The House met at 0900.


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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

URGENT PRIORITIES ACT, 2018 / LOI DE 2018 PORTANT SUR LES PRIORITÉS URGENTES

Resuming the debate adjourned on July 23, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903 / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant Hydro One Limited, l’annulation du projet de parc éolien White Pines et les conflits de travail entre l’Université York et la section locale 3903 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated July 24, 2018, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Rickford has moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Orders of the day.

Hon. Todd Smith: No further business at this time, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further government business this morning, this House stands in recess until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 0903 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS


Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to introduce a good friend of mine, Adnan Cheema. He and his family are leaders in the Muslim Society of Guelph, and he is joining me in the members’ gallery today.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’m very honoured and excited to welcome to this Parliament, for their first time visiting, my wife, Kate, and my daughter, Annie. Welcome.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to welcome Michelle and Andrew Fletcher from Mississauga–Lakeshore. They are the parents of our page Aidan.

As well, I would like to welcome my campaign manager, Michael Smith, as well as Philip Power, who was chair to my campaign, and my son Joey Cuzzetto, who was the number one campaigner on my campaign.


Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce my long-suffering wife to my fellow colleagues: Ria Vanthof—and her parents, who are visiting us today from the Netherlands, Koos and Koby Kortenoever. Welcome.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Anne and Larry Kell. Larry performed an act of heroism on Friday when he jumped into action to stop a fire in a straw field at a neighbour’s farm in Innisfil. His swift response prevented the fire from spreading to neighbouring barns, bush, fields and houses. Thank you, Larry, and welcome.

Mr. Roman Baber: I’d like to introduce a constituent and mother of one of our pages, Eliana Rosenberg. I’d like to welcome Marsha Rosenberg.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce three good friends: Scott Duff, Susan Murray and Camille Steffler. Not only are they good friends, but they also work at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to introduce my son, Andrew Downey, and his girlfriend, Genevieve Sammon.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I’d like to acknowledge and welcome to the House the newly minted president of the Ontario PC Youth Association, Carl Qiu from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Mr. Dave Smith: I actually rose to introduce my constituency assistant and his wife, Jordan Mercier and Ingrid Mercier. However, they weren’t able to make it, so instead I will introduce the newest member of the Peterborough–Kawartha riding, Isabella Grace Mercier, who was born last night at 7:30.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Joining us today in the west members’ gallery is my executive assistant, Lori Janbazian. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to recognize Medha Gupta. She’s a page here at Queen’s Park from my riding of Mississauga–Streetsville. Today is her final day here. I’d like to thank her and all of the pages for the great work that they do. I’m not sure if she’s here right now.

I’d like to also recognize Mahdi Almusawi. He’s a student volunteer from my campaign who’s here in the members’ gallery today.


Mme Marie-France Lalonde: Il me fait plaisir d’avoir avec moi aujourd’hui une amie, our executive assistant in our constituency office, Anick Tremblay, who is in the House today. Merci d’être ici, Anick.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have guests from the riding of Wellington–Halton Hills. I’d like to introduce Denis Vinette, Linda Vinette and a guest from the Netherlands who is visiting with them, Guus Van de Ven. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. It’s great to have you here.

I would also like to introduce my legislative assistant, who is here today, Scott Chen. Welcome, Scott.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CURRICULUM


Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I bring my first question to the Premier, I think it’s important that we acknowledge the loss of a person who was educated in Windsor and played a big role in the business community in the auto sector. Mr. Marchionne was a trailblazer at Fiat Chrysler, and his loss will, I think, impact many, many workers and many, many other business people around the world.

My first question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier if consent would be included in the curriculum this fall, but the Premier refused to say yes. He refused to say that consent would be taught in Ontario’s classrooms, and in the year 2018, that is a decision that fails every student in Ontario.

Why does this Premier think that keeping his social conservative friends happy is more important than keeping young people and young women safe?


Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, I’m going to tell you who we’re going to keep happy: We’re going to keep the parents happy. We’re going to keep the parents happy, because they weren’t consulted. Only 1,600 people were consulted around the province. Again, that’s 0.001% of the population that has not been consulted—that were consulted—that have not been consulted. We’re looking at—

Laughter.


Hon. Doug Ford: My friend, I know. A little tongue twister there, I agree.

At the end of the day, my friend, 1,600 people out of 14 million people were consulted.

We believe in reaching out to the parents. I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t believe in consulting with the parents. They believe in the government making the decisions. Well, I’ll tell you, we’re going to do the largest consultation the province has ever seen. We’re going to criss-cross this province to 124 ridings and consult with the people who matter, and that’s the parents.

Interjections.


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

Supplementary?


Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, might I submit that this Premier has no idea what I believe, nor is he an expert on what we believe as New Democrats.

Yesterday I asked the Premier if gender identity, sexual orientation and LGBTQ families would be fully included in the curriculum this fall, but the Premier failed to say yes. In fact, he said, “That’s not up to us to decide.” In the year 2018, that, too, is a decision that fails queer young people across our province.

Why does this Premier think that keeping his social conservative friends happy is more important than keeping queer youth safe?


Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, this is about the curriculum.

This is from a gentleman named Mr. Jagmeet Singh. Do you know him? “Mr. Speaker, I stand today once again to voice the concerns of my constituents around the health curriculum in our schools. When it comes to proper consultation, it’s clear the Liberal government has not learned from previous mistakes. The lack of inclusive consultation before announcing the curriculum was disrespectful to parents in my constituency and a mistake” of the Liberal government.

1040

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The members will take their seats. Restart the clock.

Final supplementary?

Interjections.


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

Interjection.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Restart the clock.

Final supplementary.


Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think it’s clear to everyone who was paying attention during those days of the decision by the Liberals to announce the curriculum without a proper consultation—

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The government members will please come to order.

Leader of the Opposition.


Ms. Andrea Horwath: —in terms of their communications plan, because they were worried about a Sudbury by-election scandal. That was their irresponsibility, and I think everybody would agree.

But this Premier, in fact, is driven by insiders and backroom deals. Instead of moving Ontario forward, he is denying the realities of 2018 by failing to teach consent, cyberbullying, gender identity and sexual orientation. And he is doing it because Charles McVety and Tanya Granic Allen told him to.

Why is this Premier more concerned about keeping Charles and Tanya happy than he is about keeping millions of young people safe?


Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged that there wasn’t enough consultation. I’m glad that one of your own even agrees that there wasn’t proper consultation with the parents.

Again, I can assure you that we’re going to consult with the parents right across this province.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES


Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier.

It’s unfortunate that this Conservative government is making decisions based on their political best interests, just like the Liberal government did when it came to making sure that the curriculum was well communicated. That was the problem that happened, and that’s what we’re all paying the price for now.

Decision after decision with this Premier, however, is being made as a result of influence from insiders. We see it with sex ed, and we see it with hydro as well. The Premier said that getting rid of the CEO was going to have absolutely zero costs, but we know that Mayo Schmidt will walk away with at least $9 million, and ratepayers could be on the hook for another $103 million if the deal with Avista falls through.

When will the Premier release the full details and full costs of his backroom deal at Hydro One?


Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, you have to get new material. We’re going over and over and over every single day about this.

We’re going to make sure that we save the taxpayers of Ontario $790 million—$260 per family. We believe in putting money back into their pockets, lowering the hydro rates, lowering taxes, creating good-paying jobs. We’re going to have the economy booming in Ontario, and we’re going to lower the hydro rates.

Again, I just want to remind you—through you, Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, the CEO had zero severance.

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The members will take their seats. Restart the clock.

Supplementary question?


Ms. Andrea Horwath: I guess the Premier of Ontario has a problem with numbers, Speaker, because the six-million-dollar man turned into a nine-million-dollar man with this Premier’s backroom deal. Deals like this will make it even less affordable for the people of Ontario. In less than a month, he turned the six-million-dollar man—

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government side has to come to order. I can’t hear the Leader of the Opposition.

I apologize. Leader of the Opposition.


Ms. Andrea Horwath: —into the nine-million-dollar man. He could end up costing Hydro One ratepayers over $100 million, and we have no idea what other hidden costs are still buried in the Premier’s secret backroom deal. I will continue to ask those questions until this Premier actually answers them for the people of Ontario.

If he believes he got such a great deal with Hydro One, why won’t he just release it so that we can all judge?


Hon. Doug Ford: I find it very, very rich—not just rich, but very rich. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about numbers—

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Now I have to admonish the opposition, because I can’t hear the Premier. Please come to order.

I apologize to the Premier.


Hon. Doug Ford: The Leader of the Opposition made a small, little mistake on her budget to the tune of $5 billion.

Interjection: Just a glitch.

Hon. Doug Ford: Just a little, little glitch.

My friends, when it comes to adding up numbers—again, that’s a little rich on your behalf, Leader of the Opposition.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’re going to make sure that we scrap the Green Energy Act. We’re going to make sure that we lower hydro rates. We’re going to make sure that businesses are competitive, because when I traveled around this province, I talked to hundreds and hundreds of businesses that were saying if we don’t lower the hydro rates, they’re moving south of the border. If it was up to the Leader of the Opposition, she’d have the highest hydro rates in the world—not just in North America—and drive every single company out of Ontario.


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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the Premier needs to look in the mirror around who’s going to be driving business out of Ontario with the policies that he’s been bringing forward.

The job of the Premier is to work for all Ontarians, but scrapping sex ed only works for radical social conservatives. Scrapping cap-and-trade will only work for big polluters. And cooking up a secret backroom deal at Hydro One only works for the nine-million-dollar man, or else the Premier would be happy to release the details of that deal.

Why is the Premier being driven by insiders, lobbyists and backroom deals when he should be working for all Ontarians?


Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, cap-and-trade—since you brought that into the conversation—is the first step to lowering gas prices by 10 cents a litre. We need to make sure that businesses are competitive in the climate we’re facing today to compete against people around the world. We’ll do that by lowering their taxes, cutting as much as we can out of the 380,000 regulations businesses face every single day here in this province and lowering hydro rates, again, by 12%. We will be the envy of the world. We will be the engine of Canada once again.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS


Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. On Monday, the Business Council of Canada sent a letter urging the government to reconsider the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act. The letter says: “We believe this legislation, if enacted, will undermine investor confidence and set an unfortunate precedent for how the government intends to deal with the private sector.”

It goes on to say that this government’s actions risk jeopardizing Ontario’s reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law. WPD has already said they will be seeking $100 million from the province for breaking the White Pines contract.

Why is this government bent on burdening Ontario families with yet another multi-million dollar electricity boondoggle?


Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: What our government is bent on doing is reducing hydro rates by 12%. Over the past three weeks, we’ve taken extraordinary steps to ensure that the renewed leadership of Hydro One will make responsible business decisions moving forward. We’re confident that we’ve made good choices here and put the kind of legislation in place that will ensure that moving forward, Ontarians will experience a lower hydro rate.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: This Conservative government talks about making Ontario open for business, but has at every turn shaken the business community’s trust in dealing with the province. In just six weeks, this government has managed to cancel renewable energy contracts that will likely cost Ontarians hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties, and they pushed out the board and CEO of Hydro One, an act which a banker quoted in the Financial Post described as “an unprecedented intrusion into the private capital markets.”

1050

In our part of the world, big employers like Glencore are expressing serious concerns about the instability of the practices of this government.

Does this Conservative government not understand that making Ontario open for business means more than putting up a big neon sign at the border?


Hon. Greg Rickford: In my own discussions with people in Kenora–Rainy River and throughout the province, my colleagues have expressed nothing but extreme pleasure with the renewed leadership process that we’re undergoing with Hydro One. They are confident that they will make responsible business decisions.

The termination of those contracts represents the fact that these weren’t just projects that Ontario didn’t need; they were ones that their communities didn’t actually want, Mr. Speaker.

We will not make apologies for making good choices around lowering hydro rates and respecting taxpayers’ dollars.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES


Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: My question is for the minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Minister, I see from news reports that you attended the emergency federal immigration committee hearing on the impact of the crossers.

I understand that the bill created through federal inaction and lack of follow-through has now reached $200 million. Minister, can you please tell this House how this bill keeps adding up, and whether you have heard that the federal government will pay this bill?


Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much to the member. I want to congratulate him on his election to this House. I also think it’s important to note he is the first Muslim elected to our party, and we are very happy that he’s here.

Applause.


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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It may be bias as well, Speaker, but I think that, so far in question period, that was the best question. It was the best question because he wants to demonstrate how the members on this side of the House and in this government want to stand up for Ontarians.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the federal immigration hearings—the emergency hearings, given the high refugee crossings in the province of Quebec that are having an impact here in the province of Ontario.

The member asked me to outline the costs. We are now at over $200 million. I can itemize it this way: $90 million is going towards social assistance; $74 million and growing in shelter costs in Toronto; $12 million in shelter costs in Ottawa; $3 million that I signed off on today for the Red Cross; and $20 million in education.

I think we need to make sure—


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

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Back to the minister: Minister, thank you for that answer.

The bill seems to keep going up. I wonder if you would support a recorded vote in this House that calls on the federal government to follow through on its decisions and be a stand-up partner that pays its bills.


Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Again, I appreciate the sentiment from the member.

I certainly will be in support of all members of this Legislature standing up for Ontario and asking the federal government to commit to funding $200 million worth of bills that have been piling up as a result of a crisis that was created by their own doing. The federal government has sole jurisdiction over border management and Canada’s refugee and asylum programs, including who is eligible for a refugee claim. What we’re simply saying is that we want the federal government to support us. We want their $200 million, and I personally want every member of this Legislature to stand up for Ontarians.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES


Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this week, following an impromptu meeting at city hall on gun violence, the Premier said that the Conservative government will take funding from mental health and addiction supports and put it into policing services.

Let me be clear, Ontario’s New Democrats have been fighting for first responders to get the mental health and PTSD supports they need, and we support the investment.

Mental health is an urgent matter. There are thousands of young people who wait 18 long months for mental health services, and Ontarians deserve to know what this government’s mental health plan actually is.

Can the Premier explain how the money will be allocated to address Ontario’s mental health crisis?


Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question.

The issue of people waiting for long periods of time to receive mental health services and addiction services and treatments is a serious problem, one that we promised during the election campaign that we were going to address and we will address.

We are putting $1.9 billion into developing a comprehensive mental health and addiction program, which will be matched by the federal government. And, certainly, we want to look at victim services and we want to look at first responders, but we also want to make sure that people get the help that they need.

The senseless tragedy that happened on the Danforth is, sadly, an example of the need to have the programs and services available for people. That is what we promised to do and that’s what we will deliver on.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: The Conservative government has remained tight-lipped on exactly how mental health funding will be spent. Siphoning off the money needed to address wait-lists for mental health services isn’t the answer, and the Premier should not get away with breaking a $1.9-billion promise to fund mental health and addictions. We also learned this morning that the Premier has cut funding from $2.1 billion to $1.9 billion over 10 years.

Mental health money that is going towards policing should be in addition to the original $1.9-billion commitment to fund partnerships between police officers and mental health workers, like what’s been happening in Waterloo region.

My question: How will this government ensure that reallocating mental health funding does not exacerbate the mental health crisis here in Ontario?


Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is presently working on developing a comprehensive mental health and addiction system, which actually takes into account about 12 different ministries that have an impact: it’s Attorney General; it’s housing; it’s Comsoc; it’s health and many others.

We are not prepared at this time to specifically allocate money, but I can assure you that this is the biggest commitment that has ever been made in terms of mental health in this province: $3.8 billion is a lot of money. We want to make sure that we address all of the concerns throughout the entire system.

Interjections.


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

Next question.

SÉCURITÉ COMMUNAUTAIRE


Mme Natalia Kusendova: On est tous sous le choc de la fusillade du dernier dimanche avec un sentiment profond de peine et de tristesse pour les victimes et leur mort insensée. Cet horrible évènement me rappelle l’incident violent dans ma circonscription de Mississauga-Centre qui a eu lieu en plein milieu de ma campagne : l’attaque à la bombe du restaurant Bombay Bhel, qui se trouve juste à quelques pas de mon bureau. Cet acte criminel a eu comme conséquence plusieurs personnes blessées, mais heureusement il n’y a pas eu de morts.

Malheureusement, les statistiques parlent d’elles-mêmes. La violence est en train d’augmenter en Ontario et à Toronto. D’après les données de la police de Toronto, il y a eu 218 coups d’arme à feu en 2018 avec 29 morts, c’est-à-dire une augmentation de 71 % vis à vis l’année dernière.

Ma question s’adresse à Mme la procureure générale. Est-ce qu’elle peut nous exposer les grandes lignes du plan de son ministère pour combattre le crime violent dans la région du grand Toronto?


L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie l’honorable membre pour sa question. La priorité de notre gouvernement est toujours de veiller à ce que la population ontarienne se sente en sécurité chez elle. Notre gouvernement travaillera de concert avec le gouvernement fédéral, le maire et le chef de la police afin de mettre tout en oeuvre pour éviter une autre tragédie de ce genre.

Lors de la rencontre récente entre le premier ministre, le ministre Bill Blair, le maire Tory et le chef Saunders, la santé mentale et le besoin d’instaurer des soutiens ont été à l’ordre du jour. C’est pourquoi notre gouvernement va investir 1,9 milliard de dollars dans les soins de santé mentale, le traitement contre les dépendances et les soutiens au logement. Le gouvernement fédéral, aussi, va verser un montant équivalent.

Par ailleurs, nous voulons aussi collaborer avec le gouvernement fédéral pour assurer que nos systèmes de détermination de la peine et de mise en liberté sous caution parviennent à maintenir la sécurité communautaire.


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

Mme Natalia Kusendova: Merci, madame la Procureure générale. Cet été nous a offert un temps chaud. Beaucoup de gens sortent dehors pour profiter de ces beaux jours d’été, mais la sécurité est devenue de plus en plus une préoccupation. Les résidents de l’Ontario méritent des rues sans danger pour pouvoir profiter d’un été sans avoir peur.

1100

Nos hommes et femmes de première ligne—la police, les paramédicaux et les pompiers—ont fait un travail remarquable en réponse aux scènes d’urgence et de crime. Comment va travailler la procureure générale avec nos professionnels de première ligne pour assurer que nos rues deviennent les plus sécures possible?


L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Le premier ministre a demandé à mon ministère et au ministère de la Sécurité communautaire et des Services correctionnels de travailler avec les divers paliers de gouvernement et aussi les intervenants clés, dont la police, les municipalités et les organismes communautaires.

Au cours des prochaines semaines, nous allons consulter des experts pour nous assurer que les programmes et initiatives qui sont financés par la province dans le but de protéger la population contre la violence liée aux armes à feu et les activités des bandes criminalisées parviennent réellement à combattre ce problème.

Le ministère est en faveur d’une solution multipartite pour éradiquer la violence armée, notamment en durcissant la législation pénale fédérale et en améliorant les mesures de lutte contre la contrebande d’armes à feu, dans l’objectif d’empêcher la circulation d’armes à feu illégales aux frontières.

ADDICTION SERVICES


Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is to the Premier. Like every community in the province, Toronto is in the midst of an opioid overdose emergency. Today there are 18 supervised injection sites and overdose prevention sites in Ontario, half of which are right here in Toronto, and they are saving lives every day. But during the campaign, the Premier inexplicably said he was “dead against” them.

Yesterday, the health minister admitted that they have merit and she said the Premier would listen to experts.

Will the Premier himself stand up and confirm that he is no longer dead against supervised injection sites and overdose prevention sites, which are saving lives every day?


Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member: I’m sure you are aware of the subsequent statement that was made by Premier Ford wherein he said he was going to listen to the evidence on supervised injection sites. There is lots of information that we have to gather yet.

We are going to be speaking with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Children’s Mental Health Ontario and Addictions and Mental Health Ontario to understand from them what the actual statistics are, to make sure that continued supervised injection sites are going to be of merit to the people of Ontario. That’s what we promised the people of Ontario we would do: make sure that each and every program that we provide is of benefit to the public.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: The evidence is already overwhelmingly clear. This is a full-blown public health emergency. Last year in Toronto alone, over 300 people from across socio-economic classes died from an opioid overdose, a 121% increase in just two years.

But the fact is that all of these deaths are preventable, and thanks to the incredible dedication of front-line harm reduction workers, lives are being saved every day at supervised injection and overdose prevention sites in this city and across Ontario. That’s the evidence.

Will the Premier commit today to fully supporting overdose prevention sites and supervised injection sites, which are saving lives across Ontario?


Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is committed to fighting the ongoing opioid crisis and getting people with addictions the help that they absolutely need. We are listening to the people. We are listening to the experts on the evidence available with respect to supervised injection sites.

We want to make sure that when we develop—as we are working on right now—our comprehensive mental health and addictions system, we will get people with addictions the help they need, with supervised injection sites perhaps or with other supports that they need. But we need to listen to the experts and hear what they have to say.

DISCRIMINATION


Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is to the Premier.

Premier, what does systemic racism mean to you, and do you believe it exists in Ontario?


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

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I want to assure the House that the Anti-Racism Directorate is continuing to fulfill its mandate of a whole-of-government approach. The approach will address systemic racism by implementing a strategic plan. This includes the implementation of anti-racism data standards. The collection and analysis of reliable and usable data will help the government identify any systemic barriers across sectors and help make evidence-based decisions to shape policies, programs and services, ultimately improving how the people of Ontario are served.

Interjections.


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

Supplementary.


Mr. Michael Coteau: My question is back to the Premier. Will they collect this aggregated race-based data in the justice system?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: As I stated, the collection of the data will be on the whole-of-government approach. So the Anti-Racism Directorate will continue its important work, and it will be on an integrated approach across government to identify initiatives that will remove systemic racism.

COMMUNITY SAFETY


Ms. Donna Skelly: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I would first like to congratulate the minister for being tasked with this very crucial responsibility.

With the recent indiscriminate acts of violence that have taken place on the streets of Toronto, including those that occurred most recently on the Danforth, I am proud to see that our government for the people is committed to providing police with the necessary tools and resources to keep our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, with these recent acts of gun violence, is there a message that this government would like to send to those who may feel like Ontario streets are simply not safe?


Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to congratulate the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook on her work and her achievement here.

I’d like to begin by repeating that our government will not tolerate gun violence in our streets. Our government for the people will continue to ensure public safety across this province, Mr. Speaker. This government is committed to providing our police services with the necessary tools and resources to perform their jobs safely and effectively in Ontario.

I’d like to add, Mr. Speaker, that last night my family and I visited the Danforth community. Based on my visit and speaking with local business owners and members of the community, as well as the police services that were present, I want to assure all Ontarians that the province’s streets are safe.

My family and I enjoyed a wonderful evening on the Danforth. I wanted to show—


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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: Minister, the previous Liberal government failed to act to ensure that our first responders were given the necessary tools and resources to help protect Ontario communities. Our first responders are assets to our communities, and they deserve to perform those duties safely and effectively, day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, our government has remained committed to ensuring public safety across this wonderful province. With the recent tragedy that occurred on the Danforth, some Ontarians are really concerned about gun violence on our streets.

Will the minister please explain to the members of this Legislature what he will do about those who commit gun violence in our great province?


Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you, once again, for the question. What I want to do is once again assure all Ontarians that our streets are safe and that this government is committing to supporting community safety throughout the province.

1110

With my recent visit to the Danforth, I was proud to walk through such an extraordinary and vibrant neighbourhood and talk with local business owners and members of the local community. Mr. Speaker, I urge all those in the Toronto area to visit the small businesses on the Danforth, as well as the upcoming Taste of the Danforth, which is scheduled to begin August 10, 2018.

The Danforth is an extraordinary and vibrant community and should continue to be enjoyed by all Ontarians.

Rest assured that our government is committed to supporting public safety and providing our first responders with the tools and resources they require to perform their jobs safely and effectively. Once again, thank you to the men and women who provide our cities with safe streets.

CURRICULUM


Mr. Jamie West: My question is for the Premier. I’d like to start my question by reading an email that I received from Andrea, who is a parent from my riding of Sudbury:

“I’m writing to you as a concerned parent of a transgender child.

“My 14-year-old child has faced harassment and bullying at school that was so extreme that he became suicidal and we had to home-school him.

“The recent announcement that the Ontario government is reverting to the 20-year-old sex education curriculum is incredibly troubling to me.

“School was already an unsafe space for my child and I worry it will become even less safe for him and other LGBTQ2+ kids if the curriculum does not reflect their realities.

“The old curriculum completely invalidates their experiences and even their existence.”

My question, Mr. Speaker, is, will the Premier confirm for us here and for this family at home that the curriculum being taught this year, and every year going forward, will include LGBTQ2+ families, gender identity, bullying, cyber safety and consent?


Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question.

As we have indicated all along, what we want to do is listen to parents, such as the parents that you’re speaking about, to make sure we hear from everyone so that we have a proper end-to-end consultation that is completely inclusive and that hears from everyone. We had only a very small sample of parents who participated in the last so-called consultation. We want it to be a thorough consultation that takes into account the views of everyone in Ontario.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Jamie West: Back to the Premier: The parent, Andrea, wanted these words passed on to everyone here, but she actually had to ask me to only use her first name for fear that using her full name would lead to further bullying for her child.

This government is dragging the curriculum back to 1998 and providing no appropriate substitute. What this government fails to understand is that an inclusive education is crucial to preparing kids for their lives in and out of the classroom. It is crucial to affirming the lived experiences of all children and to set them up with the confidence and security they deserve.

So I ask, why does this government refuse to confirm their support for including these life-affirming and life-saving lessons, even in the light of the demonstrated threat to students’ well-being?


Hon. Christine Elliott: I would say to the member, through the Speaker, that we are committed to listening to all people in Ontario.

With respect to the issue of bullying, that is not acceptable at all. We are working to fight that on all levels. That has no place in our society, either within here, within schools or outside in society.

I’m very sad to hear that this lady was not willing to provide her last name. We want people to be able to speak up without fear. We want to hear from everyone, regardless of their experience. We want them to tell us what’s happening so that we can deal with it in developing the comprehensive sex ed and health education curriculum that we need in Ontario. That’s why we’re starting this fall. We’ve already started our work. The Minister of Education has already started work. We want to hear from everyone, all parents, without fear.

TAXATION


Mr. Paul Calandra: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Earlier this week, Minister, the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, issued a very blunt warning to Canada that it needed to address the issues that the United States has brought forward, and particularly stressed tax reform. They suggested that if Canada didn’t do something about addressing the American changes, that we risk being left behind.

I wonder, Minister, if you could share with the House what the government is doing to assess our tax system and to make Ontario truly open for business so that we can address these competitive disadvantages head-on?


Hon. Jim Wilson: I thank the honourable member for the question.

I think the warning from the OECD needs to be heeded by the federal government as well. Their taxes are very high vis-à-vis our competitors in United States and our competitors around the world.

But Ontario, as Premier Ford said during the campaign, is open for business, and we’re determined to become the economic engine of Canada once again. We’re going to do that by lowering hydro rates by some 12% and by cutting red tape. There are some 360,000 regulations that get in the way of our job creators creating jobs in this province. We’re not going to cut the red tape down the middle like previous governments have done; we’re going to cut it right across so that we actually get rid of the stuff that’s getting in the way of job creation. We’re also—

Interjections.


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

Hon. Jim Wilson: A tax that would have killed thousands and thousands of jobs—that tax is gone. I hope the federal government won’t impose a new one on us.

Interjections.


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

Supplementary?


Mr. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I know a minute hardly gives us enough time to really address what 15 years of Liberal mismanagement has done to this economy.

We’ve seen this show again and again: When a Conservative government in Ontario lowers taxes, its federal counterpart tends to increase taxes, thereby taking away those advantages.

I wonder if the minister—since you’re doing such a great job in such a short period of time of addressing the economic disadvantages that have been left behind by previous Liberal administrations, is there more that we can expect over the next four years to get this economy moving so that we can really be a government for the people and make the changes that will bring prosperity and hope to future generations as well?


Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you for the question. We’re both off-script—that’s all I can tell you. I forgot it was a friendly question.

Just to continue, we promised during the campaign that we would lower corporate taxes by a full 1%—that hasn’t been done in years in this province—from 11.5% to 10.5%.

Another thing we don’t talk about as much, and people maybe don’t understand, is by putting more money in your pocket, by lowering gasoline by 10 cents a litre, by getting hydro rates under control, by lowering taxes for lower- and middle-class families—that puts money into your pocket so that you can go out and buy goods and services, services and goods that are made in Ontario, and that’s how we create jobs. That’s how Conservatives create jobs. We don’t pick winners and losers like the Liberals did and waste billions of taxpayers’ dollars. We get it right. We level the playing field so that all of our businesses can be competitive, and we create the economic climate for those men and women that put their money forward and their hard work to create—

Interjections.


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

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Restart the clock.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING


Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: My question is for the Premier. The city of St. Catharines is facing an urgent crisis in affordable housing. Shelters are bursting at the seams and people are being forced out on the streets because of skyrocketing rents, ridiculous wait-lists and low vacancies. The average wait time for a one-bedroom for a single person between the age of 16 and 54 in St. Catharines is an astonishing 13 years. This is unacceptable. A safe, affordable home is a human right.

Will this government commit to fund the affordable housing units that St. Catharines desperately needs?


Hon. Doug Ford: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much for the question. As you’ve heard from our Premier Ford throughout the election, this campaign was for the people. You’re going to see genuine relief for families. You’re going to see prosperity return to the province of Ontario. You’re going to see a province that, as the minister said earlier, is open for business.

We are going to scrap cap-and-trade and put $260 back in the pockets of every family. We are going to lower gasoline by 10 cents a litre. The 20% tax cut for middle-class families is under way. We’ve got hydro rates that are being reduced 12%.

1120

Speaker, we’ve got a great plan that’s for the people that will bring real relief and true relief for families in Ontario.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: This government campaigned on a promise to develop affordable housing in the GTA. Let me be clear: The affordable housing crisis is not limited to Toronto and surrounding areas. People across this great, abundant province are living in fear, not knowing where they’re going to sleep tonight or tomorrow night. I will repeat myself: This is unacceptable.

When will the people of Ontario, across the GTA and beyond, see action from this government on building affordable housing?


Hon. Victor Fedeli: As I said earlier, this plan from Premier Ford and from our party is a plan that’s for the people. We will bring genuine relief for the people of Ontario.

We have support for municipalities that is under way. We’re scrapping the cap-and-trade tax. That is probably the single most important issue that’s facing the pocketbooks of people today. Not only will it put $260 back in the pockets of families, but it’s going to create jobs and give people an opportunity to find true employment in the province of Ontario, which many of them had lost out on because of the cap-and-trade program that was put in place.

So when you see that, in addition to a lower price at the pumps, along with lower tax rates and reduction of middle-class taxes, you are going to see absolute, true relief. For the first time in 15 years, families will feel it in their pocketbooks. They’ll have real, genuine relief.

FILM INDUSTRY


Ms. Kinga Surma: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Each September the world comes to Toronto for a celebration of the best in Canadian and international cinema. They come to the Toronto International Film Festival, also known as TIFF.

As you know, the lineup of films and programming was released by the festival yesterday. This was something that I was personally very excited about when I worked for the city of Toronto.

TIFF is one of the most important events that take place each year here in the city of Toronto, both economically and culturally. Can the minister provide us with any information on the government’s commitment to TIFF and their plans for the 2018 festival?


Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke Centre. I know that you understand the value of it because, frankly, Etobicoke is a bit of a hub for our film industry here in Ontario.

TIFF is one of the most prestigious and respected film festivals in the world. Since 1976, TIFF has featured the best in international and Canadian films, many of which are being screened for the first time. This year’s lineup includes 21 world premieres, seven international premieres, eight North American premieres and 11 Canadian premieres.

Our government is proud to support TIFF and other film festivals across the province. This festival has been an important venue for Canadian filmmakers and an important driver for tourism in Ontario and in Toronto.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Kinga Surma: Back to the minister: I am glad to hear that this government is taking the necessary steps to ensure we are bringing good jobs and more investment, both foreign and domestic, to the people of this province. A strong film industry is not just good for business and the people it employs; it is good for communities across Ontario.

I agree that the Toronto International Film Festival contributes to building that strong industry. Can the minister outline how TIFF continues to be a major tourism driver for the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario?


Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the question.

It’s absolutely a tourism driver; also an economic driver. Ontario is one of the largest film and television production centres in North America. TIFF highlights Toronto’s reputation as a vital international creative centre.

Last year, TIFF had over 3,000 volunteers donate almost 100,000 hours to TIFF, earning it the nickname “the friendly festival.” Last year, film and television production supported by our province and government contributed $1.6 billion to the provincial economy, the seventh year in a row over the $1-billion mark.

TIFF is another example to show that Ontario excels at hosting internationally renowned events, attracts tourism across our province and shows the global film industry that Ontario is open for business.

LONG-TERM CARE


Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Premier. This government claims to be for the people. Well, a major issue in Scarborough Southwest is the lack of long-term-care beds and the quality of care available to the people in Scarborough Southwest. One constituent’s mother fell four weeks ago. She has dementia and has been in the hospital and then moved to a day program ever since. She needs long-term care. She now has to leave the temporary day program without hope of a long-term bed.

Long-term care is at a crisis point, and now it’s this government’s crisis. This Premier promised that there will be thousands of long-term-care beds, while not increasing spending and without cutting a single front-line job. So can he tell us when this family in Scarborough Southwest can expect relief, and how?


Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. We are certainly aware that there is a crisis in long-term care across this province, in your riding and in many others across the province, due to 15 years of inaction by the previous government. That’s why one of our central campaign promises was to build 15,000 more beds in five years and 30,000 over the next 10 years. We know there’s a huge capacity problem. That is one of our important commitments to the people of Ontario, and one that we plan to continue with and make sure that we do.

Interjection: We did it before; we’ll do it again.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We did it in a previous government. We’ll do it again this time. Promise made, promise kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Doly Begum: I want to thank the minister for her response, but the problem persists. This government seems to continue campaigning while we need real action.

New Democrats have been calling for a public inquiry into the tragic long-term-care deaths in the Wettlaufer case to be extended to look into all the systemic issues with long-term care in the province.

As an MPP, I see these issues all the time. Another constituent’s mother is currently in a nursing home in Scarborough. They describe a home full of vulnerable people without relief from the heat, as there is no air conditioning. The home is privately run by a giant US private health provider called Extendicare.

Is this the model that the Premier is proposing for long-term care in this province: more of the same? And would the Premier tell the people of Scarborough and of this province when these 15,000 care beds will be provided?


Hon. Christine Elliott: We are working on the plan for capacity as we speak. I have been speaking with the members of the Ministry of Health about this issue. We are working on it now, because we realize that to provide 15,000 beds in five years is a big commitment, and one that has to be undertaken immediately. So we are certainly doing that.

With respect to your question about the inquiry that’s going on: It is proceeding, as you know. We look forward to hearing the results of that and making whatever changes that need to be made as a result. We can’t comment any further on it because it is not appropriate in this location, but we are following it and we will make changes if they’re necessary, based on the recommendations that are coming forward. We take this issue very seriously and will take action when we need to.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES


Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the government House leader and Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Our government brought the House back just 12 days after the swearing-in of cabinet because there were areas of public interest that required urgent action. The people sent us here to get down to work, and we’ve done just that.

Can the minister give the House an update on the progress we’ve made on our urgent priorities?


Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for Brampton South. Can I say that the people of Brampton South made the right decision when they sent that member to the Legislature?

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take your seats.

1130


Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, our government was clear: The people of Ontario couldn’t afford to wait, and that’s why our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, acted immediately to get down to business and brought in our Urgent Priorities Act. We have hit the ground running.

The people of Ontario spoke. They wanted us to clean up the hydro mess. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House. We needed to get the kids back in class at York University. That’s what we’re going to do.

The Liberal energy policy has been a mess. In just a few minutes, we’ll be able to vote against that and vote for this bill. I encourage the member to do that.

Interjections.


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

Supplementary.


Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Back to the minister: I thank the minister for the update—

Interruption.


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

Interruption.


Hon. Doug Ford: Okay, your one minute is up. You’re done. Thank you.

Interjections.


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

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Another NDP staffer.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Another radical.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, workers are radicals?

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

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order. We’re on a supplementary question.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Back to the minister: I thank the minister for the update. During debate, we’ve seen members of the opposition defend the policies of the previous Liberal government on hydro, and that’s after spending 28 days telling Ontarians how awful they are.

Speaker, can the minister update the House on why Bill 2 is so necessary?


Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from Brampton South for a great question. It’s shameful that the opposition would defend the mess that the previous Liberal government made of hydro. The people of Ontario deserve better, and that’s what this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is going to do.

That’s why we recalled the House early: so we could get down to business and tackle some of these issues, including putting nine white elephants on the south shore of Prince Edward county. That’s exactly what the WPD project would be, and that’s exactly what the members of the official opposition used to rail about in this House day after day. They’re going to have the opportunity to do something about it in just a couple of minutes’ time. They can vote to support the Urgent Priorities Act in this Legislature. I encourage them to do that, look after the Liberal hydro mess, get the kids back in class and get Ontario back on track.

GO TRANSIT


Mr. Jeff Burch: My question is to the Premier. The NDP had been calling on the previous government for years to commit to a firm timeline for the expansion of GO train service to Niagara. Niagara was finally promised year-round service by 2021, but during the campaign, the Premier put the entire expansion into question, saying that he would have to review it. That would be taking transit in Niagara from bad to worse. So I ask, will this government commit here and now to the 2021 timeline for GO train expansion into Niagara?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member from Niagara for the question.

The Premier has made it clear: We’re going to expand GO rail throughout this province, including all-day, two-way service to Bowmanville, Kitchener and Niagara. It’s clear, and we’ve made it clear, that Premier Ford will be known as the transit Premier.

We recognize the challenge of moving people in this province is one that hamstrings our economy. So we’re going to make sure that we move people more efficiently and we move goods more efficiently. One of the keys to an expanding, growing and flourishing economy is our ability to move people along on their daily commute.

So to the member: You can relax. We are committed to expanding the GO to Niagara. You can count on it.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Expanding GO train service would have a positive impact on the Niagara economy. The expansion will inject $195 million into the Niagara region. And the minister didn’t answer the question. We asked when.

The expansion will create 2,400 new permanent, full-time jobs as well as another 1,200 full-time jobs during construction. It will connect all the people of Niagara with employment opportunities around the GTA, and it will connect the residents of the GTA to the region’s wineries, gaming and horse racing facilities and, of course, our iconic Niagara Falls.

So I ask again: Will this government commit today to the 2021 timeline for expanding GO train service to Niagara?


Hon. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the member’s commitment to this project, but it is no greater than our commitment here in the PC government under Premier Ford. We were elected on a plan to change what was going wrong in Ontario. Some of our first acts: to get rid of the carbon tax, to get rid of cap-and-trade, to fix the mess at hydro, to get the children and the students back to school at York University. So one of the things that we’re doing right with our first bill here, Bill 2, is to get that done.

But our commitment to expanding transit is, as I said yesterday, as ironclad as the rails that the GO will run on. We have absolutely made that clear. We’re working with our partners at GO and Metrolinx and reviewing all of the plans and all of the schedules so that we have a comprehensive and wholesome approach to developing transit here in the GTA and beyond, including—


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

GOVERNMENT POLICIES


Mr. Stephen Lecce: Under the leadership of this Premier, we are undertaking a bold plan to grow our economy, to create good-paying jobs and—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member, who is the question referred to?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s for the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, if I may begin again: Under the leadership of this Premier, we are undertaking a bold plan to grow our economy and create good-paying jobs. This is a plan to create hope, opportunity and prosperity for every single Ontarian in every single region of this province.

This plan, our plan, will grow our economy and put our province back on track. This is in sharp contrast to a record under the former New Democratic government under Bob Rae. And yes, Mr. Speaker, they can relish in the record of 125,000 people out of work—a 28% unemployment rate—the highest marginal personal tax rate in this continent—


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

Minister of Finance.


Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much for the question.

This government was elected for the people, and we will restore trust in the people of Ontario.

Under the previous Liberal administration, businesses had left the province of Ontario. Two years ago there were 2,700 businesses that left. They were struggling, and many more were seriously thinking about closing or relocating.

A Doug Ford government is committed to making our business taxes competitive and reducing overall costs for our innovators here in Ontario. Our plan includes reducing business taxes from 11.5% to 10.5%, lowering manufacturing and processing rates by the same amount, cutting the small business tax rate by 8.75% and lowering hydro rates by 12%.

Speaker, we are going to be open for business. Promises made, promises kept.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Back to the Minister of Finance: I want to thank him for his leadership and for his commitment to restoring the spirit of entrepreneurship in this province. We know that our plan will foster growth. It will improve our competitiveness. It will create value-added jobs for our young people.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance outline why this government can never go back and why we must move this province forward?


Hon. Victor Fedeli: Again, it’s all about restoring trust. So the fact that this—we have a bonus round question here.

I do want to talk about northern Ontario and the employment performance, Speaker. We know that for 15 years, my beloved northern Ontario has been ignored by the previous Liberal government. Since June 2009, northern Ontario has experienced a net loss of 2,000 jobs.

This government respects the north and will do everything necessary to make life affordable and create good jobs in the north and across Ontario. That means reducing taxes, reducing hydro rates and reducing red tape that is stifling job creation. We’ve made very firm commitments in the north, including sharing resource development to help northern and Indigenous communities. We’re going to cut the aviation fuel tax, bring back the passenger rail service in the north and—


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

DEFERRED VOTES

URGENT PRIORITIES ACT, 2018 / LOI DE 2018 PORTANT SUR LES PRIORITÉS URGENTES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903 / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant Hydro One Limited, l’annulation du projet de parc éolien White Pines et les conflits de travail entre l’Université York et la section locale 3903 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1142 to 1147.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the members to take their seats.

Interjections.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I hate to interrupt, but we’re in a vote. I would ask the members to please take their seats.

On July 19, Mr. Rickford moved second reading of Bill 2.

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

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Ford, Doug

Fullerton, Merrilee

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

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

Mitas, Christina

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff


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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Coteau, Michael

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Hunter, Mitzie

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Miller, Paul

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yarde, Kevin


The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 69; the nays are 44.

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

Second reading agreed to.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated July 24, 2018, the bill is now ordered for third reading.

This House stands in recess until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS


Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to recognize some people from my riding. I have here with me my president and campaign chair, Keith Fleming. I have Leonard Lyn, who was the co-chair and my legal counsel on my campaign; and Kosta Zoes, who was my co-campaign manager. I have Manish Sawhney, who was my campaign manager and my EA; Jasveen Rattan, my communications director; Marian Mimiza, my constituent assistant; and Saroj Gandhi, my office manager. They’re all here in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I’m very happy to introduce my campaign manager, Graham McGregor, now working as my legislative assistant; and another good friend, Dharmendra Singh, also a very key player in my campaign team.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to introduce Kathy Beattie who is the manager of my constituency office. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Kathy.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I would like to introduce Colby Farrell, who was a volunteer on my campaign and is working in my constituency office.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE


Ms. Catherine Fife: When the Ford government scrapped the cap-and-trade system, it scrapped a host of other programs that were vitally important to all of our communities. That’s how funding for the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program was gone, just like that.

Modern cycling infrastructure allows people to make healthier choices, and it saves lives by keeping cyclists safe. Just this year, six people have died in Ontario, all while riding their bikes.

Only yesterday, a six-year-old girl and her father had too close of a call while riding their bikes together in uptown Waterloo, my riding. The young girl had to go around what looked like a parked truck in the bike lane, when it suddenly pulled forward onto the road, scaring her. Afterwards, she said, “Dad, it wasn’t my fault. The guy came in.”

This is a six-year-old girl who was put at risk because our cities still are not being built for people, but for cars. In uptown Waterloo, there is no barrier between the road and the bike lane. In fact, the bike lane looks quite similar to parking spaces in downtown Kitchener.

Without building better infrastructure and a change of attitude about who deserves to use our streets, this will continue to happen. Cities need funding for this infrastructure. The provincial government should be a leader in protecting its citizens, but in the case of protecting cyclists, they’ve shown no leadership.

It’s time for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach to building our cities. Our children deserve it.

GEORGE AND AUDREY REED


Mr. Dave Smith: I’m rising to celebrate the 70th anniversary of George and Audrey Reed, two people who live in my riding.

Originally from Wales, they were married in Swansea. After World War II, they relocated to Ennismore, where George built the house that they currently live in. George is 91, and Audrey will be 90 later on this year.

George is someone that we owe a great debt of gratitude to. He served in the merchant navy during World War II, on the SS Stanwell. The Stanwell sank a ship at the entrance of the harbour that held the German U-boats, temporarily blocking those U-boats from entering battle.

George also ferried landing craft of British, Canadian and American soldiers to the beaches of Normandy during the D-Day invasion. He was involved in COMNO, the combined operation merchant navy order, essentially a special services force that was involved in the preparations for D-Day.

We have someone as part of my riding that is truly a Canadian hero, and I’m very proud to say that he is someone I’ve met and is one of my friends.

RIDING OF KIIWETINOONG


Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Hi, Speaker. Sol Mamakwa, member for Kiiwetinoong.

Over the last few sessions, I’ve heard a lot of “government for the people.” I’m from northern Ontario. I have 27 fly-in communities, mostly First Nations. When I speak about Kiiwetinoong, these are the people of the north.

Sometimes the system that’s there makes us—we get forgotten within the system of Ontario. We talk about housing—the infrastructure, the lack of housing, the overcrowding, where sometimes four families are living in a two-bedroom. When we talk about access to clean water, I have one community in my riding that has had 23 years of boil-water advisories.

When we talk about equity, when we talk about equality, when we talk about government for the people, is it for my people as well? When we talk about access to proper police services, are we part of Ontario? Are we part of this great province of Ontario, when we talk about our First Nations people?

YOUTH SERVICES


Mr. Deepak Anand: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to talk about something very dear to my heart and a promise I made repeatedly, even before I was nominated as a candidate.

In my riding of Mississauga–Malton, the youth unemployment rate is approximately 25%, and 28% of youth in Malton feel excluded and are not involved in any extracurricular activities. Both these figures are higher than the city average.

When I started my campaign, I promised to work on these issues. My office has already started the process. We have already reached out to the local councillors, started working with them, and hired a youth coordinator whose role will be dedicated to solving such youth challenges within the communities I represent.

I’m so proud to be part of the government where, in just over a week, we’ve done so much that we’ve echoed multiple times, “Promise made, promise kept.” I’m so proud to say that not only are we delivering results in this House; by hiring the youth coordinator, we have proven, even at the riding level, that we are delivering those results. Our Mississauga–Malton Youth Council is another notable example of promise made, promise kept.

In a couple of years, I pledge to stand before you again with the data confirming the success of our efforts and commitment to the youth of Mississauga–Malton.

ÉCOLE NOTRE-DAME-DU-SAULT ROBOTICS TEAMS / ÉQUIPES DE ROBOTIQUE DE L’ÉCOLE NOTRE-DAME-DU-SAULT


Mr. Michael Mantha: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I want to let you know that robotics is alive and well in Algoma–Manitoulin.

Les étudiants de l’École Notre-Dame-du-Sault du Conseil scolaire catholique du Nouvel-Ontario ont compétitionné à Louisville, Kentucky, à la compétition VEX IQ Challenge World Championship. Les 400 meilleurs étudiants d’école élémentaire de 42 pays à travers le monde ont compétitionné pour le championnat.

Pour se rendre au championnat, ils ont compétitionné au niveau provincial. L’équipe Les Petits Loups, Ashton Sommers, Myles Madill et Katie Mason, a pris la huitième place dans la division junior, les grades 3 à 5, et Les Grands Loups, l’équipe de Luke Dallaire, Frederick Aguirre-Levesque et Liam Spacek, a pris la quatrième place dans la division intermédiaire, des grades 6 à 8. Félicitations.

1510

Also, teachers are the ones that lead our students, and never are they recognized more than in this way. The teacher is Chris Mara, from Wasse Abin Wikwemikong High School—a high school teacher who was recognized just recently by the Prime Minister’s Award for Teaching Excellence, for putting First Nations students on the map in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These students, in only their fourth year, were recognized for their robotics skills and team accomplishment in qualifying for the quarter finals and winning the Highest Rookie Seed Award and the Rookie Inspiration Award at the FIRST Robotics Competition. These students participate in design, manufacturing and coding.

Again, I want to go back to the teacher, Mr. Chris Mara. A teacher is never compensated, never recognized in their lifetime in regard to the work, the effort and the heart that they put into their school and their efforts with their students. It’s only after, if they’re so fortunate to meet up with one of their students in a coffee shop or a student who will walk up to them and say: “You know what? You made a difference in my life. You influenced me. It’s because of you I’m in science and mathematics; I’m a doctor; I’m a lawyer today.”

Teachers are priceless in our society, and we should be recognizing them more and giving them the tools to inspire our children.

BOLLYWOOD MONSTER MASHUP


Mrs. Nina Tangri: This past Friday, July 20, and Saturday, July 21, Mississauga was home to the eighth annual Bollywood Monster Mashup, one of the largest South Asian events in Canada. The event brought over 80,000 guests to our Mississauga downtown core at Celebration Square.

The two days of festivities celebrate South Asian arts and culture, food and entertainment. The benefits to our community extend far beyond two days. The festival directly creates many long-term, full-time positions, 30 full-time seasonal positions for youth, hires over 200 artists and performers, and provides community service opportunities for over 300 volunteers every year. It also generates millions of dollars in visitor spending and supports dozens of local Mississauga businesses.

I was pleased to attend the Bollywood Monster Mashup with my colleagues from Mississauga–Lakeshore and Mississauga–Erin Mills and provide greetings from our Premier, Doug Ford, who we hope will attend next year with all of our MPPs.

Events like this don’t come together without countless hours of hard work. Today, I am pleased to welcome the organizers Vikas Kohli, Seema Sesha, the infamous Randy Persaud and Uppekha Jain to the member’s gallery. The hard work and determination of you and your team have paid off. Your contributions to our community have made Mississauga and Ontario a whole, and a better place to live, work and play.

LARRY KELL


Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Anne and Larry Kell, who are with us here today from my riding, always put their community first. There’s no better example than what happened on the afternoon of July 20, when a fire broke out on the farm off Shore Acres Drive in Innisfil.

That afternoon, as a grass fire was being pushed across four acres of field, Larry Kell took action into his own hands. Help was on its way. He requested his farm staff deliver him the largest tractor of the fleet of equipment, with the largest discs they owned. Then, he climbed into this massive, six-year-old, 350-horsepower tractor.

Do you know what Larry did, Mr. Speaker? Larry headed straight for the fire, right into the blaze of the action. Within seconds, he was able to tame this fire, which had the ability to damage a lot of the parts of the community. He would not stop for 90 minutes to destroy this fierce fire. At the same time, because of his actions, the first responders were able to concentrate on the treeline.

This is a great example of our first responders working with our community hand in hand. I want everyone in this House to honour the brave acts of Larry Kell and his heroic actions. Thank you, Larry, for saving our community.

HOSPITAL FUNDING


Mme France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to share with the House an issue happening in all of our small and rural hospitals.

The small and rural hospitals are the ones that serve most of the people in my riding, in rural areas and in northern areas. They were promised a 2% increase in their budget. Unfortunately, they continue to receive the same amount as what they were receiving in the previous year, although they have signed accountability agreements that clearly showed that they have submitted a budget that shows a 2% increase. But they are not getting this.

Another problem that you will remember, Speaker, is that there is $20 million going into small and rural hospitals for the innovation funds. Those funds also come with contracts that the hospital work on those projects. Unfortunately, this money is also not flowing.

I have had the pleasure to ask the Minister of Health for help on this issue. I am hoping that help will come soon, because we have close to 50 little hospitals right now that are wondering if the agreements that they have signed with the government will be honoured or if they will all be looking at deficit budgets.

EVENTS IN RICHMOND HILL


Mrs. Daisy Wai: This past weekend, I had the pleasure of attending a number of local cultural events across Richmond Hill. I attended the Muslim Eid fair, celebrated by the Muslim community, and the summer festival at Times Square, with Chinese cultural dances and food.

The highlight came, though, when I attended the celebration of the Peace Run on Sunday in the park of the Vishnu temple. The Peace Run is a global torch relay that promotes universal peace. Since its inception in 1987, the run has covered over 150 countries. The torch has been carried over 632,000 kilometres. The Peace Run does not seek to raise money or highlight any political cause, but simply strives to create goodwill among peoples of all nations.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the violence in Toronto, I am uplifted to see such harmony and strength among our various cultural and religious groups. It is important that our communities remain strong and connected, regardless of our differences. Coming together as a community does just that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CAP AND TRADE CANCELLATION ACT, 2018 / LOI DE 2018 ANNULANT LE PROGRAMME DE PLAFONNEMENT ET D’ÉCHANGE

Mr. Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 4, An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 / Projet de loi 4, Loi concernant l’élaboration d’un plan sur le changement climatique, prévoyant la liquidation du programme de plafonnement et d’échange et abrogeant la Loi de 2016 sur l’atténuation du changement climatique et une économie sobre en carbone.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): 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 will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.


Mr. Gilles Bisson: On division.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On division.

First reading agreed to.


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for a brief statement explaining the bill.

1520


Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour to rise before my colleagues as Ontario’s Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to present my first piece of legislation and, in doing so, to fulfill a promise to the people of Ontario.

Our government was elected on a clear mandate to put people first and make life more affordable for Ontario families. Equally clear was our commitment to scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax that was imposed by the previous government—


The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): If you could just explain the purpose of the bill without the background, please.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If passed, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act will repeal the cap-and-trade legislation, extinguish allowances, protect taxpayers from future costs and set out regulation-making authority for a compensation framework.

Mr. Speaker, the orderly and transparent wind-down is a benefit to all Ontarians, and I would urge members of the Legislature to please support this bill.

PETITIONS

CURRICULUM


Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m very pleased to be tabling this petition on behalf of Jimohal Francis, one of my constituents, a young man who feels passionately about this issue.

“Protecting Children: Forward, Not Backward, on Sex Ed.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the health and physical education curriculum empowers young people to make informed decisions about relationships and their bodies;

“Whereas gender-based violence, gender inequality, unintended pregnancies, ‘sexting,’ and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) pose serious risks to the safety and well-being of young people;

“Whereas one in three women and one in six men experience sexual violence in Canada, and a lack of age-appropriate education about sexual health and healthy relationships leaves children and youth vulnerable to exploitation;

“Whereas one in five parents reported their own child being a victim of cyberbullying; and

“Whereas Doug Ford and the Conservative government is dragging Ontario backward, requiring students to learn an outdated sex ed curriculum that excludes information about consent, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexting, cyberbullying and safe and healthy relationships;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Education to continue the use of the 2015 health and physical education curriculum in schools and move Ontario forward, not backward.”

I have a hundred pages of this petition with nine signatures on each page, meaning about 900 people have signed this. I’m pleased to add my own name.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS


Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I would like to table a petition titled, “Don’t Take Away Our $15 Minimum Wage and Fairer Labour Laws.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

“Make it easier to join unions, especially for workers in the temporary help, home care, community services and building services sectors;

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

“Provide strong enforcement through the hiring of an additional 175 employment standards officers;

“Will ensure workers have modest improvements in the scheduling of their hours, including:

“—three hours’ pay when workers are expected to be on call all day, but are not called into work;

“—three hours’ pay for any employee whose shift is cancelled with less than two days’ notice; and

“—the right to refuse shifts without penalty if the shift is scheduled with fewer than four days’ notice;

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

I fully endorse this petition and will be adding my name to it.

ENERGY POLICIES


Mme France Gélinas: I would like to thank Anne-Marie Higgs, from Hanmer, for this petition. It reads as follows:

“Whereas hydro bills in Ontario have become unaffordable for too many people, and that reducing hydro bills by up to 30% for families and businesses is an ambitious but realistic target; and

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

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

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

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: to reduce “hydro bills for businesses and families by up to 30%, eliminating mandatory time-of-use, ending unfair rural delivery costs, and restoring public ownership of Hydro One.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Jamie to bring it to the Clerk.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS


Mr. Kevin Yarde: The petition I have is for the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Make it easier to join unions, especially for workers in the temporary help, home care, community services and building services sectors;

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

“Provide strong enforcement through the hiring of an additional 175 employment standards officers;

“Will ensure workers have modest improvements in the scheduling of their hours, including:

“—three hours’ pay when workers are expected to be on call, but are not called in to work;

“—three hours’ pay for any employee whose shift is cancelled with less than two days’ notice; and

“—the right to refuse shifts without penalty if the shift is scheduled with fewer than four days’ notice;

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

I respect this and I honour this, and I’ll be adding my name to it as well.

PRÉVENTION DU TABAGISME CHEZ LES JEUNES


M. Michael Mantha: Speaker, now that I’m a half century old, sometimes I need these things.

La pétition est à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario. Ne ris pas de moi, toi. Reste tranquille.

« Pétition pour les films sans fumée.

« Entendu que, au cours des 10 dernières années en Ontario, 86 % de tous les films montrant des fumeurs étaient accessibles aux jeunes et le fait que l’industrie du tabac se sert du grand écran pour promouvoir l’usage du tabac est bien documenté; et

« Entendu qu’un rapport scientifique rendu public par l’Unité de recherche sur le tabac de l’Ontario, environ 185 000 enfants de l’Ontario commenceront à fumer après avoir vu des personnages fumer dans des films, et que plus que 59 000 fumeurs ainsi recrutés finiront par mourir de maladies liées à l’usage du tabac, lesquelles entraîneront des coûts de soins de santé de l’ordre d’au moins 1,1 milliard de dollars; et

« Entendu que le gouvernement de l’Ontario s’est fixé comme objectif d’atteindre le taux de tabagisme le plus faible au Canada, et que 79 % (par rapport à 73 % en 2011) des Ontariens et Ontariennes appuient l’interdiction de l’usage du tabac dans les films classés dans les catégories G, PG, 14A; et

« Entendu que le ministre des Services gouvernementaux et des Services aux consommateurs a le pouvoir de modifier, par l’entremise du Conseil des ministres, les règlements pris en application de la Loi sur le classement des films;

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que le gouvernement examine les façons dont on pourrait modifier la Loi sur le classement des films pour réduire l’usage du tabac dans les films classés dans les catégories qui conviennent aux enfants et aux adolescents, et diffusés en Ontario. »

Je suis complètement d’accord avec cette pétition, monsieur le Président. Je mets ma signature, et la page Eliana va l’apporter à la table des greffiers.

1530

CURRICULUM


Ms. Catherine Fife: “Protecting Ontario’s Students: Forward, Not Backwards, on Sex Ed.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the 2015 health and education curriculum empowers young people to make informed decisions about relationships and their bodies; and

“Whereas gender-based violence, gender inequality, unintended pregnancies, ‘sexting,’ HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) pose serious risks to the safety and well-being of young people; and

“Whereas one in three women and one in six men experience sexual violence in Canada and a lack of age-appropriate education about sexual health and healthy relationships leaves them vulnerable to sexual exploitation; and

“Whereas a 2018 Ipsos poll found that one third of Canadian parents know a child in their community who has been cyber-bullied and 20% of parents reported their own child being a victim of cyberbullying; and

“Whereas the 1998 Progressive Conservative curriculum does not teach students about consent, social media and online safety, stereotypes, sexual orientation, LGBTQ+ families or gender identity;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Education to continue the use of the Ontario 2015 health and physical education curriculum in Ontario” schools.

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

CURRICULUM


Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: This petition is titled “Protecting Children: Forward, Not Backward, on Sex Ed.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the health and physical education curriculum empowers young people to make informed decisions about relationships and their bodies;

“Whereas gender-based violence, gender inequality, unintended pregnancies, ‘sexting,’ and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) pose serious risks to the safety and well-being of young people;

“Whereas one in three women and one in six men experience sexual violence in Canada, and a lack of age-appropriate education about sexual health and healthy relationships leaves children and youth vulnerable to exploitation;

“Whereas one in five parents reported their own child being a victim of cyberbullying; and

“Whereas Doug Ford and the Conservative government is dragging Ontario backward, requiring students to learn an outdated sex ed curriculum that excludes information about consent, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexting, cyberbullying and safe and healthy relationships;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Education to continue the use of the 2015 health and physical education curriculum in schools and move Ontario forward, not backward.”

I fully support this petition and will be adding my name to it.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION HALLS


Mr. Will Bouma: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the poppy is a traditional symbol of courage under fire and valour for Canadian veterans; and

“Whereas the current government campaigned on removing property taxes for Legion halls; and

“Whereas members of the New Democratic Party during the campaign were found to have made disparaging comments about both the use of the poppy and Canada’s veterans;

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

“That the government follow through on all efforts to support Legion halls as important parts of Ontario communities.”

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition and will be affixing my name thereon and give it to page Michael to bring forward.

PHARMACARE


Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituent Pauline O’Connor.

“Universal Pharmacare for All Ontarians.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

“Whereas Canada urgently needs universal and comprehensive national pharmacare;

“We, the undersigned, express our support for a universal provincial pharmacare plan for all Ontarians.”

I wholeheartedly support this petition. I’m going to affix my signature and send it across to be tabled.

LONG-TERM CARE


Mme France Gélinas: I would like to thank Marian O’Connor from Scotland, Ontario, for this petition. It reads as follows:

“Time to Care....

“Whereas quality care for the 78,000 residents of (LTC) homes is a priority for many Ontario families; and

“Whereas the provincial government does not provide adequate funding to ensure care and staffing levels in LTC homes to keep pace with residents’”—

Interjection.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Stop the clock, please.

All right, I’m going to address the member from Niagara Falls right now. That display of temperament is unacceptable in this Legislature. I would ask that if you’re going to stay in this place you will go back to your seat. I will have no further outbursts from one member to another member. It’s highly unparliamentary.

I will now return to the member from Nickel Belt to continue with your petition.


Mme France Gélinas: “Whereas the provincial government does not provide adequate funding to ensure care and staffing levels in LTC homes to keep pace with residents’ increasing acuity and the growing number of residents with complex behaviours; and

“Whereas several Ontario coroner’s inquests into LTC homes deaths have recommended an increase in direct hands-on care for residents and staffing levels and the most reputable studies on this topic recommends 4.1 hours of direct care per day;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Amend the LTC Homes Act (2007) for a legislated minimum care standard of four hours per resident per day, adjusted for acuity level and case mix.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it, and ask my good page Eric to bring it to the Clerk.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time for petitions has now expired.

VISITORS


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

Mr. Dave Smith: In the Speaker’s gallery are a number of people I would like to introduce: Gerry and Pam Davy, Pam’s sister Michelle, and George and Audrey Reed, the people I spoke about earlier in my statement. The war veteran himself, Mr. Reed, is here, and I would like to acknowledge that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Technically, that is not a point of order, but it is highly acceptable.

On a further point of order, I recognize the member from Timmins.


Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have a very acceptable point of order, and that is, on behalf of New Democrats, I also want to thank you for your service. As the son of a serviceman who served in the armed forces and myself, a member of the armed forces, and many friends and family who were in the merchant marine, we say you guys were the unsung heroes of the Second World War. Andrea Horwath and New Democrats thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It appears as though we’re on a roll. Any more points of order? Having none, orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

URGENT PRIORITIES ACT, 2018 / LOI DE 2018 PORTANT SUR LES PRIORITÉS URGENTES

Ms. Scott, on behalf of Mr. Rickford, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903 / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant Hydro One Limited, l’annulation du projet de parc éolien White Pines et les conflits de travail entre l’Université York et la section locale 3903 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The Minister of Labour has moved third reading of Bill 2. Back to the minister for further debate.

1540


Hon. Laurie Scott: I want to thank the members for letting me get in on the debate today on the proposed Urgent Priorities Act, specifically the Back to Class Act (York University), 2018.

As many of you know, since March 5 of this year, so for more than 100 days, some 45,000 York University students have been adversely affected by a labour dispute between York University and CUPE 3903. The dispute has reached a clear deadlock, a deadlock that has come about in a strike that has continued for more than four months despite attempts at mediation.

As a result of the strike—the numbers speak for themselves; I’m going to repeat them—45,000 students are missing course grades. More than 37,000 students have at least one course taught or supported by a unit 1 member. Approximately 20% of students who applied to graduate this past June were not able to graduate. This includes 363 nursing students who need to complete their practicums. Some 12,000-plus students dropped courses because they could not wait any longer for remediation and had to go to summer jobs and other commitments.

It’s unacceptable when you consider that approximately 76% of York’s student population have had one or more courses adversely impacted by the labour dispute. Mr. Speaker, these students have had their lives turned upside down by circumstances that they cannot control. For many, this disruption may have a negative effect on their futures and on their careers.

Many of the members of this House have had the opportunity to attend post-secondary institutions. We know both the joys and the stresses that come with pursuing a career through higher education. Most of us were fortunate not to have had to deal with the types of disruptions that tens of thousands of York University students are facing today.

I know from my own experience that the focus required to complete my academic training in nursing was sometimes overwhelming. I mentioned earlier the over 300 nursing students who could not finish, who could not graduate, because they couldn’t do their practicum, which is essential to graduating, but also essential to learning the skills and becoming ready to be able to fulfill those nursing duties when they go out. I joke sometimes that I can’t believe they actually let me out to nurse, because there was so much more that you had to learn when you were outside, but that practicum, being full-time, nursing on the floors before you graduated, was essential, so I certainly feel personally for those nurses who were affected.

It’s difficult enough to get through in normal circumstances, so how would we have dealt with a similar situation to these York University students? I know that we would have looked to our leaders, our elected representatives, to act quickly on our behalf. Today we are those elected representatives, and we’re hearing loud and clear that we must act. We said that we would make this a priority, getting York University back to the table and getting students back to the classrooms, and that’s why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve heard from a lot of students, and I want to speak to some of those students and their stories that they’ve sent in. I heard from Sandy, a third-year kinesiology and sciences student at York, who wrote to me to explain the enormous impact this strike has had on her academic year. Sandy is in the process of applying to medical school. Her admissions test was supposed to take place this summer. Because of the ongoing strike, she is studying for admission while also worrying about her classes. If she doesn’t receive grades for this year’s classes soon, it will delay her application and decrease her chances of getting into a medical school, and we all know we need more doctors.

Another student, Shoshana, tells me that she and many of her classmates are still waiting on assessed grades and communication on the status of their courses.

Arya, who lives in North York, told me she lost three courses and will have to attend remediation. As a result, she lost the opportunity to take the summer school courses she wanted to take, and feels both stressed and victimized as a result of the strike.

To the students who have shared their stories with us: Our government has listened and has been listening.

As I said, one of our priorities was definitely to get students back in the classes, continue their education and lessen the negative effects this labour dispute has had on their lives.

I know that the member from Peterborough–Kawartha said that when he had a labour disruption when he was at university, it was 25 years before he actually went back and finished his degree, because life gets in the way. Things happen; things change. But that was a huge disruption in his life.

There have been extensive attempts at mediation. It has been the longest post-secondary strike in Canadian history—over 130 days. We’re actually entering the fifth month. This has to end now. The strike is hurting students, their families and their communities. We cannot let this continue.

I think all members agree that it is only in special circumstances that government intervention in collective bargaining should occur. We all know that the best agreements are negotiated at the bargaining table. Unit 2, the faculty members, did exactly that. They settled and returned to work in June. In this case, despite the efforts of mediators and conciliators, units 1 and 3 remain in a deadlock and there is no end in sight. This is why we must act and act now.

In May, an independent neutral industrial inquiry commission confirmed that the parties were deadlocked. The commission was conducted by an independent third party, William Kaplan, a highly regarded arbitrator. Mr. Kaplan conducted a thorough review and came up with an inescapable conclusion about the current situation at York University. His report speaks volumes. Let me share a few of his conclusions with you.

“Free collective bargaining has failed. There is no reason to believe that it will succeed in the future through the prolongation of the labour dispute, and every reason to conclude that it will not. It is, accordingly, my primary and most time-sensitive recommendation to the minister that he call upon the parties to enter into consensual interest arbitration: for their own good, and for the good of thousands of students and the university. York University has indicated its willingness to do so. Failing consensual interest arbitration, and assuming the continuation of this dispute, legislative intervention imposing interest arbitration will almost certainly be necessary.” This is from a neutral, independent third party.

It would be irresponsible for us in the Legislature to allow the labour disruption at York University to continue and to ignore the many serious, ongoing, adverse impacts on students. Lectures were cancelled; labs were closed. For these students, full access to their classes was necessary for successful completion of their academic year.

As I said, the nursing clinical placements and non-graduating-year teaching placements—mandatory components of the programs—have been suspended. This has jeopardized the completion of the academic year of these students. The burden of this labour disruption is falling acutely and severely upon them.

Speaker, this is not like a strike at an ordinary business, where consumers can find the goods and services they need from other suppliers. Many of these students have no other choices in terms of post-secondary schooling for this year. They’re looking to us to assist them. We need to help them, and we need to help them now. Their futures are literally in our hands. The continuation of this dispute and the resulting disruption in education, and its corresponding effects, give rise to serious public interest concerns.

For these reasons, we are acting decisively and fairly to restore normal operations at York University.

Our proposed Back to Class Act would require an end to the ongoing work stoppage at York University immediately on royal assent. Employees would be required to resume their duties without delay, and York University would be required to resume normal operations.


Hon. John Yakabuski: It makes perfect sense.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Yes. It makes sense, and it is what we are doing and what we should be doing.

There would also be a ban on any further strike or lockout with respect to this round of collective bargaining. Any action to call, authorize, threaten, counsel, procure, support or encourage a strike or a lockout would also be illegal.

1550

If York University and CUPE 3903 have not executed a collective agreement before the day that the act receives royal assent, all outstanding issues in the dispute between them would be referred to a mediator-arbitrator for resolution. The mediator-arbitrator would have the exclusive power to determine all matters necessary to conclude a new collective agreement, and would also have the ability to assist the parties in settling any related matter.

In determining the method of arbitration, the mediator-arbitrator would be required to consider final offer selection as a potential method of dispute resolution. Final offer selection is a model of interest arbitration in which the arbitrator is limited to choosing between one of the final offers put forward by the two sides. The goal of final offer selection is to promote settlements by encouraging the parties to put forward reasonable offers and increasing the risk of failure to make a deal.

We want to make sure that the mediator-arbitrator can use whatever method of dispute resolution that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.

The mediator-arbitrator’s award would be final and binding on York University, CUPE 3903 and all employees who are in the affected bargaining units.

Our proposed legislation allows for York University and CUPE 3903 to intensify their efforts to resolve their differences and arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement, even as the mediation-arbitration proceeds. The parties would retain the ability to control their own bargaining to reach a negotiated resolution. The proposed act specifically encourages them to negotiate. If they were able to reach their own agreement, the dispute resolution process under the proposed legislation would end.

There are significant financial consequences for non-compliance with this legislation. Failure to comply with the provisions of the proposed act that require the termination of lockouts and strikes and prohibit them from recurring would result in maximum fines of up to $25,000 a day for a union or employer and $2,000 for an individual.

In the meantime, York students will be able to resume their studies and get on with their lives.

Speaker, post-secondary education serves a critical public function. A lengthy extension or loss of an academic year has significant personal, educational, social and financial implications for students and their families. As well, there are serious organizational and economic impacts on the broader public and employers.

The interests of students, families and the broader community require that these disputes be resolved. They are desperately looking to us to help them right now.

This legislation, if passed, would allow students to complete their classes and ensure that the fall semester isn’t disrupted.

These are challenging times for Ontario. We need all of our people at their best and helping to meet those challenges. We simply cannot afford to delay the education of more than 45,000 of our best and brightest people. It’s not about the union. It’s not about the university. It’s about the students.

This strike has more than run its course. It’s time to get these students back to class immediately. We want the tens of thousands of students impacted by the strike, as well as the new first-year students, to be able to continue their education at York University. That’s why I will be supporting this legislation and will vote for passage of this bill this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to engage in Bill 2’s debate today.


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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today for third reading of Bill 2, the Urgent Priorities Act, to share my perspective, as the Ontario NDP post-secondary education critic, on the back-to-work schedule of the bill.

Normally during third reading, I like to prepare for debate by reading the Hansard of the committee hearings to find out what the public had to say, what stakeholders thought about the bill, the kinds of amendments that people were suggesting. In the case of Bill 2, however, there is no Hansard because the bill did not go to committee. It was time-allocated yesterday, shutting down the opportunity for MPPs to debate the bill. It passed second reading this morning without being sent to committee, preventing the public from any opportunity to have their say on the bill. And now here we are, a few short hours later, after second reading vote, getting ready for the government to pass the bill into law.

For a government that said it wanted to do things differently from the Liberals, this is not a good way to start. At least the Liberals went through the motions of allowing public input, even if they usually ignored everything the public had to say. The Conservatives have decided to skip this step altogether. Since they had no intention of considering amendments, I guess they wanted to avoid wasting people’s time. They couldn’t be bothered to even pretend that they were interested in hearing from those most affected by this legislation.

Speaker, what we have before us with this bill is really a multi-level attack on the democratic process. First, there was the antidemocratic decision to end parliamentary debate yesterday. I can tell you that many members on this side of the House wanted very much to participate in debate on Bill 2. Some of our MPPs are actually members of CUPE Local 3903, the bargaining unit that’s going to be legislated back to work. I think it would have been beneficial for this government, for all MPPs in this House, to hear from them during debate about what this bill means to academic workers, what it means to students, many of whom work as teaching assistants and research assistants, and what it means overall to the quality of our post-secondary education system.

Then, there was the antidemocratic decision to completely bypass public input after second reading, leading to frustrated workers protesting in the galleries, because that was their only means of expressing their opinion.

But the most profound attack on democracy is, of course, the content of the bill itself. By legislating CUPE 3903 back to work, Bill 2 is an attack on the constitutionally protected rights of academic workers to freely negotiate collective agreements through a process of good-faith bargaining. It may well be challenged in the courts. It undermines the collective bargaining process and rewards employers like York University for essentially refusing to participate in the bargaining process. It sends the message that public sector employers don’t have to engage in meaningful negotiations with their unionized employees. And when their employees go on strike because of their employer’s failure to negotiate, employers can simply sit back and wait things out until the government intervenes.

Speaker, a government that believes in collective bargaining would have used its influence to at least try to bring the parties together. Instead, this government has done nothing since being sworn in to encourage both sides to get back to the table so that a deal could be reached. Instead, they dusted off the Liberal back-to-work bill that the previous government tried to ram through, added in a mean-spirited new clause that will further poison the labour relations environment at York, threw it into an omnibus bill with some highly contentious pieces of energy legislation, and made this the centrepiece for its summer legislative agenda.

I want to draw members’ attention once again to the new clause in the Conservatives’ back-to-work legislation. It is a clause that ties the hands of the arbitrator by prohibiting any language in the new collective agreement that would protect employees from being discharged or disciplined for action during the strike—basically for exercising their constitutional rights. This kind of language is very common in arbitration settlements, as arbitrators look for ways to support some measure of reconciliation and healing between the parties, especially after a bitter and prolonged labour dispute. Instead, this new clause will allow disciplinary action to be taken against individual members of the bargaining unit, further straining already tense relations and jeopardizing any possibility of rebuilding trust and respect.

That said, it is doubtful that anything could have been included in a back-to-work bill that would help restore positive labour relations at York University, because back-to-work legislation ignores the fundamental issues that led to the strike in the first place. Back-to-work is a temporary solution to a long-term problem.

We know what the problem is, Speaker. We saw it last fall with the longest college strike in Ontario’s history. We are seeing it at York, with the longest university strike in Ontario’s history. The problem is the chronic underfunding of post-secondary education in Ontario, which has resulted in an explosion of precarious academic workers, because payroll is one of the few places that universities can cut costs.

1600

Across the sector, there are more and more academic workers like those of CUPE 3903—teaching assistants, research assistants and contract faculty—who are working in temporary, insecure jobs with few or no benefits, often stringing together a semester here and a semester there, often at multiple institutions, and who do, in fact, perform the bulk of undergraduate teaching in many institutions across this province.

This overreliance on precarious academic workers has a direct impact on the quality of education that Ontario university and college students receive, even as they pay higher tuition fees than students in any other Canadian province and as they face a mountain of debt when they graduate.

Speaker, instead of legislating CUPE 3903 back to work, this government should be focusing on resolving these systemic issues. Unfortunately, they have given no indication that they have any plans whatsoever to do that. They ignored the recommendation from the industrial inquiry commissioner appointed by the Liberals to establish a comprehensive task force on precarity in post-secondary education. Earlier this month, they also quietly disbanded a task force that was established in the wake of the college strike, by order of the arbitrator, to address the college’s over-reliance on contract faculty.

It seems that this government has no interest whatsoever in ensuring that Ontario’s students in this province have access to a strong and vital post-secondary system and that academic workers have access to good jobs and decent working conditions reached through a process of fair collective bargaining.

I can tell you, Speaker, that New Democrats are very concerned about students and about the possibility of more labour action in the post-secondary sector unless this government seriously starts to tackle the underfunding of post-secondary education that is driving the growth in precarious academic work and eroding the quality of education delivered by Ontario’s colleges and universities.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks for recognizing me to say some words about the Urgent Priorities Act.

I want to thank the Speaker for the ruling on the participation of our caucus in the daily proceedings of the Legislature, in debate and in questions. It’s very much appreciated. But I do have to say that, on such a substantive bill of importance to the government, 20 minutes for one speaker and five minutes for another to express the concerns of the 1.1 million people who voted for us, whom we represent, just isn’t commensurate with that number. So I have to say that, and I very much look forward to working with both government House leaders and the government so that we can adequately reflect that. I think that’s important to point out.

I would like to address this bill right now. Specifically, I would like to talk about White Pines. I understand the government’s priorities in terms of what they would like to do in hydro. That’s their prerogative. I believe that getting kids back to school is the right thing to do. We did that last year inside legislation. However, the concern that is the greatest to me and to our caucus is the provisions around White Pines.

I know that the member from Scarborough–Guildwood put forward what is called a reasoned amendment, which is actually kind of new to many of us here. I know it’s probably new to the new members, but it’s even new to some of us who have been around for a few more years. The reasoned amendment is a reason that the bill should not be moved forward to second reading. This is the reason that the member from Scarborough–Guildwood gave: “This bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government with instructions to first provide a report to the House containing a full assessment of the compensation package, prior to the statutory termination of contracts and permits, as well as the legal costs incurred to defend the act in front of any tribunal or board of arbitration.”

Legislating yourself out of contracts is going to cost money. We’re already talking about $100 million. That’s a lot of money. That’s the money that actually came out of schools after you ended cap-and-trade.

But the larger issue here for a government that’s open for business is the message that the government is sending to foreign investors, which is, “If we don’t like the deal, we’ll just change the law.” That puts a chill on foreign investment.

When you have the Business Council of Canada writing you and saying that this isn’t good for business—these are the CEOs of the largest companies who are saying to you, through their association, “You’re sending a chill. What you’re doing is bad for business.” I know that members on the other side know that and I know that members on this side know that, because there are so many business people who are in this Legislature. So I want the government to consider that. I want them to consider the reputational harm that they’re doing to the government of Ontario.

I want to read a quote. The act “would revoke permits several years after the proponent obtained them from the appropriate regulatory bodies, cancel contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator….” John Manley, the CEO of the CEOs, urged caution: “Among Ontario’s strengths are its reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law.”

You’ve just created a law that says this contract is now null and void. Not only is that going to cost you money and cost you in reputation, but it’s going cost you in court. It may cost you more money, not just for the legal fees, but because it’s not going to hold up in court. This is a precursor to the other contracts that you’re cancelling. If you’re for business, this is something that you should not be doing.

I cannot support this bill because the provisions in this bill do harm to Ontario’s reputation and there is no disclosure of what it’s going to cost Ontarians for the decision that you’re making inside this bill.


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

Hon. Todd Smith: It is a pleasure to get up and speak in this House. It’s a little bit rich, though, listening to the leader of the independent Liberals in the Legislature talking about why this is not the right thing to do, worried about the reputation of the province of Ontario, considering the damage that was done by the Liberal government over the last 15 years on the world stage. But I’m not going to go there.

Apparently, there’s a saying on TV these days that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. I don’t get to watch a lot of TV these days, but it’s in that spirit that I rise to close debate for the government on Bill 2.

If there has been a theme to government contributions to debate in this House, whether during question period, debate on the throne speech or debate on this bill, it has been, “Promise made, promise kept.” I’ve said it alongside my colleagues in the House every time we’ve had the opportunity to utter those words. We are going to keep our promises on this side of the House.

But I rarely enjoyed saying “Promise made, promise kept” as much as I’m about to—because this one has been on my plate for seven years. When I first arrived here in 2011, I told the people of Prince Edward county that if they sent me to Queen’s Park, I would do everything I could to keep the county naturally green and turbine-free. And I stayed in the ears of every Liberal cabinet minister who would listen.

1610

It was during that term that the second phase, the other phase, of the White Pines Wind Project failed to go ahead. It was also during that term, just two weeks into sitting here in the Legislature—kind of like we’re doing now, getting right down to business, getting right down to work—that I brought forward a bill called the Local Municipality Democracy Act. Do you know what that bill would have done? It would have given municipalities the opportunity and the powers that were taken away from them by the Liberal government, which forced these projects onto unwilling host communities.

Now, I can say that the PC caucus stood up and supported me loud and proud on the Local Municipality Democracy Act. But do you know who didn’t, Mr. Speaker? Do you know who didn’t stand up for that bill giving municipalities back their authority to plan projects in their community? Well, of course the Liberals didn’t, because they took those powers away, but the NDP—the NDP—would not support that bill. It’s unbelievable to me that they sat on their hands on that one.

Do you know what, though? Over the last seven years, I have been up many, many times in this Legislature. And in 2014—I want you to hear this—I told the people of Prince Edward county that if they sent me to Queen’s Park, I’d do everything in my power to keep the county naturally green and turbine-free. And do you know what? They sent me back here again.

I must have caused some hearing damage for the former Minister of Energy because I was in his ear all the time, talking about why these wind turbines should never have gone ahead in Prince Edward county. During that term, one of them died for environmental reasons: Ostrander Point—dead, gone. The original White Pines project during that time was put on life support.

This spring, I went back to the people of Prince Edward county with the same promise, and they sent me back again. So it’s with joy that I stand up here today and say, “Promise made, promise kept.”

Now, Speaker, I’ve heard members opposite get up and talk about how killing this contract will cause some kind of contractual chill. They cannot be blamed for not knowing the facts. They don’t have a lot of staff over there yet, and I don’t know how up to speed they are. But I would like to use the final speech of the debate from the government to inform them about this particular project.

This contract was signed in 2010 with a milestone commercial operation date of January 6, 2015. Members opposite may know that with contracts in the power system, there’s an additional long stop date of 18 months after their commercial operation date. That would have been July 6, 2016. We’re now more than two years after that long stop date.

A feed-in tariff 1.3.1, which is this type of contract—that’s what White Pines is—has a clause that says the project cannot be reduced below 75% of its original nameplate capacity. This was a 60-megawatt project when it started out, but during the Environmental Review Tribunal process, the number of turbines went from 29 down to nine, more than two thirds below its original contracted capacity, by the province’s own Environmental Review Tribunal. For environmental reasons, 20 of these turbines were taken out of the project. That alone should have been enough to kill this project by the Liberals’ own rules, Mr. Speaker. It was only because the previous government offered to amend that contract that the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision didn’t spell the end of White Pines. But it should have spelled the end of White Pines.

Finally, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the major multinational corporation developing the project was charged not once, not twice, but three times by the province’s Ministry of Environment for multiple violations. That’s because, under the renewable energy approval, to protect endangered species in the area, they’re not supposed to be constructing after May 1. Now, I have news for the House: The company has been building non-stop since the middle of June, even after the government announced its intentions to legislatively terminate the project on July 10, a couple of weeks ago. They’ve had construction crews working over the weekend and trucks heading into the county at all hours to try and complete construction before this Legislature can conclude its work on Bill 2.

If members opposite wonder why I don’t fear contractual chill, it’s because the proponent in this case has never honoured its agreements with the government of Ontario.

This project deserves to die. It deserves to die exactly as it should die today: publicly and in front of the whole province, with the incompetence and bad actions of this proponent laid open for members of this House to judge.

This company, WPD, had another project killed—you may know that, a project in Collingwood—because they were erecting turbines around the aerodrome, around the airport in Collingwood. What company would be stupid enough to put 500-foot turbines in the flight path of an airport? This one. This is the kind of company that I’m talking about.

So I say to members opposite—like my friend from Toronto–Danforth; we’ve worked together seven years now on the energy file—that if any manufacturing or resource company were before this House having committed these types of infractions, three environmental violations in the space of a month, you would be on your feet every day in question period calling for that company’s head. If any other foreign-owned multinational company were before this House, having continued construction on a project that the government had abandoned its intent to terminate, you would be here calling them robber barons.

The WPD is erecting nine white elephants on the south shore of Prince Edward county. Calling them wind turbines should make no difference to the members opposite, but for some reason it does. And they are nine white elephants. They will do nothing to help this province fight climate change—absolutely nothing. Their total capacity now, after previously being 60 megawatts, is down to about 18 megawatts of power.


Mr. Bill Walker: Intermittent at best.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s less than a drop in the bucket when taken against the totality of the system.

My friend from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, the government whip says not much. It doesn’t make a difference.


Interjection: He’s speechless.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s very unusual, by the way—very unusual.

Mr. Bill Walker: I wanted to see if I could throw you off.

Hon. Todd Smith: This project will make no difference to the grid.

Interjection.


Hon. Todd Smith: No, he didn’t miss his cue. I just wanted him to repeat what he said.

These turbines are in the middle of a municipality in Prince Edward county that already has so much embedded solar in it that there is a legitimate question about whether it’s already a net neutral municipality. The project would be 40 kilometres from the 500 kV corridor that carries power to the nearest load centres in Belleville, Trenton, and Napanee.

I just remembered what he said. He said it’s intermittent power; you can’t rely on it. I knew he said something very, very valuable there.

Once you factor in a lot of the weaknesses of wind power—and that is one of them, the fact that it’s intermittent; it’s not there when you need to rely on it—it’s amazing that this project ever made it into a realistic power plan in the first place. This was not a realistic power plan that the Liberals have laid out—and we all should understand why—because you can’t rely on this energy to be there when you need it.

In April, I had conversations—this is important too—with the Independent Electricity System Operator regarding the potential that White Pines would be given its notice to proceed prior to the end of the election. This was in my office here at Queen’s Park as the energy critic, and while I state that there were no specific guarantees made by IESO, it was certainly conveyed to me that the agency understood how important this project was going to be for a new government, especially should it be a Progressive Conservative government.

Construction activity seriously began near the end of the campaign, and it ramped up immediately after it concluded, when it became obvious that there would be a PC government. It was only due to work on the part of my staff, actually, that we found out that the system operator had given NTP, notice to proceed, on the project on May 11. Do you know when that was? That was two days into the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, during the writ period—two days. That’s a clear violation of the caretaker convention that’s been in place in the province for decades, if not longer.

If IESO didn’t grant them notice to proceed, then no one in this province, outside of Prince Edward county, would ever have heard of White Pines, and it would have been one of 749 projects that the Minister of Energy dispensed with a few weeks ago that will end up saving the people of the province of Ontario almost $800 million in the long run.

1620

For those who would argue, as WPD has and as some members opposite have, that notice to proceed is a mere technicality, I would refer them to someone with more experience in transitions of government than anyone else in this House. Members may know that I’m honoured to have some very distinguished seasonal residents in my riding, particularly in Prince Edward county, some I have been honoured to have become friends with. One of those people is Greg Sorbara, the former Liberal finance minister, who wrote the following in an email, on which he copied Robert Benzie of the Toronto Star, so I don’t mind sharing it with the House.

“The issue is simple. There is a well-established practice in Ontario (and I suspect in all other Canadian governments) that ministers, ministries and government agencies (like IESO) do not make substantive decisions on issues of public policy during the blackout period preceding an election and certainly not during an election.”

He continues, “The period varies depending on circumstances. For example, no order-in-council appointments are made in the month preceding the election unless the operation of the government depends on it. The rule is all the more important and relevant when the issue at hand is one where one or more opposition parties in the Legislature have included in its platform a commitment to change the existing government policy.” That’s the end of the former Liberal finance minister’s letter to myself and the Toronto Star.

I’m more worried about what it would say about this province if we didn’t terminate the White Pines project. I’m more worried about what it would say if a proponent could miss all these milestone dates, have its project drastically altered, commit multiple environmental violations and not have the government feel that it needs to act.

Before I conclude—and I don’t want to make it sound like I’m taking attendance here—I do have a number of people who have been involved in this fight in Prince Edward county, literally, for a decade or longer, people like Alison Walker, Gord and Janice Gibbins, John Hirsch, Orville Walsh, Councillor Steve Ferguson, Gary Mooney, Garth Manning, Henri Garand, Beth Harrington, the recently dearly departed Bill Wightman, who was a member of Parliament, a very, very distinguished gentleman who we lost in the middle of this fight—he would be cheering at his TV today as this is getting debated in this House—Liz Driver, Dawn Ayer and so many more people in Prince Edward county who were dead set against this project in the community.

For years, the county has declared itself to be an unwilling host community. It stated time and again in official correspondence to the government that it doesn’t want this project. It has never, ever wanted this project, and this project is unnecessary. A referendum held in South Marysburgh, the part of the county where this project is located, showed that the local residents opposed this project by 90% of the vote.

We’re here today because those people were neglected. We’re here because those people weren’t listened to. We’re here because this is a bad project—it’s a bad project. We’re here because the traditions and the conventions of this place during an election were not followed.

For years, Ontario has promoted Prince Edward county as a tourism jewel for the province of Ontario, where people can go and enjoy a summertime vacation at the beach and now enjoy it in the shoulder seasons and visit all our great wineries and craft breweries. Today, I’m very proud to stand up here on behalf of the government of Ontario and say that this Legislature will keep Prince Edward county naturally green, turbine-free. Promise made, promise kept.

Interjections.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. Please, be seated.

Further debate? I recognize the member from Toronto–Danforth.


Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I also want to thank my colleague from London West for her presentation on the York University component of this bill. I thought she made a compelling case. I hope the government, and I hope people around Ontario, heard that.

Much of what I had to say last week about this bad-faith bill still holds, and I’m going to touch on some of those points as I go through. But a number of things have come out since I last spoke, and I want to address those things.

When the government brought forward its speech from the throne, it had a number of interesting things to say. It noted that in the current climate, creating and protecting jobs should be something that unites us all. I’m sure that’s a dear thought to your heart, Speaker.

The speech from the throne didn’t speak out about acting within the law. Typically, we don’t have to worry about whether governments are going to act within the law. We sort of assume it. It’s something that most people, most citizens, most investors sort of assume in Ontario.

I’ve listened to the minister speak about the White Pines development, and I think people need to understand that there are two different things going on here. One is a decision to cancel a power generation project—well within the government’s purview. I disagree with it. I think we need green energy. But it’s well within their purview.

What makes this different is that not only is there a cancellation going on, but there is an ignoring of what is really the law of this land: that when you do something like this, you have to pay compensation. It’s simple reality.

The minister went on about all the different legal elements that would lead one to cancel this project. That being the case, why do we also have, in this bill, essentially holding the government immune from any legal action, not only saying that you can’t sue—which is really a constitutional right when you’re damaged—but that the government has the power to set a formula for compensation and then, if they don’t like the number that comes out, say, “We want another number.” That is where you’re going from, “Yes, we disagree with your energy policy,” to you’re not acting within the rule of law. That is a very substantial matter. It is a very substantial matter.

As a reminder, Speaker, no one—no government—is or should be above the law. It’s simple, straightforward. When governments think they are above the law, mischief and damage follow. No doubt about it: That’s the simple reality.

Since I last spoke, the German ambassador to Canada has been quoted. “‘I’m definitely hearing a lot of questions and concerns from the German government,’ ambassador Sabine Sparwasser told Corporate Knights in an interview July 19. ‘Beyond that, it is a case that has by now attracted the attention of the EU and European companies who want to invest in Ontario and in Canada.’”

I listened to the minister. He’s a good speaker. He’s rousing. But he ignored an essential point. Cancelling any given project—businesses understand that. It happens. That’s the course of business. The Liberals cancelled some gas contracts in a way that was outrageous and caused us to suffer great expense. But to go beyond that and say rule of law doesn’t apply changes the way people see this province, changes the way the citizens of Ontario see this province.

She went on to say, “‘This is a case of how safe is our investment, how good is it to invest in Ontario and Canada because we do want to have bilateral investment.

“There are 800 German companies in Canada and more are hungry to invest,’ she said.”

But the simple reality is, they don’t know if investing in Ontario will mean that a contract will be honoured, because this bill says Ontario’s word is worth nothing. Ontario’s word is not worth the breath that carries it into the air. That, Speaker, in personal relations and in business relations, is a very bad reputation to have.

Premier Ford said that Ontario is open for business. But it’s clear that in the new Ford Ontario, it’s open for business and you may have some assurance that you will be respected only if you’re connected to the Premier, because if you’re not, the wolves will have you—the wolves will have you.

It’s not just German investors and governments that are concerned about the poisoning of the business and investment environment.

I can tell you, Speaker, everyone knows we are totally on the other side of the looking glass when I, as a New Democrat, quote the Business Council of Canada. But John Manley wrote a letter, on the letterhead of the Business Council of Canada, to the Premier. It was a good letter. I’ll just read some of the highlights, some of the better excerpts:

1630

“Dear Premier,

“I am writing with respect to your government’s recent introduction of Bill 2, Urgent Priorities Act, 2018, and in particular the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act.

“Although the latter focuses on one specific renewable energy project, we are concerned about the broader impact of this legislation on Ontario’s business climate.” The Premier can talk all he wants about “open for business,” but if investors and businesses think that in Ontario the rule of law no longer carries, that changes the way they think about putting money here, and that’s why Mr. Manley had to say: “We believe this legislation, if enacted, will undermine investor confidence and set an unfortunate precedent for how the government intends to deal with the private sector.”

This is a government that calls itself private-sector-friendly, but it has in its actions said, “You can’t count on our word. Our word means nothing.” Just as an advertisement, this bill is as clear as it gets.

He writes: “We urge you to consider carefully the potential lasting negative effects that arbitrary actions can have on investor confidence. Among Ontario’s strengths are its reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law.” The idea that you would even have to write to the Premier of the province to say, “You know, you used to have a reputation for respecting the rule of law,” is extraordinary to me.

“Many of the business leaders I represent are concerned that this hard-earned reputation is at risk.” Oh, yes, it is definitely at risk. We have a different approach to society, a different approach to government than the Conservatives have, but we understand that you have to be as good as your word. Your word has to be something that carries, and when it’s no longer of consequence, then there are nasty surprises that come out of that.

Mr. Manley continues to write: “Premier, in the recent speech from the throne your government said it intends to ‘send a message to the world that Ontario is open for business.’ We applaud that sentiment”—yes, they’re the business council; they like that idea—“but the unfortunate reality is that the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act sends a different and much less welcoming message. I urge you to reconsider.

“Sincerely,

“John Manley.”

I think it’s extraordinary that a government that paints itself so heavily as pro-business is being seen by the business community as one that is not reliable, one that can’t be trusted.

And it’s not just John Manley. I’m sure people are familiar with the National Post. It’s not generally regarded as a bastion of left-wing politics. Some people might say it’s investor-friendly—I don’t know. I’m curious as to what people think, but that’s its reputation. They have a headline, “Ford’s Government Acting Like It’s Closed For Business.” It’s an article by John Ivison. I’ll just give you a few quotes, because I know, Speaker, that you appreciate fine journalism:

“Doug Ford is keen to send a message to the world that Ontario is ‘open for business.’

“Unfortunately, governments can also make boneheaded, ideological decisions that close businesses, kill jobs and drive away investment, which is exactly what Ford is doing with the hasty introduction of the Urgent Priorities Act, in particular the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act.”

The National Post—I don’t think Premier Ford would have called it a radical publication a few weeks ago, but I think today he would, because the National Post is suggesting that possibly you should follow the rule of law. It’s an extraordinary thought, that they would say that. Clearly they’ve gone off the deep end.

He writes further: “But you cannot summarily close down a company that has sunk $100 million into a project, after following all the rules, and then say it has no right to seek compensation in the courts”—which is really the issue at hand—“(the legislation gives the government full power to limit compensation through regulation).

“Or at least you can’t say all those things and say you are ‘open for business.’”

If your promise is that you’re going to say to the world, “We’re open for business,” I want to say to you that it’s pretty conclusive now that that promise was not kept. It is off the boards—unless you’re a backroom buddy of the Premier. Then, possibly, the word will be honoured, possibly your contract will be respected and possibly the rule of law will be regarded as a positive thing. But if you’re not, too bad; as my colleague Mr. Vanthof said last week, “It sucks to be you.” I have to say, it was a great line. Parliamentary language has reached new heights. I think he expressed very well the message that’s being sent out to those who want to deal with the Ontario government.

I’ll just give you a little bit of wrap-up from Mr. Ivison, because I thought this was a great article:

“White Pines is less about ‘progressive’ environmental politics than politically motivated NIMBYism. In that regard, it is similar to Dalton McGuinty’s gas plant decision, and, regardless of the attempt to block compensation, the results are likely to be similar, with the taxpayer on the hook”—and I think he’s right.

“Ford should think again before White Pines’ turbines thresh his reputation for trustworthiness among international investors.”

Mr. Ivison, thank you for your public service. You wrote well. And let’s face it: When the National Post is saying that you’re anti-business, it may be that you’re anti-business. It may be.


Mr. Gilles Bisson: It might be true.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It might be true; I don’t know. Others can speak to that.

The spirit of this bill is one that people need to understand, and it runs through other items that we’re now seeing. Today we have the presentation by the Minister of the Environment on his climate change bill, essentially wiping out the cap-and-trade program, saying that at some unspecified point they’ll bring in a climate plan. I’m not going to hold my breath for that. I just can’t hold it that long; it could be really ugly.

What’s happening with this bill that we’re dealing with this afternoon, and that I expect we’ll be dealing with when we get to debate the minister’s bill in the fall, is that Ontario is being twisted into a pretzel to serve the ideological needs of this Premier—and they’re not good needs. The presentation we had prior to the minister’s news conference showed that about $2.6 billion came in. That’s not going to be passed back to any of those who bought allowances. It’s going to be held by the province of Ontario.

I want to say to you: We just recently saw the cancellation of $100 million of investments for schools. Many of you on that side of the chamber and many on this side of the chamber signed a pledge to fix our schools. We understand that schools that are leaking, schools that have heating systems that are kaput—if we’re talking about a variety of leakage, draftiness and poor repair issues, the $100 million wasn’t going to solve it all. We’re talking $15 billion. But with $100 million you can do some stuff that’s useful. That was cancelled. “Oh, terrible, terrible that it was cancelled,” said the Minister of Education. “We’re going to do something about it.” Well, the money is there today, and the money has been taken away.

Money was pledged to fix social housing in Toronto, because as you’re well aware, people are on decade-long—more than decade-long—waiting lists to get into that housing. And we’re losing housing units. They’re being shut down because of disrepair and lack of investment. The money that was pledged to fix those units could have gone forward, because it’s still in the government’s hands. It doesn’t have to go back to those who bought allowances—but it was cancelled.

All those people who have written in to us—all of you have heard this. Those who wanted to get new doors and windows to reduce their energy bills—to make a contribution to dealing with climate change, make a contribution to making the air cleaner—they were told, “You’re cut off as of September 30.” Many people who were going forward, because of volume, weren’t able to get the work done in time. My colleague was mentioning that a number of these people were seniors. They’re out of luck. There was another sentence that came to mind; but they’re out of luck. Those people wondered why the money wasn’t available.

Well, I’ll tell you right now, the money is there. They didn’t have to be cut off. They could have had that home energy work done. The schools could have been fixed. The social housing units could have been fixed. All of that could have gone forward, because the money didn’t disappear.

However, I think that it’s gone down a funnel into a Tory slush fund that will be dispensed at some point, but probably not for the urgent priorities that the people of this province see—which is fixing our schools, fixing our housing, and making sure that people can save money on energy.

1640

This bill we’re debating today is completely of a piece with what’s being done with that climate bill. If we’re committed to climate action, we need to be making those investments. The minister who is saying, “We’ll bring a climate bill later,” and not speaking out, stepping up and protecting the investments today, is not showing real commitment. I don’t have a lot of confidence that actual things will happen, because when you cancel projects that are already in train that would make a difference and saying that you are going to come back to revisit it later, you’re making it very clear that this does not matter to you. It doesn’t matter to you.

I’m going to go back to the bill itself. I’ve updated you all. I’m glad you feel better about being informed. This is excellent. You, Speaker, now have an education about the money that would have gone from cap-and-trade to fixing things up. You can’t say you don’t know, Speaker. No, you’ve been filled in. I know you look skeptical, but, still, I’ve filled you in.

I’m going to go back to the bill itself and the two elements: Hydro One and White Pines.

Hydro One: It’s extraordinary to me that the whole focus of Premier Ford’s campaign and his statements since he was elected have been on dealing with the six-million-dollar man. That’s an issue, and I’ll address that. But the bigger issue is that if you privatize the system, the rates go up. We know that. It was a Conservative government at the beginning of the 20th century, understanding the needs of business and investment, that helped set up a non-profit hydro system for this province. That was a big fight. It wasn’t just, “I have a bright idea today. I’m going to set up this non-profit hydro company that will help build this province to be a 20th-century industrial power.” No, there were really ugly fights between coal interests, between private power developers all over southern Ontario, and big referendums that happened in cities. It was not a quiet, thoughtful process; it was bare-knuckle. We got a system that allowed us to be competitive, to attract investment, because we had power at cost, and businesses saw that this was good for them and good for the future.

What we’ve had since Mike Harris is an ongoing progression of privatization of the whole system—breaking it up, selling it off. Mike Harris started it; Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne continued it on. You know very well how hydro costs have soared in this province.

Instead of taking on that issue, the Premier—Premier, you understand—is dealing with a small part of the problem. I think overpayment of executives is bad news. I wouldn’t support that. I think you should bring it all back into public hands and then you actually can control salaries. But by ignoring the big issue and dealing with a flashy one, he’s set the stage for us to be spending a lot more on hydro in the years to come—a lot more—because even though the Minister of Energy denies it, the governing party adopted the Liberal hydro plan, which is like a ticking time bomb: a 7% increase in hydro rates every year, once the $20 billion we’ve borrowed has been used up. We’re going to be spending a lot, and any other change that he makes is going to be wiped out by his adoption of the Liberal hydro plan. That, for us, is bad news, Speaker—very bad news.

Now, I see my time is limited. I’m going to cede that so one of my colleagues can speak to this issue. I think you got the point. I urge the government. This is the last minute. It’s really, really down to the wire. Don’t vote for this bill. Abandon it.


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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise to make one last appeal to this government to protect the reputation of our great province as a place to invest and create jobs.

Since I first spoke on this bill, business leaders now are coming out and saying that the Conservative Party—of all parties—is sending the wrong signal: that Ontario is closed for business. They are acting in bad faith by cancelling contracts without offering any compensation.

I’m going to quote another National Post article. A banker was quoted in reference to Bill 2: “This is the act of a leftist South American dictator, not a new Progressive Conservative government that professes to be ‘open for business.’ Shameful.”

Shameful indeed. No government should put themselves above the law. That’s why I cannot vote for a piece of legislation that is so anti-business, anti-investment and anti-jobs—which is exactly why this bill should have gone to committee: so we could consult with the people of Ontario and fix the flaws in Bill 2.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close with a quick reference to the York University strike. If this government is serious about supporting students—and they say they want to support students—then they must end the chronic underfunding of our colleges and universities. Otherwise, teachers will be back on the picket lines again all too soon.


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

Mme France Gélinas: Je vais utiliser les quelques dernières minutes pour essayer de convaincre le gouvernement de voter contre ce projet de loi.

Le projet de loi a trois annexes. Dans la première annexe, on parle de la responsabilisation d’Hydro One. Vraiment, c’est incroyable qu’on va passer un projet de loi pour dire qu’on veut être capable de voir les salaires des gens qui sont à la tête d’Hydro One, sauf que le gouvernement ne nous permet pas de voir ce qui est arrivé avec Mr. Schmidt, qui est déjà à la tête. En plus de ça, ça dit que la loi prévoit l’immunité contre les poursuites résultant de son application. Depuis quand est-ce que le gouvernement se donne le droit d’être au-dessus des lois?

L’annexe numéro 2 n’est pas meilleure. Dans l’annexe numéro 2, on parle de l’annulation du projet de parc éolien de White Pines : encore là, un projet éolien qui est en cours, pour lequel une compagnie a déjà investi près de 100 millions de dollars. On leur dit non seulement qu’on va l’annuler, mais on leur enlève le droit d’aller en cour contre le gouvernement. Cela envoie une onde de choc à la grandeur du monde, parce que les gens qui veulent investir en Ontario commencent à se demander : « Bien, ça va m’arriver à moi aussi? » On a de plus en plus d’entreprises qui commencent à douter qu’un investissement en Ontario, c’est un investissement sécuritaire. Il n’y a rien de bon qui sort de là.

La dernière annexe, annexe 3, c’est pour la reprise des cours à l’Université York. Vraiment, c’est une loi qui oblige les gens, les professeurs en grève, à retourner au travail. C’est un droit de base de tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes d’avoir un syndicat et d’enlever leurs efforts s’ils ne sont pas répondus. On devrait encourager les deux parties à régler le conflit, pas les obliger à retourner au travail. Encore là, il n’y a rien de bon qui va sortir de ça, ni pour les étudiants ni pour les professeurs. Il faut voter contre ce projet de loi.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. The time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated July 24, 2018, I’m now required to put the question.

Ms. Scott has moved third reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

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

Therefore, 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 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1649 to 1704.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This is the 15-second warning for all members to take their seats.

Ms. Scott has moved third reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

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

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Ford, Doug

Fullerton, Merrilee

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

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

Mitas, Christina

Mulroney, Caroline

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Yarde, Kevin


The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 70; the nays are 40.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): 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 Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day. I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

I also move adjournment of the House.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The government House leader moves adjournment of the House. Agreed? Agreed.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjections.


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

The motion is carried. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock.

The House adjourned at 1710.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

top | new search