Report continued from volume A.

1711

Attacks on Israel / Attaques en Israël

Continuation of debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding the Hamas attacks.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I rise today as a voice for the people of my riding of York–Simcoe, which includes a growing and vibrant Jewish community. And I rise in this House today to stand in solidarity with Israel, the Israeli people and the entire Jewish community here in Ontario, in Canada and around the world. I rise to do what is morally clear: to denounce Hamas terrorists and their assault on Israel and innocent civilians across the region. I rise today to stand with the Israeli people and the Jewish community.

Speaker, last weekend on October 7, Canadians were celebrating our Thanksgiving. We awoke to news of the barbaric acts of terrorism committed by Hamas against Israel and the Israeli people, news that left us horrified and heartbroken. The stories, the pictures, and the accounts that were shared right in the aftermath of the events—often by grieving family members, witnesses and survivors—were nothing short of unimaginable. They paint a picture of cruelty and depravity and hate by Hamas terrorists that is still so difficult to comprehend. The world has seen images of truly unimaginable horrors, of infants murdered, families slaughtered and the charred bodies of people burnt alive. Worse still, we know that Hamas kidnapped hundreds of innocent people during the attack and is still holding them hostage today. As a mother, I cannot imagine the grief and the agony of being separated and unable to reach my child, fearing the worst will happen or that it already has.

Speaker, I want to say a few things about Hamas’s terrorist attack and their continued assault on Israel and its innocent civilians across the region. I want to be clear and unequivocal in the words that I use: The kidnapping of families from their homes, the rape and slaughter of innocent Jewish people can only be described as pure evil. Hamas, the perpetrators of these horrific acts, are terrorists, and they must be treated as such. The Jewish people have a right to live free from hate and discrimination, and Israel has the right to exist and has an absolute right to defend itself and its citizens against violence and those who seek its destruction.

J’aimerais répéter ces paroles en français. Je veux être claire et sans équivoque dans les mots que j’utilise. L’enlèvement de familles de leurs foyers, ainsi que le viol et le massacre d’Israéliens et de Juifs innocents ne peuvent être décrits que comme un pur mal. Le Hamas, les auteurs de ces actes horribles, sont des terroristes et doivent être traités comme tels. Le peuple juif a le droit de vivre sans haine ni discrimination, et Israël a le droit d’exister et le droit absolu de se défendre et de défendre ses citoyens contre la violence et contre ceux qui cherchent à le détruire.

As we grapple with the aftermath of what was the darkest day for the Jewish community since the Holocaust, now is the time for moral clarity. Colleagues, today’s motion before is so important because we cannot stay silent in the face of hate.

The Premier has said—and I’ll say it again—Ontario denounces the anti-Semitism and hate that we’ve seen at rallies in recent days from those who would attempt to cast these barbaric acts as anything other than what they are: acts of terrorism. Extremists who celebrate Hamas’s actions, celebrate the rape and slaughter and kidnapping of innocent Jewish people, are vile; and I am shocked and dismayed by the denialism and celebration that we have seen in recent days at these hate-filled rallies across Canada.

Alors que nous sommes aux prises avec les conséquences de ce qui a été le jour le plus sombre pour la communauté juive depuis l’Holocauste, l’heure est désormais à la clarté morale. Chers collègues, la motion d’aujourd’hui est très importante, car nous ne pouvons pas rester silencieux face à la haine. Le premier ministre l’a dit, et je le répète : l’Ontario dénonce l’antisémitisme et la haine que nous avons constatés lors des rassemblements des derniers jours de la part de ceux qui tenteraient de présenter ces actes barbares comme autre chose qu’ils ne le sont : des actes de terrorisme.

Denialism of Hamas’s atrocities is deeply rooted in anti-Semitism. The refusal to condemn Hamas, while in the same breath calling for Israel to stop defending itself, is nothing short of hatred for Israel.

Just yesterday, the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital was attacked in Gaza. Almost immediately, we saw people uncritically take the word of the terrorist organization Hamas as fact, as they claimed, that Israel had bombed the hospital. Israel has since produced evidence that the hospital was in fact hit by a misfired rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad as they shot rockets at civilians in Israel. The President of the United States, after seeing the evidence, said that he believes that Israel did not bomb the hospital, and dozens of open-source analyses of the strike all point to the fact that it was those attacking Israel who bombed innocent civilians at a hospital, and not Israel.

Sadly, I fear, Madam Speaker, that the damage has been done. Those who uncritically took Hamas’s claim as truth are putting Israeli and Jewish lives at risk as they incite further hate and violence.

Now, there are many good people who are being caught up in the fog of war, but leaders and journalists who believe the words of terrorists ahead of the word of Israel need to seriously reflect on the way they are framing this conflict. Those who continue to recite Hamas’s lines uncritically while holding Israel to a different standard—and blaming Israel for the death and suffering and the destruction that innocent civilians in the region are suffering at the hands of Hamas and their enemies amounts to terrorist apologism.

I am truly saddened by the fact that Israeli Canadians and members of the Jewish community have been made to feel unsafe in their homes here in Canada, and I’m even more saddened that there are extremists here in Ontario who have made Jewish families fearful to send their children to school—here in Ontario in 2023. It is unacceptable that there are those who would celebrate terrorists and incite further violence against the Jewish community. These hate-filled rallies are a sad and solemn reminder that there is still so much work that we all have to do to eradicate anti-Semitism.

1720

Speaker, the attacks on Israel have very real impacts that are being felt in Ontario and across Canada. The federal government has confirmed that at least six Canadians were among the more than 1,400 innocent civilians killed by Hamas terrorists when they attacked Israel, and at least two more Canadians are still missing and potentially among the ones held captive.

I grieve for the families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks. I grieve for the family of Netta Epstein, the 21-year-old who, when Hamas attacked his community, was with his fiancée. Mr. Epstein had recently completed his Israeli military training, and he bravely threw himself on a grenade lobbed indiscriminately by terrorists into his apartment. His brave sacrifice saved his fiancée from that murderous rampage.

I grieve for the families of Shir Georgy, Ben Mizrachi, Alexandre Look and Tiferet Lapidot, the Canadians who were killed by Hamas terrorists who ambushed the music festival and gunned down some 260 innocent festivalgoers near the Israeli border. My heart goes out to the family of Adi Vital-Kaploun, who was killed by Hamas terrorists after managing to save her two young children. There are hundreds of families who are still hoping for the safe return of their loved ones who have been kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, and this includes at least two Canadian families whose loved ones are missing.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to serve in a government and with a Premier who is unwavering in his recognition of the inalienable right of the State of Israel to defend itself. Unlike some members of the NDP in this chamber, the Premier has shown the leadership and moral clarity that the Jewish people in Ontario deserve.

People often invoke the leadership of my father, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It’s not often that I invoke him in this chamber, but in times like this, I am reminded of his strong and principled support for the State of Israel over the years, his commitment to do everything he could to ensure that we root out anti-Semitism in Canada and his ongoing belief that Canada must be firm in our support for Israel and its right to defend itself.

Despite the strength and resilience of the Jewish community, all too often they continue to face acts of hate, discrimination and violence. These past days remind us that now, more than ever, we must stand united with our Jewish friends and neighbours. Last week, I stood shoulder to shoulder with the Premier and my colleagues and thousands of people from Toronto and across Ontario who gathered here at Mel Lastman Square to show our support for Israel and the Jewish community. The outpouring of support for Israel and our Jewish community underlines the values that we hold dear as Canadians.

We will continue to support our friends around the world who share our commitment to the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. When faced with forces that seek the destruction of the State of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people, it is more important than ever that we stand in support of Israel and the Jewish community to demonstrate that we will not allow that to happen. It is important that we show the Jewish community that they are not alone, and that we will not sit idly by and allow hate and anti-Semitism to go unanswered. We will not let the voices of hateful extremists drown out those of us who denounce terrorism and condemn Hamas and its actions. We will not qualify our support for the people of Israel to defend themselves or for the Jewish community to feel safe.

It is simply not enough to just condemn the acts of terror. We must fight extremism, hate and anti-Semitism. Those who have espoused hateful and anti-Semitic comments, including a member of this Legislature, must apologize and be held accountable for the pain that they have caused. We must promote education and awareness, something my colleague the Minister of Education did when he introduced mandatory Holocaust education into the province’s curriculum.

To anyone who questions why today’s motion is important, I want to be clear: We cannot, as decent people, allow the kind of evil that we saw from Hamas go unanswered. Colleagues, as elected parliamentarians and as voices for our communities, we have a duty to stand up and loudly denounce Hamas for the terrorist organization that it is, denounce them for their brutal and horrific campaign of violence against Jews, and we have a duty to stand with Israel and the Jewish people to show them that Ontario does not accept the barbaric acts that were com-mitted by terrorists to define the world that we live in.

To the people of Israel and the Jewish community in Ontario, Ontario is and always will be your friend and ally. We stand with you, we stand with the people of Israel and with the entire Jewish community in your desire to see an end to the terror and the bloodshed and to live in peace and security in your homes.

Back home in my riding, I’d like to thank my friend Rabbi Yossi and his wife Chaya for all that they do, and especially what they have been doing in the last few days to support the Jewish community in Georgina, East Gwillimbury and Bradford. Their devotion to our community has enriched York–Simcoe beyond measure, and we all greatly appreciate their strength and their leadership during this difficult time.

Colleagues, I want to close my speech by saying that I strongly support today’s motion. I support our government’s condemnation of Hamas and of terror and hate, and I urge all members of this House to stand with us in this condemnation and in support of Israel and the Israeli people.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I want to start my comments this evening by making reference to something that I heard my colleague from Carleton say yesterday as she made reference to a historical event that I had never heard anybody make reference to before during any kind of discussion. I’ve certainly read about it and heard about it. I’ve heard people sing about it, but the first time I ever heard anybody actually make reference to it in a discussion was yesterday.

My colleague from Carleton has Iranian heritage, and I suppose that her heritage informed her and allowed her to touch on this historic event, and it’s known as the Babylonian Captivity. She knew about that, and I was pretty impressed about that because it’s a remarkable historic event. You might have heard about it, too. You might have thought it was a myth or a story, but it’s not; it’s an actual historic event.

It makes reference to a time deep in ancient history when an army conquered the nation of Israel or the nation of the Jews and took them away—carried them out of their homeland and took them to captivity in Babylon. That’s why it’s called the Babylonian Captivity.

1730

I mention that because there are some people who will erroneously and wrongly attempt to assert that the Jews don’t have a homeland, never had a homeland, ought not to have a homeland. That is factually and historically wrong and incorrect. The Jews had a home, but it was taken away from them. They were expelled from it. And this didn’t happen just once; it happened several times. The member from Carleton correctly and historically stated that they were returned to the homeland by the great King Cyrus. That is a historic fact. It is real. It is not a story. It is not a myth. It is real. It is a historical fact.

At a certain point in time—and I’m going through this because, as I said, Madam Speaker, there are some people who will wrongly, incorrectly assert that the Jews never had and never shall have a homeland. That’s why I’m going through this.

The Jews returned to their homeland and they were attacked again—more than once. I’m going to make reference to another invasion by another empire, the Roman Empire. The Romans eventually got tired of having to engage in wars with this nation. They decided that they would put as firm an end to it as they could, and they destroyed the city of Jerusalem, which was the centre of cultural and religious worship for the nation of the Jews—Israel. That is a historical fact. There are some people who will try to deny that; they are wrong. This is a historical fact. It is well recorded not only in the annals of the Roman Empire; it’s well recorded in the annals of various people’s histories.

The modern movement to restore the Jewish homeland began in the late 1800s. Now, some people don’t know that. Some people thought that this only happened after World War II. But, in fact, the modern movement to restore the Jewish homeland really took flight in the late 1800s, when people were returning to that area of the world seeking to establish a homeland for the Jewish nation. At the time, that area was governed by the Ottoman Empire. After the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and that area of the world came under the control of something called the British mandate. The British were in charge of that area of the world, and the British became concerned about immigration to that area of the world and at a certain point actually attempted to put a stop to Jewish immigration to that area. And then, after World War II, the British decided they had had enough, that they didn’t want to try to control that area of the world anymore and they announced that they would withdraw. What do you think they did? Did they leave behind a police force? Did they leave behind a security force? No, they did not—they left. And they left people behind to sort things out among themselves.

There was a partition plan in place sponsored by the United Nations—we’ve heard members of this House refer to the United Nations. There was a partition plan in place sponsored by the United Nations to divide the territory, providing for a homeland for the Jews and a home-land for the non-Jews. That partition plan did not succeed. It was not enacted. It broke down and there was a war. And ever since that time, the State of Israel has been under the constant threat of invasion. The State of Israel has not known one day of peace.

Notwithstanding all of these challenges, the Israelis have built a remarkable country. There is a constitution. Under that constitution, the Israeli constitution, people’s rights are protected. People have the right to practise freedom of religion and freedom of speech, something they would not have the right to do if they were governed under Hamas terrorists.

As I mentioned earlier, Hebrew is not the only official language in Israel. People have freedom; people have democracy. Israel is a legitimate state, recognized by the United Nations. It is recognized by every respected west-ern democracy in the world.

There was a union leader who didn’t agree with that. He has the right to express his opinion; he has freedom of expression here in Canada, freedom of speech. But I would point out that he is in disagreement with the United Nations and every respected democracy in the entire world.

Under the Israeli constitution, you are dealing with a modern western democracy. It is a modern western democracy constantly under threat from tyrants and dictators—a tiny democracy fighting against a tide of autocratic dictatorships.

The Israelis have built a country with virtually no natural resources. It is not like Canada. Here we debate what we’re going to do with our natural resources. We have so many natural resources, we discuss what we’re going to do, how we’re going to develop them, what’s the best thing to do with them. Half of Israel is a desert. The other half is squashed up against the Mediterranean Sea in a strip of land that in areas is barely wider than Essex county. Yet, still, the Israelis have built a modern western democracy much like our own.

Madam Speaker, the Jews had a home, but it was taken from them, and they had to work very hard over centuries to get it back. They didn’t take it from anybody. Many Jews moved there, purchased land. They formed communal kibbutzes, farms in the middle of the desert.

Now, an attack happened on October 7, 2023. It was a terrorist attack. These terrorists are not part of any recognized, legitimate army. They are terrorists, plain and simple. They killed people in Israel, they took hostages and then they escaped. They escaped back to Gaza. Now, I have a challenge for the people in this House. If that happened in Canada—we all know what would happen if some terrorists launched an attack from Canada and they killed people in a foreign country and took hostages and escaped back to Canada. We all know what would happen: Canada would take steps to arrest them and send them back to their victims to face justice. That’s exactly what we would do, and I think that’s correct.

1740

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I do appreciate the opportunity to continue debate today. Let me just thank my colleague from Essex and the other colleagues on this side of the House and on the Conservative majority side who have spoken today on this motion, Madam Speaker.

At the outset, let me just recognize the fact that I certainly can understand how challenging and difficult a debate this might appear to be. We’ve seen very emotional speeches given by many of the members on this side of the House, as I said, on the Conservative majority side of the House—very emotional and very poignant speeches on their feelings about the situation, what has happened, what happened on that day and their feelings with respect to people they know in the community, people they have worked with. For some, it’s been about family, it has been about relationships.

We’re all very, I think, fortunate and blessed as members of provincial Parliament, as elected officials, that we get to meet people in various walks of life and we get to learn what their story is and to better understand who they are and what makes them important, not only in a community but to their family and to their friends, and for many members who have spoken, they have relayed those stories.

Now, for some of the members, this is deeply, deeply personal. We have heard from members who have family members back in Israel and what they must have been feeling on that day and what they are continuing to feel, Madam Speaker. I know, for myself, waking up to the stories on that day—you can’t help but feel both at once shock, anger, and then the more you hear about what had happened on the day, just complete and utter sadness for the people and the victims.

Many of the members of this House have already spoken about the atrocities that occurred on that day. I want to reference, to the extent that I’m allowed to, what the motion is and why we are here. The motion itself reads, “That this House condemn the ongoing and reprehensible attacks being carried out by the terrorist organization Hamas, including the slaughter, rape, and kidnapping of innocent Israeli civilians, including babies, children, and seniors, and recognize the inalienable right of the State of Israel to defend itself and its people against this horrific violence.”

I wanted to repeat what the motion was about because I think it’s very important, and just to digest that a bit. We are not debating in this place whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. That’s not what the focus of this debate has been about; that has been decided. There is no debate on that. As Canadians, we know and understand that this is a terrorist organization, full stop, and we are debating today, and were yesterday, the actions of a terrorist organization on Israeli citizens.

Now, Madam Speaker, again, try to put ourselves—and it’s impossible to do, really. Frankly, it is impossible to do, I almost feel silly saying it, but try to put yourself in the shoes of people who had family and friends there, on that day, waking up and hearing that a music festival had turned into a horrific slaughter of individuals. Imagine hearing that, that people had cut through and stormed through the border and were shooting and killing people where they stood; people who were running to their cars to get away from the violence, not knowing what was going on, slaughtered in their cars; people taking shelter in bomb shelters, huddling up together, trying to escape and flee violence, slaughtered by terrorists, by gunmen who went into a bomb shelter and shot everybody that was in there, threw in grenades to ensure that they killed people. Think of the villages—we saw the horrific images on that day. We were watching it from here, and it’s hard for us to understand. Many of us saw the horrific image of a baby slaughtered.

So it’s hard for us to truly understand the horror of that day. But it shouldn’t be hard for us to condemn what happened on that day. That’s the easy part. I think that’s the easy part because we all should agree that this was horrific. I believe in my heart that we all agree that this was a horrific act of terrorism, and that is what we are focused on today. We are focused on that, and we are asking this House to show support for the innocent victims of a terrorist attack, an attack that has become the most bloody single-day attack on Israelis, on Jewish people, since the Holocaust.

Now, let’s think about that for a second. That is an absolute—again, it’s hard for us to contemplate. So, when members on this side of the House and in the Conservative majority stand in their place and are frustrated and are angry and not understanding why it is that the opposition refuses to condemn the actions of a terrorist organization—we simply do not understand. We do not under-stand.

The member for Essex talked about what we would do in Canada. I was part of a government in Ottawa that huddled in a room after a terrorist attack, and I tell you, it was awful. Not even close in comparison to what happened here—not even close. To even bring the comparison is almost embarrassing. But the member is right: In Canada, if the perpetrator were still alive, that person would face justice. But in the aftermath of that one attack on our Parliament, Canadians were unified from coast to coast to coast in their horror and their anger over what had happened.

What happened, of course, was that a soldier on the monument at the war memorial was killed in cold blood. Members in Parliament were huddled into a room. A security officer was shot. Fortunately, nobody else was harmed on that day. That was a small act of terror on our country, and Canadians reacted the way we would expect them to react. All parties reacted that way.

So when we brought the motion forward, it was brought forward in the understanding that all Canadians, all people would appreciate the opportunity to let their fellow citizens, let Canadians, let Ontarians understand that we feel and understand what they’re going through. I’m under no illusion that in Israel right now they are wondering what the House leader in the province of Ontario is thinking about the situation. I’m under no illusion that that is what is going on right now. But people in my riding and the ridings of all these members want to know that their members of provincial Parliament understand what they are going through. They want to understand that we know what they are going through, to hear the words of—whether it was the member for Barrie–Innisfil, the Solicitor General, the member for Willowdale, the member for Thornhill. To see 15,000 people on Thanksgiving Day at Mel Lastman Square—these are people brought together by an understanding that we as a civilized country, as a civilized people understand that what took place there is abhorrent and goes against everything that we have fought for and that we believe in.

1750

We are not asking the opposition to make historical recommendations. We are not asking them to opine on what they believe should happen in the Middle East. We are not asking them for that. We are asking them to stand in their place and simply agree that what happened on that day is not something that any of us find, in any way, shape or form, supportable. There is no justification for that.

The Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery in another debate earlier today said that it always seems to be one thing: When it comes to Israel, when it comes to this particular motion, the opposition is always, “Yes, but.” They’re “Yes, but—but if this, but if that.” There is no “Yes, but.” There is only “no.” There is “no.” We cannot find, in any way, shape or form, that something like this should happen.

This is a place where we debate, we talk, and we hold each other accountable. That fundamentally is what we do in this place. It is a parliamentary democracy where, each and every day, the opposition holds the government accountable. That is the entire purpose of an opposition, to hold government accountable, but it is also the responsibility of a Parliament in a civilized democracy to hold those people who perpetrate heinous acts on others—it is a responsibility of a good Parliament to hold those people also accountable for their actions, and that is what this motion is about.

And to sit here—I can only say this: how proud I am of the caucus that has—all of the members of the caucus and many more who have wanted to be a part of this debate and this discussion and what we have been seeing and the work that they’ve been doing in their communities, in their ridings, the calls that they’ve been answering, the help that they have been providing to their constituents and to their communities. I know the member for Thornhill has been inundated. The member for Willowdale has been inundated, as well as the Solicitor General, the member for Barrie–Innisfil and many members have been inundated with calls for help, wanting to know what is going on for better appreciation and, “How can we help?” And I’m proud of all members who have stepped up to the challenge and who have not shied away from standing up for the victims and the people of Israel in the face of this terror.

With that, I thank my colleagues again. Speaker, I now move that the question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Mr. Calandra has moved that the question be now put. There has been almost eight and a half hours of debate on this motion, and 41 members have spoken. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I hear a no.

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

Those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote is required. It will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Member’s conduct

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 18, 2023, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I want to carry on my comments from earlier this morning by turning my attention to the comments made by the member from Hamilton Centre, who seems to be confused with regard to terrorism. Let me make it absolutely clear, since that member from Hamilton Centre and her fellow colleagues in her caucus don’t seem to be capable of making their position very clear on terrorism: I took the statement made by the member from Hamilton Centre to be an endorsement of the acts carried out by terrorists. I don’t think any reasonable person could interpret what the member from Hamilton Centre said any other way.

Since the NDP caucus and that member from Hamilton Centre don’t seem to be clear on terrorism, let me help them by providing them with some advice from the Holy See. The Holy See said this: “The Holy See’s condemnation of terrorism is absolute: there are no ideological, political, philosophical, racial, ethnic, or religious reasons to justify or excuse it.”

Here is what the United Nations said about terrorism: “Any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever, and by whomsoever committed.”

The Holy See is clear. The United Nations is clear. This Progressive Conservative caucus is clear. The NDP caucus is not clear. The member from Hamilton Centre is not clear. And for all of those reasons, Madam Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Mr. Leardi has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, 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 1758 to 1828.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Members will be seated. Thank you.

Mr. Leardi has moved the adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Trevor Day): The ayes are 0; the nays are 40.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): I declare the motion lost.

Motion negatived.

Private Members’ Public Business

Nuclear energy

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you for everyone being here.

I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should further build out its clean, green nuclear fleet, which is already the backbone of Ontario’s clean electricity grid, to continue providing families and industries with the reliable, low-cost and clean power needed to power Ontario’s growth.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Mr. Rae has moved private member’s notice of motion number 63. Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you, Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you.

It’s an honour to rise in this place to discuss my motion, motion 63. It’s actually my first private member’s motion in this place, and it is truly an honour to debate such an important topic for my riding of Perth–Wellington and all of Ontario.

Our clean, green nuclear fleet is an important component of our clean, reliable electricity grid. Nuclear energy has a long history in Canada. Ever since the first CANDU reactor went into service in 1962, the nuclear industry has been a source of innovation and specialized employment in our country. Historically, we successfully exported the CANDU technology around the world, including to Argentina, Romania, South Korea and many other countries around the globe.

As you know, Speaker, our government was first elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. Over those five years, we’ve supported our nuclear sector, but there’s more we can still do. Our great Minister of Energy has been working hard to support our nuclear sector. Earlier this summer, Minister Smith announced that our government will be building not one, not two, not three, but four small modular reactors. These small modular reactors have the potential to revolutionize the energy sector and support thousands of good-paying jobs across Ontario.

This work began all the way back in 2019, when our Premier and government led the country in bringing together Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to sign an MOU on the small modular reactors, and Alberta would later join us in this forward-thinking group of provinces. These small modular reactors, or SMRs for short, in Canada would support our domestic energy needs, curb greenhouse gas emissions and position Canada as a global leader in this emerging technology. All provinces have agreed to collaborate on the advancement of SMRs as a clean option to address climate change and regional energy demands while, most importantly, supporting economic growth and innovation.

Let me also remind this House that the nuclear industry already supports over 75,000 jobs in Ontario, Speaker. It’s estimated in a recent federal report from the ministry of natural resources that 6,000 highly skilled jobs will be created per year from 2030 to 2040 if we continue to invest in SMR technology.

Many of these jobs are located in the ridings of Huron–Bruce, Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, the region of Durham and all the ridings there, but also, most importantly, many of these jobs are located in my riding of Perth–Wellington—home to thousands of workers who work in our nuclear sector. Many families in my riding of Perth–Wellington rely on Bruce Power and our nuclear sector to put food on their kitchen tables. These are good-paying jobs; highly skilled jobs in mathematics, engineering, science and technology, just to name a few examples. These are union jobs, good-paying jobs.

Speaker, it’s not only the people directly employed by Bruce Power or Darlington or any other directly related nuclear industry; it’s the thousands of people employed in the small businesses that supply our nuclear sector with the various parts and maintenance that are required with this technology. Whether it’s a business in Cambridge, in Oakville or in Stratford, Speaker, thousands of people go to work every day to help build parts and components for our nuclear sector.

Just yesterday, the Minister of Energy was at Bruce Power to announce that unit 6, which has just been undergoing refurbishment over the last three years, is online.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you.

It’s once again producing electricity for the good people of Ontario. And not only is it online again, but it was on time. Going forward, more than 90,000 Ontarians, particularly in the southwest region of Ontario which I come from, will be able to count on predictable, clean, green nuclear energy until at least 2064.

As the Minister of Energy said at yesterday’s announcement, it would make a huge difference to the people of Ontario. That’s 4.8 million homes that could be powered, all new businesses that are electrifying, electric furnaces that could fire our clean steelmaking processes. All of those things will become reality if we can see something like unit 6 continue at Bruce Power.

It’s not only about the families and businesses that rely on electricity each and every day, but it’s also the medical isotopes that are produced, which are crucial in our fight against cancer, and the sterilization of our hospitals and the medical centres that serve all of our communities. Bruce Power, for one, has been a global leader for decades now in the production of medical isotopes, and as a province we should be proud of the work they do to be on the cutting edge of potentially life-saving innovations. Bruce Power’s cobalt-60 is used in gamma irradiation to sterilize single-use medical devices and equipment such as syringes, gloves and gowns.

There are many other uses for medical isotopes. They’re important. We even export this around the world, this technology, and people come here to see our excellence. It’s really a testament that Bruce Power and other nuclear producing energies contribute this to the world.

As a young person, Speaker, I obviously care about our environment and what type of world we’ll leave for the next generation and the generations after that. Ontario is committed to meeting our emissions targets, and nuclear energy will help us do that. Nuclear energy already provides about 50% of the province’s power and provides this power as a reliable, competitively priced, emissions-free source of electricity.

The Independent Electricity System Operator, or IESO, as it’s commonly referred to, in their recent report Pathways to Decarbonization, forecasted that in less than 30 years, Ontario could need to more than double its electricity generation capacity, from 42,000 megawatts today to 88,000 megawatts in 2050. This report also anticipated that an additional 17,800 megawatts of nuclear power could be required to meet this increased demand.

The nuclear energy sector provides reliable and environmentally sound energy for our entire province. The continued use of nuclear energy in Ontario will displace approximately 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. It’s clear there is no path forward without nuclear energy to get us to net zero.

Speaker, many in the industry are very supportive of my motion. For example, Lisa McBride, president of Women in Nuclear Canada, said this recently in a letter to me:

“As women working in the nuclear industry, we value the role of nuclear energy plants in the net-zero future. The role of nuclear energy in Ontario is critical to our success in our energy transition. There is no path to a clean energy future without nuclear energy playing a vital role.”

I’d also obviously like to thank former MPP Bill Walker, now president and CEO of the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries, for their support, and obviously Hitachi for their support on my motion as well.

Our government is committed to working with businesses and other partners on the innovative energy solutions that create a more competitive business environment, reduce electricity costs and deliver a clean, reliable energy future. With hundreds of thousands of people coming to Ontario each year to start a business, to attend our world-class colleges and universities, to contribute each and every day to our sector and our economy, and to raise their families, it’s clear that our province has a bright future, and that’s why I ask members of all parties to protect that bright future, to support our growth and prosperity, and to ensure that we continue to build our clean, green nuclear fleet.

1840

Ontario as a province—we need to dare greatly, Speaker, and to build things again in the province of Ontario. I know under this leadership of our Premier and our Ministry of Energy, and hopefully with the willingness of this House, we will continue to do that by supporting our clean green nuclear fleet.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: First, I would like to thank Peter Tabuns for preparing these notes.

Speaker, I rise to address the motion put forward by the member for Perth–Wellington, a motion that proposes to expand nuclear investment in our electricity system. In practical terms, given the current plans put forward by this government, the member is asking Ontario to commit to small nuclear reactor technology, long before we know the real cost or even the technological viability of that proposal. It’s asking Ontario to commit to a technology without a business plan. That is not a prudent way to make public policy. It’s particularly not prudent in the face of an accelerating climate crisis that demands action and investment in energy options now.

Currently, the most advanced project to build a small modular reactor in North America is in the hands of NuScale in the United States, and we are unlikely to know whether it will be technically or commercially viable until later in this decade. They’ve had to push back the date of operation of the prototype a number of times. Let’s look a little more closely at this most advanced SMR project in the United States, which has been under way now for quite a few years, since the year 2000.

The first module was forecast to come online in 2016. Currently, they are projecting 2029. I look forward to the next projection.

Most recently, it was revealed that the cost for power from the NuScale project had increased by 50%, with a price in Canadian dollars of 16 cents a kilowatt hour, if you don’t count the massive American subsidy to bring the price down to 12 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s a lot of money. And we won’t be getting American subsidies for our nuclear power plants. Doesn’t seem like much of a savings to me. In fact, in the western United States, renewable power, with storage, is substantially cheaper than NuScale’s SMR.

NuScale’s small modular reactor is not the only reactor recently to experience big cost increases. Two reactors under construction at that Vogtle plant in Georgia were originally projected to cost $14.1 billion and be completed in 2016 and 2017. The two have so far cost $34 billion—unit 3 to start operating this year and unit 4 to start operating late this year or early next year. That is not on time or on budget—a real risk.

In fact, speaking of risk, the original builder, Westinghouse, was bankrupted in 2017 by the project as costs soared. Big cost overruns are pretty normal. Certainly the experience in Finland, with soaring costs for their major plant at Olkiluoto, went three times over budget. I should just note that one of the selling points for the Vogtle reactors was that although they would not be small, they would be modular, but modularity is no guarantee of cost control.

This motion should be brought back for debate when the member has answered a number of questions that I touch on below. So, for our purposes, for the purposes of prudent planning, I will be recommending that we vote no to this motion.

The first question is whether or not these new reactor designs will be affordable and competitive with the existing zero-emission options. In 2016, Hatch associates provided a report for the Ontario government outlining the benefits and challenges of small modular reactor technology. And although Hatch was very favourable to the technology—and I recommend that people read their report—they noted projected costs of power from the technology range from 19 cents per kilowatt hour to up to almost 80 cents per kilowatt hour. Now, given the hydro price crunch that we already face in this province, you have to ask, why would we pursue a technology that even a very friendly consultant report says is going to be a lot more expensive than we want to spend?

As of today, I have heard no price estimate for power from the SMRs plan for Darlington. I guess it’s a state secret.

I would ask the member who proposed this motion, how on earth can you propose that we invest heavily in an option when we don’t even have a price? It’s pretty fundamental in planning and in business to develop a business case with a price, so that you can allocate the necessary funds, so you can compare options and do a cost benefit analysis.

Beyond that, why would we go for a technology that is going to cost more than six cents a kilowatt-hour when there are already technologies out there with renewable power and with conservation and, frankly, buying power from the province of Quebec that is six cents per kilowatt-hour and less? Why would we spend that much more? The question of providing non-emitting power is something that has seized power executives, politicians and policy people around the world.

Now, the most sophisticated analysis has been developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which has been evaluating the state of our climate now for over 30 years and at the same time assessing options for coming to grips with it. Their most recent report, the sixth assessment looks at energy options for rapidly reducing GHG emissions and compares them by cost. Their findings are pretty clear: Wind and solar are by far the fastest and cheapest technologies for decarbonizing our society with nuclear close to the bottom of the list of options.

The question I would ask the member is which internationally reviewed report is he basing his motion on that shows his option is the most cost-effective? The next question is whether or not this technology will actually be available. This is not the first time when people stood up and proclaimed the next wave of nuclear technology that will deal with the costs of hydro and deal with our energy issues. Former Liberal ministers and former Liberal Premiers came and spoke in this House about advanced Candu reactors back in the day. If you were here 15 years ago, you heard about this wonderful technology that was going to change the shape of energy in Ontario.

I want to say that between 2002 and 2009, AECL was provided with $433 million in subsidies for the development of the advanced Candu reactor. In 2009, the Ontario government suspended its procurement of these advanced Candu reactors when the cost of building an ACR topped $10,000 per kilowatt, or $26 billion for 2,400-megawatt station. That was four times the 2005 cost estimates.

Speaker, it is not easy to develop a new nuclear technology and it’s not because we lack first-class scientists and engineers. We have the best in the world. We have people working in the supply chain and people working in operations, women and men who will stack up against any energy providers and thinkers on this planet. We have the best; but even with that, this is an area of development that is fraught with difficulty. It has not been easy. In fact, there is a variety, a history, you can look at of projects that looked good, but never came to fruition.

With that, I want to mention the Maple reactors. I hope the member is familiar with it. Canada abandoned the Maple reactors in 2008, because they couldn’t be made to work. I’ll read what the Globe and Mail report said in 2008: “Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. suffered another embarrassing setback yesterday as the country’s flagship nuclear corporation when it scrapped the development of two Maple isotope-producing reactors after pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the project. The federal crown corporation conducted tests on the reactors this spring and could not find a solution to a design flaw that would make the reactors more prone to a meltdown.”

The design work on this project started in 1985. So it wasn’t a six-month project. This was decades and hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not easy to design a new reactor. It is fraught with difficulty. That is what the member is suggesting to be the basis of our electrical system.

It wasn’t only Maple, Quebec used to have two nuclear power plants. Le Gentilly-2 was a standard Candu 6 reactor and operated from 1983 to 2012. Gentilly was a prototype Candu BWR reactor. It was designed for a net output of 250 megawatts. The reactor had several features unique amongst Candu reactors—I’m going to skip some of this, because it’s very technical. But what I can say is that the design was not successful and over seven years recorded only 180 on-power days. It is no longer in operation.

1850

I look at the history of designs, and I conclude that there’s a very good chance that this one for SMRs may not work. I look at the cost and I say that right now it is not competitive with what exists on the ground today and could be applied immediately to deal with the climate crisis. And we have substantial questions about waste.

I will just note that the federal government is doing its study of SMRs, and in their report—I think it was called A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors—they note the financial difficulties with dealing with novel waste. We’re used to the waste from Candu, but we still haven’t figured out a way to store it. New forms of nuclear waste are going to require potentially new forms of waste disposal technology.

This motion ignores the potential that SMRs may not be a viable technology, technically or economically. It doesn’t give us a business case for comparison of costs, and it doesn’t address the issue of waste. Until those issues are addressed and until we have a business case that we can actually assess, this motion is just not substantial, and I recommend that people vote no.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Hsu: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion.

Let me start out by saying that we need a lot more electricity. We are in the process of a very significant transformation of our economy, from one that’s based on fossil fuels to one that is going to be based on electricity, and we have to be able to produce that electricity without emitting greenhouse gases as much as possible.

We are converting vehicles from burning gasoline to using electricity. We’re going to be converting home heating from burning natural gas to heat pumps and other technologies. We’re going to be converting industrial processes; for example, the making of steel or all of these new plants that are being built in Ontario—they’re going to require electricity. So if you add up all the megawatts that we’re going to need over the coming years and decades, it’s a lot of megawatts

To make sure that we have enough electricity, there are a number of things that we need to do, but I think if you look at the numbers, to my mind, it’s pretty clear that we need to continue to refurbish the nuclear reactors that we have in Ontario and also to build a new, large nuclear plant at the Bruce C site, and I hope that it is a Candu reactor.

One of the things about Candu reactors is that they’re a technology that we understand pretty well. Just to give you some examples, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is very good at evaluating the pressure tubes in Candu reactors and how the niobium zirconium alloys behave over time when they’re exposed to radiation and heat and the diffusion of deuterium into the metal. We understand that process very, very well because we’ve been doing it for decades. We also are reverse-engineering old technology in Candu reactors, because they were built decades ago, so that we can build replacement parts, using modern manufacturing, that behave exactly the same as the old components. So this is an area where Canada has long expertise. We still have people in Chalk River. There are retirees from AECL who are still acting as consultants in the riding of my colleague there from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who is paying very close attention to this debate. I do hope that we take advantage of the expertise that we still have in places like Chalk River or the bench strength that we have from all the people who are working on the refurbishments of the reactors at Bruce and Darlington.

I want to say that one of the reasons, I think, that the recent refurbishments have been on time is that if you keep doing the same thing over and over again with the same people, it gets more efficient—you learn how to do things, you have that institutional memory. The supply chain knows that it’s going to get constant business for the next few years. So you get better and better at whatever you do. It becomes cheaper. The supply chain invests in cost savings, and the supply chain also reduces its prices over time. That’s why I think it’s a good idea.

I know that I haven’t addressed the concern of my colleagues over at the NDP about small modular reactors. I would consider that a technology that is still in a pilot phase. In order to achieve cost savings from SMRs, again, you have to build a lot of them. That’s the whole idea behind modularity: You have to build a lot of them in order to realize the cost savings. So, we will see what happens, but I think it’s important at least to build one or two and see—somebody has to move first, and the idea is that if Ontario moves first, it does take some extra risk, but if this is a technology that will serve us in the latter half of the 21st century, it would be good if Ontario were a leader.

I can see that my time is running out, so in my last minute, let me just say that the problem I have with this motion is that it’s a little bit too rosy, and we shouldn’t forget everything else we need to build—everything from renewable, solar, energy and storage. A lot of these things can be built very quickly and with not too much risk when it comes to cost, and I can hear that in the remarks from my colleagues of the NDP. It is very true.

There is remaining hydro power in southern and northern Ontario. We need to be asking Indigenous communities if they would like to partner in developing hydro resources in northern Ontario and if they feel that they would benefit from them.

There is much to be gained from looking at geothermal and bioenergy.

Let me just summarize in the seconds that I have left to say that this resolution, this motion, is incomplete. There is so much more that we should be doing to assure that we have an energy future that is clean and affordable and reliable.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Perth–Wellington but also the member from Kingston and the Islands—even though his atomic clock was running slowly; he went a little over time there.

But anyhow, of course I support this motion. I was born into nuclear, Speaker.

Mrs. Robin Martin: That explains something.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, it explains a lot of things.

How many people—I know the member for Kingston and the Islands will. Do you know what ZEEP is, or ZEEP was? ZEEP was the Zero-Energy Experimental Pile, which was the first experimental reactor built, and it went critical on September 5, 1945, which became the first nuclear chain reaction outside the United States of America. It was the birth of the nuclear industry here in Canada. And where did it take place? In my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, at Chalk River, which was then Atomic Energy of Canada. Then they went on to build the NRX, the National Research Experimental, and then the NRU, the National Research Universal, which produced isotopes—much of the world’s isotopes—which are vitally important in medicine today. Of course, that work is now being done at our power plants, and the Bruce and Darlington are going to be involved in it as well.

So, how important is nuclear energy to Canada? Well, they went on to build the first operating nuclear plant, which was at Douglas Point, until it was decommissioned, and then we had Pickering, Bruce and Darlington. Now we’re going through these expansions at Bruce, refurbishments at Darlington. Why? Because the province is growing and the demand for power—as the member for Kingston said, we need it. We absolutely need to have more access to power.

The energy critic from the NDP, who had a surrogate read the speech for him today, I’ve heard him so often talk about how, “Well, we can fix things if we have more conservation and energy efficiency.” If your population is static and you don’t create any more jobs, that might work, but under our government, there are more people working in Ontario than ever before—700,000 new jobs since we took office—and our population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Every single citizen requires energy to live.

1900

The NDP would like us to shut down our nuclear power plants. How ridiculous is that? Fifty-five per cent of our power is coming from nuclear, but they think we should just shut it down and somehow, because we need it, the wind will blow 24/7 and the sun will shine. There will be 24 hours. This ain’t the north where in the summertime it’s 24 hours of sunlight. We’ll be like—do you know what we will be like? We will be like the north in the wintertime because we’ll be in darkness.

How did that work in Germany? They shut down their nuclear plants. And what are they doing now? Recommissioning their coal plants because they haven’t got enough power. How much sense did that make? In Japan, they’re reopening nuclear plants. Since 2014, they’ve been reopening nuclear plants because they need the power. And that’s what we need here in Ontario: We need an expansion and the continuous refurbishments to our nuclear power plants so that we will have the power to power Ontario, the power we need in the future to continue building for the people of Ontario.

I want to thank the member for bringing forth this motion. It’s a great motion, and I hope all the members—well, I know we’re not going to get the support of the NDP, because they live in a dream world. We live in the real world. We need nuclear power.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Thanks for the opportunity to rise in the House to talk on the member for Perth–Wellington’s private member bill.

I could talk for hours about our province having the cleanest electricity system in the world, with about 90% of our electricity generation coming from non-emitting sources, mostly due to our nuclear generation capabilities. I could also talk about how it attracts business and the manufacturing sector to our province, being a reliable source of energy, and I could also talk about the many countries that have scheduled to scrap nuclear generation facilities that are now rethinking and may now remain open. I think we just mentioned it, about Japan’s Prime Minister who said the country is restarting idle nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011. Germany pulled the plug on their nuclear after Fukushima too, but recently there has been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country’s severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war.

But what I want to talk about, Madam Speaker, and what really impresses me the most is the environmentalists’ support we see for nuclear power today. Many, many environmentalists are backing nuclear power and have come forward saying that it’s a source of emission-free, reliable power, and they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids. And what we hear all the time, the quote we hear from the environmentalists, is, “Promoting nuclear is an important tool in fighting climate change.”

We see resistance to nuclear power is continuing to fade around the world with support from this surprising group, which are the environmentalists. We have never seen so many of them promoting nuclear. They all say the same thing: When it’s well managed, the nuclear energy is a very clean energy. It does not emit polluting gases into the atmosphere, uses very few construction materials per kilowatt hour compared to solar and wind energy. It produces very little waste which can be almost totally confined. It is very safe, produces no carbon dioxide, and therefore does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

If you had a chance to visit the OPG and Bruce Power nuclear plant, Madam Speaker, you will surely notice how safety is a priority and how these power producers got recognized as leaders by safety organizations from across the world. I’m sure some of you did visit and did see that.

Nuclear power production keeps the air clean by removing thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants each year which contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. Despite producing massive amounts of carbon-free power, nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source. Just to give you an example, a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs a little more than one square mile; the same for the wind farm would be 360 times more, and 75 times more for photoelectric.

Bottom line: Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable and cost-effective source of energy. It’s one of the most promising energy sources of the future. It will be one of the most effective solutions to fight climate change and global warming.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Dave Smith: As I was listening to the member from the NDP talking about it, I thought back to the time, 33 years ago, when I worked for Ontario Hydro in the customer energy services division. I’m going to recall a conversation I had with a young lady—actually, it was a much older lady than myself. She called because she was upset because the nuclear energy that we were generating in Darlington was causing her radiation poisoning. When she turned off her cathode-ray tube television, the old-style TVs, sometimes it would glow. I chuckled at the time about it, and I said to her, “Well, there’s a really simple way to diffuse that. If you take a washcloth, get it wet and wipe the TV, it will absorb all the radiation. You won’t have that glow anymore.” It was because she had static from the dust on it. But that is what a lot of people thought with our nuclear fleet: that we were actually sending radiation across the electrical lines to power people.

Nuclear technology is something that has been around now for almost 70 years. The Candu reactors are something that is world-renowned for their safety. What we’re looking at now is something referred to as small modular reactors, SMRs. Small is relative. When you go to the Darlington plant or you go to the Bruce nuclear plant, those are massive, massive facilities. The small modular reactor is about the size of a hockey rink. So it’s small in comparison to Darlington or Bruce, but it’s really not that small.

The technology behind it—in my riding, we have a company called BWXT. They do the fuel cells for most of the nuclear fleet here in Ontario. What people don’t truly understand—I couldn’t bring in a prop; I wanted to, but I’m not allowed—is the pellets are about the size of your baby finger’s nail. That’s the size of a nuclear pellet. They do a fuel cell that would be roughly the width of my shoulders. That’s what we’re talking about for the size of the fuel cell that goes into this. That generates, in the SMR case, about enough power to power the city of London forever. Think about that. We’re putting hockey rinks, essentially, around Ontario that are going to power entire cities that way.

The SMR technology is one of the safest that we have. It is one of the most effective moving forward. It will be significantly cheaper than what we have seen with other types of power generation over the lifespan. You have to look at it over the entire lifespan of the device.

Proud to support this motion. I think this is something that’s very good for Ontario. I would hope that all members would stand up and support this, because it is something that is great for this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you to all those individuals that spoke. In particular, thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North. I really should be thanking the member from Toronto–Danforth; thank you as well. Thank you to Kingston and the Islands. Obviously, thank you to Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Thank you to Peterborough–Kawartha. Finally, but not least, thank you to Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for the great remarks.

Speaker, I think we all heard the classic thing we hear from the opposition: No, they do not believe in building anything in this province. Whether it’s housing, whether it’s highways, whether it’s subways, whether it’s rapid transit or whether it’s nuclear clean energy that’s going to help them meet their targets—which they say they need to, and we will—they say no.

Well, Speaker, I’m proud to be part of a government that is saying yes to all those things and much more. We’re going to dare greatly and they’re going to eat their words in a few years when we are producing more nuclear energy in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Rae has moved private member’s notice of motion number 63. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carries?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it. A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 19, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1911.