars can be seen lined up and down the QEW, waiting to exit onto Fifty Road to attend the festival. I have never asked the organizers, but I’m sure the economic benefit of this one festival is in the hundreds of thousands, much of that being spent in our surrounding community.

When I think of the economic impact, I’m not just thinking about the vendors at the festival who are able to connect with potential customers on a one-to-one basis; I am thinking of the hotels and motels in the area that are booked solid leading up to the end of August, I’m thinking of the local grocery stores that are providing many of the ingredients used in the food stalls.

I’m also reminded of the very reason as to why the peach festival was established in the first place: It’s a chance to celebrate the world-class peaches that farmers grow in our hometown. The longest line at the festival is undoubtedly the lineup for the famous peach sundae.

It’s clear that festivals and events have a tremendous impact on our province’s economy, but they also are an integral part of our local culture. Events and festivals, some like the Canadian National Exhibition here in Toronto, have been around for more than a century. These events are part of our shared heritage, and they remind us of times that, while they seem simpler, were often quite tough and trying. To celebrate a harvest with a festival was an important part of the community’s cultural calendar as they took the time out from their busy days to give thanks for the abundance provided by the fertility of their land.

Fifty years ago, if you lived in northern Ontario, it was a pretty slim chance of you seeing a tree-ripened peach from Winona during the peach season. Chances are that back then, by the time the delivery truck made it to the Far North, most of the produce would have been spoiled during the ride.

1620

Even today, I imagine that’s it’s pretty tough to find produce of the same high quality in many parts of the province that the people of my home riding are lucky enough to have close at hand near the end of each summer.

With all of the incredible advantages provided by our local celebrations, festivals and events, it’s easy to forget that it is normally volunteers from the community who have taken it upon themselves to keep these traditions alive. It’s not an easy task for the faint of heart.

As a regular attendee of the Grand Peach Ball fundraiser dinner, I know first-hand the kind of financing required to keep a festival like this going. While it is true that the vendor fees and ticket sales and private sponsorships help with the costs to host the event, it is also true that organizers often come up short at the end of the day. This can lead to some difficult choices for the organizers, the worst of which would be if the decision had to be made to end the festival itself.

It would seem foolish to let something like this happen to our festivals and events. That’s why I believe that we, as the leaders of this province, need to support them in any way possible.

Here are some of the other examples from the greater Hamilton area: the Rockton fair, the Binbrook Fair, Ancaster Fair, Dundas Cactus Festival, Supercrawl, the Battle of Stoney Creek re-enactment, Royal Botanical Gardens, It’s Your Festival, Ribfest in Burlington, Festival of Friends, Festitalia, Oktoberfest, wine tours of top-notch wineries in the Niagara region, and the many other events that are too numerous to mention. We must ensure that these events have a reliable funding and grants mechanism that is easy to navigate and is not wrapped up in red tape.

I would like to thank everyone who takes the time out of their lives to be a part of these festivals and events. Whether they are organizers, partners or volunteers, it is important that we recognize their valuable contributions to this province. I hope that the generations that come after them continue to keep these traditions going.

Thank you for the time to speak today on this very important issue. I look forward to seeing the government take action on these matters, as I am sure most Ontarians are. I look forward to working with the minister and other members to make these festivals a success.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s such a pleasure to rise in this House today.

Ontario is a treasure. Earlier this year, I joined members of all levels of government, the Parks Canada representatives and Indigenous people in Rouge National Urban Park. This was the official transfer of the provincial lands to this park. While the last speaker was speaking about this beautiful park, a great blue heron flew—it didn’t fly; it just glided across the sky. It was such a precious and powerful moment. It just showcased the beauty of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we know that tourism is a key driver in Ontario’s economy. Millions of tourists spend billions of dollars each and every year in Ontario. With the largest, most accessible market in North America, a skilled workforce, diverse geography and an established domestic market, the tourism industry has discovered that Ontario is a premier four-season travel destination.

Just this week, I had the pleasure of touring, with the newly elected mayor of Gananoque, Ted Lojko, the region of Leeds-Grenville. As I toured his town of 5,000 people, I was just amazed at the terrific restaurants. This town has three theatres and is just full of life. I got to experience all that this area has to offer, in Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands—lovely surrounding hamlets. I have put this on my list to visit with my family.

What is so interesting and amazing about Ontario is that we have a population of 14 million, and our border stretches nearly halfway across the United States. Ontario offers unparalleled access to a large domestic market, along with an additional 142 million people living just within a day’s drive. That’s why our previous government grew the attractiveness to business and tourism, which brings in an average of $34 billion in revenue to this province.

Think about the Pan Am Games, which saw record numbers of people visiting our province, as did the Celebrate Ontario festivals that celebrated our 150th anniversary.

In the strategic framework for tourism in Ontario, we identified that improving or removing unnecessary regulations was a key priority for improving the climate and maximizing the growth in the sector. That’s why we underwent a public consultation process on how we could do so, travelling right across this province. We’re proud to have undertaken this strategy and this consultation, and we hope that the current government will use the feedback to inform their further strategic work in the sector.

In our time in government, we invested in tourism, culture and sport initiatives that would build up this province and improve Ontario’s quality of life. Part of this included the largest investment in public libraries in a generation, alongside an investment in increased access to technology and training and opportunities at these locations and community hubs across Ontario.

We introduced Celebrate Ontario to support the large festivals that happen across this province, and I hear all the time from festival organizers how important this support is. So we thank the government for continuing to support growth in large festivals and events in this province.

While funding for these larger initiatives is crucial, we need to realize that supports and funding must also be made available to smaller groups and organizations—programs like Sistema Toronto, who fall under a smaller scale but have profound effects on the health and prosperity of Ontario’s youth and the future of this beautiful province that we are all now privileged to steward, alongside our Indigenous people in Ontario.

So I want to say thank you to the minister for making this program and the communities in Ontario that it will support a priority. I know that they’re all waiting to hear about their funding and the support, so that they can begin planning.

Thank you so much, Speaker, for this opportunity.

Petitions

Public transit

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: This petition is from the students of York University, signed by some 16,000 students. It’s to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas, as of September 2, York Region Transit (YRT) will no longer drop off passengers on campus, instead ending their bus routes at Pioneer Village station at Steeles Avenue, then forcing commuters to spend over $1,000 per year in additional transit fees;

“Whereas GO Transit (Metrolinx) will no longer be dropping commuters off at York University Keele campus, instead moving to the 407 station, imposing an even higher transit cost … and expanding commute times and creating even more mobility issues for commuters living with disabilities;

“Whereas York University is known as a commuter school and the capacity to access our campuses using various transit providers is under threat;

“Whereas allowing York University students, staff, faculty and community members to access our campuses in the most efficient and affordable methods is essential;

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

“(1) That the YRT/Viva come back to their original on-campus stops immediately and that GO Transit stays on campus past January 5, 2019;

“(2) That all transit providers—Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), York Region Transit (YRT/Viva), Brampton Transit (Züm) and Metrolinx (GO Transit)—at York University commit to maintaining on-campus bus routes and access to the York University Keele campus; and

“(3) That the provincial government, our members of provincial Parliament and our city councillors commit to working towards fare integration between all transit providers.”

Thank you so much to the students, 16,000 of them, supporting this. They come from all ridings across this province. I am supporting this wholeheartedly, signing it and giving it to page Ella.

Baitfish industry

Mr. Toby Barrett: Over 600 names have come in—a petition titled “Against the New Baitfish Proposal.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has banned the harvesting of frogs and crayfish, imports of leeches, and the use of organic bait in some areas, infringing on Ontario anglers; and

1630

“Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is proposing further restrictions on the live bait industry by restricting the movement of live bait in Ontario; and

“Whereas creating zones and boundaries that are unreasonable; and

“Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is trying to downsize the list of legal bait species currently allowed to be harvested in the waters of Ontario, which will result in financial loss and hardship to the live bait industry; The live bait industry has negotiated a grandfathered licence for harvesters in Ontario parks. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is proposing a five-year phase-out, which will result in significant financial losses to the live bait industry and the anglers of Ontario; and

“Whereas the proposed changes will have dire consequences on the economy and tourism in Ontario and will effectively put people in the live bait industry out of business;

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

“That the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recognize and work directly with the live bait industry to revamp the current EBR proposal put forward to ensure an economic and stable live bait industry and provide a quality baitfish product for the anglers of Ontario.”

I agree with the sentiments in this petition and affix my signature.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Hon. Steve Clark: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private bills.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Clark has asked for unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private bills. Is it the pleasure of the House? Agreed.

Hon. Steve Clark: I move that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be called consecutively and that the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills be put immediately without debate: Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited; Bill Pr2, An Act to revive 2063434 Ontario Limited; Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Brownwood Holdings Limited; Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 850148 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Clark has moved that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be called consecutively and the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills be put immediately without debate: Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited; Bill Pr2, An Act to revive 2063434 Ontario Limited; Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Brownwood Holdings Limited; Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 850148 Ontario Inc.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Vanthof moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Vanthof moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Crystal-Kirkland Mines, Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

2063434 Ontario Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Pettapiece moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive 2063434 Ontario Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

2063434 Ontario Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Pettapiece moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive 2063434 Ontario Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Brownwood Holdings Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Baber moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Brownwood Holdings Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Brownwood Holdings Limited Act, 2018

Mr. Baber moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Brownwood Holdings Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

850148 Ontario Inc. Act, 2018

Ms. Wynne moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 850148 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

850148 Ontario Inc. Act, 2018

Ms. Wynne moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 850148 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day. I recognize the member from Vaughan.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, I’d like to motion the adjournment of the House. There is no further business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): No further business. Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

1640

Adjournment Debate

Automotive industry

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member for Guelph was not satisfied with an answer given by the Acting Premier. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the Acting Premier or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

I now turn it over to the member from Guelph for the question.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today to further the conversation about developing an auto strategy for Ontario to lead the electric vehicle revolution that’s happening. While I recognize that this is a very partisan place, I stand up in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation to say that we owe it to the auto workers, the communities and the businesses in the auto sector to work together to develop a strategy for this province to maintain our leadership in a sector that’s undergoing dramatic global transformation.

GM’s decision to not allocate product to their Oshawa plant after 2019 was a devastating blow. It’s a wake-up call to the dramatic changes that are happening in the auto sector. Playing the blame game will do nothing to bring those jobs back, and it will not prepare Ontario for the future. That is why I believe it so important for this House and this government to send a clear message that Ontario is going to fight to defend auto sector jobs. That is why I asked the Premier to work with all stakeholders to develop an auto strategy for Ontario to lead the electric vehicle revolution.

GM’s decision not to allocate product to Oshawa is part of their global restructuring to invest more in the production of electric and autonomous vehicles. It’s part of a global shift, and the numbers are staggering. Through 2023, global automakers will spend a whopping $255 billion in research in electric vehicles. Globally, the total number of electric vehicles on the road will triple between now and 2020. There will be 127 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency.

Automakers estimate that up to 50% of the global market will be EVs by 2040. In wealthier countries, such as Canada, the United States and Europe, they’re anticipating that 90% of the vehicles on the road by 2040 will be either electric or zero-emission vehicles. Opportunities for EV automakers will only grow as numerous countries and jurisdictions around the world, such as China, the UK, India, France, California, British Columbia and Norway have all set target dates to move to 100% zero-emission vehicles.

Global market forces and government policy are leading to an EV revolution. I want Ontario to lead that revolution, not lose jobs to it. I want to work with all parties in this House, with business, with labour, with scientists and researchers to develop an auto strategy for Ontario to lead in EVs.

But we won’t create such an effective strategy if the Premier continues to play a blame game on this issue. To blame the carbon tax for why GM did not allocate product to Oshawa is misleading. On GM’s own website, they say that they support carbon pricing. As a matter of fact—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. To the member from Guelph, I’m going to ask that you withdraw.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I withdraw.

Can I say that it’s not accurate to say that? Would that be permissible, Mr. Speaker? Okay. It’s not accurate that carbon pricing is causing this, because GM on their own website says that they support carbon pricing. As a matter of fact, GM has a shadow price, an internal carbon price, within all their business planning operations right now. Clearly, that’s not why they decided not to allocate product to Oshawa.

If we are going to be a leader in the $26-trillion clean economy, we need to properly and honestly analyze the challenges we face and come up with solutions.

I don’t have all of those solutions. That’s exactly why we need to bring all the stakeholders to the table to develop them. But I can tell you that supporting innovation and efficiency will be critical to it. As a matter of fact, Linamar CEO Linda Hasenfratz, the head of the largest employer in my community of Guelph and a significant auto parts manufacturer in this province, wrote that in the Globe and Mail just last week, talking about the need for us to embrace innovation and to skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has been.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now the parliamentary assistant to the Acting Premier, the member from King–Vaughan, may respond for up to five minutes. I turn it over to the member.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Guelph for his thoughts and for keeping us here this evening. It’s always good to be with you.

I do want to address the matter point-on about our plan to support auto growth or to create a renaissance of economic production of auto in this province. After 15 years of Liberal mismanagement, we know that too many people in the manufacturing sector—to be precise, 300,000 people—are out of work, many of whom are in the auto sector, many of whom are part of the supply chain that benefit from the robust auto sector.

Our mission is quite clear: It is to improve the competitiveness of our province. That is especially true in the auto sector. We’re going to accomplish this by cutting red tape, by stabilizing hydro rates and by keeping taxes low. Gone are the days when everything was built where it was sold. Mr. Speaker, you know that the world is more interconnected than ever. We live in a province that competes with jurisdictions across the globe for both jobs and investment.

Our government has a sensible, realistic approach to making our province a better place for businesses to grow, to invest in and to create jobs. Unlike the opposition and the previous Liberal government, we are listening to our job creators. We repealed Bill 148 and introduced Bill 47, reducing significant amounts of red tape for employers. Throughout the consultation process for Bill 148, employers large and small, from Guelph to Vaughan, warned about its devastating effect. Yet the previous Liberal government rammed the legislation through on the eve of the last election.

The member opposite spoke about the CEO of Linamar. Let me invoke the CEO of Magna International, based in York region, moving to King township. The CEO, Don Walker—it’s North America’s largest auto parts maker, I will add—pointed to Bill 148 as a serious threat to the province’s automotive sector. I’m going to quote him: “It’s not very difficult to figure out that business might move” and that the previous government’s policies would make it so that “our plants in Canada will have a harder time winning business because it’s a global industry.”

We repealed the job-killing elements of Bill 148, and the Making Ontario Open for Business Act has reduced a great deal of uncertainty in the automotive sector. We have heard from both the OEMs and parts manufacturers that our changes will make it easier for them to win investment and thus create better jobs in this province—investment that otherwise would move outbound to the United States, Mexico or to the Asia-Pacific.

Mr. Walker also cited high electricity rates, which are in no small part the result of lucrative green energy contracts for Liberal insiders. Those days, thankfully, are over. We are repealing the Green Energy Act. One of the first actions we took was to cancel 758 unnecessary, expensive, wasteful green energy projects, saving the ratepayers of this province just shy of $800 million. We have cancelled the cap-and-trade carbon tax, another unnecessary tax both on consumers and on businesses.

We’re not done yet. We’re going to continue to reduce red tape to support our auto sector—25%, to be precise. We’re going to continue to cut taxes, including the corporate income tax rate, to incent industry to move back to Ontario. We’re stabilizing hydro rates. We have taken every action to fight the federal Liberals in their imposition of an unfair carbon tax. We’re calling on the Prime Minister to end the uncertainty around the tariffs imposed by the United States on a variety of commodities, including steel and aluminum, which impede this sector’s growth. In fact, it was just yesterday that the parliamentary assistant for economic development, job creation and trade and I met with the leadership of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, where they said clearly that we must end that uncertainty. We must make the province more competitive to attract industry.

Speaker, we are taking action to incent the marketplace through our environmental plan, the Ontario Carbon Trust, which we believe will help incent the commercialization of good ideas of research and development in this province and get them into the marketplace, which is our intent. Many of these innovations we believe will help lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, saving both residents and industry significant dollars.

There is one way that Ontario is going to do its share to reduce emissions, and we’re going to do that by supporting a carbon trust that delivers cost savings, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and most importantly, helps to create better jobs: jobs in auto, jobs in the electric vehicle sector and jobs in the advanced manufacturing sector.

Speaker, we’re supporting this sector without a punishing carbon tax. We will continue to fight for Ontario families and ensure that we do our fair share for future generations, because we want it to be affordable to buy cars in Ontario, to drive cars in Ontario and to build cars right here in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would like to thank the member from Guelph and the member from King–Vaughan for your contributions to debate.

There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

This House stands adjourned until—wait for it—10:30 tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1651.