role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 16, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-16 (PDF)

L035 - Tue 16 Oct 2018 / Mar 16 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 October 2018 Mardi 16 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Roy McMurtry

Oral Questions

Climate change

Climate change

Hospital funding

Climate change

Wind turbines

Automobile insurance

Early childhood education

Environmental protection

Cannabis regulation

Hospital funding

Automobile insurance

Hospital funding

Francophone entrepreneurship / Entrepreneuriat francophone

Horse racing industry

Hospital funding

Youth employment

Government’s record

Notice of dissatisfaction

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Northern transportation

Violence against women

Robin Simpson

Carl Mills

Events in Toronto–St. Paul’s

Events in Orléans

Advocis

Health care

Breast cancer

Volunteers

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Freeing Highways 412 and 418 Act (Toll Highway Amendments), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’utilisation sans frais des autoroutes 412 et 418 (modifications concernant les voies publiques à péage)

Ending Automobile Insurance Discrimination in the Greater Toronto Area Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 mettant fin à la discrimination en matière d’assurance-automobile dans le Grand Toronto

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Poverty

Local Government Week / Semaine des administrations locales

Poverty

Local Government Week

Petitions

Employment standards

Employment standards

Mental health and addiction services

Employment standards

Climate change

Mental health and addiction services

Mental health and addiction services

Opposition Day

Hospital funding

Adjournment Debate

Hospital funding

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pause for a moment of silence for personal thought and reflection.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House, when the order of the day is called for resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to government order number 4, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment to the motion (as amended, if applicable), which questions shall be decided without further debate or amendment; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the vote on the amendment to the amendment or the amendment to the motion (as amended, if applicable), shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division on the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment to the motion (as amended, if applicable), the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of notion number 11.

Interjection: Dispense.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It appears the government can’t even defend its own time allocation motion.

Hon. Todd Smith: I’m just tired because—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, you’re just tired. Okay.

Listen, I take no pleasure in getting up on these types of motions. For those who are wondering what we are debating about—amendments to amendments—this has to do with a motion that the government brought to the floor that changes the standing orders in a way that gives the government even more power than it currently has in our standing orders. I think that’s really a step in the wrong direction.

What members, especially those members who are here for the first time, wouldn’t know, because they don’t have the experience, is that this place worked absolutely okay with the old standing orders that we used to have way back when, when the opposition had some ability to hold the government to account. The government always got its way at the end because that’s the way the parliamentary system works. But there had to be some give and some take on the part of the opposition and the government to allow legislation to go forward.

A good example is that we’re going to be greeting Mr. McMurtry, a prominent Conservative, we all know, who was part of Bill Davis’s cabinet back in the 1970s and early 1980s. The then Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, would know that in this place, with the rules that existed in the day, there were all kinds of opportunities for the opposition to hold a government to account and slow them down. But the opposition, no matter who it was, never tried to sabotage the government with the use of those rules.

In fact, the opposition would use them to great effect in order to be sure that whatever legislation they put for-ward, in fact, there was respect for the people of Ontario by making sure that there would be some public hearings when it came to the legislation that was put before us.

This had two or three effects. The first thing is that it made for better legislation. If you take the time with bills to put them into committee and engage with the citizenry in order to hear what they have to say about your legislation—for example, the government just did the cannabis bill where there were two days of hearings here in Toronto. Back in the day, there were far more than just two days of hearings. You would have probably had at least four to five days of hearings in Toronto, and you would have had a week or two weeks of hearings on the road in Ontario somewhere.

That allowed people in places like Thunder Bay or Cornwall or wherever it might be to come before the committee to say what they thought. What always happened in those cases: The government would hear things and the opposition would hear things that allowed the legislation to be amended so that in the end you made better legislation.

I think that’s the ultimate goal of what committees should be all about. It should be about making sure—not just about getting the government’s agenda through, but doing that in a way that gives some respect to the people out there, the voters and those interested in the legislation, and to hear what people have to say so that we can strengthen legislation and, if there are problems that were unforeseen in the drafting of the legislation, you could amend it by way of comments that you get from people who come before the committee. That’s the obvious thing that was a positive for allowing that type of activity to take place when it came to committee hearings.

The other thing is that it forced the parties to work together, and it wasn’t just the Premier’s office deciding what the business of the day of the House was and what we, as members, should do. There was a far stronger independence on the part of individual members in the House to be able to affect decisions that this House made.

That’s what this Legislature should be all about. We all get elected in our individual ridings. Yeah, everybody understands one is a Conservative and the other is a New Democrat, so therefore we’re going to have particular views on certain issues—that’s fair and that’s democracy; we align ourselves according to parties—but if you don’t give individual members the ability to, at times, hold their own government to account, or the opposition members to hold the government to account, or his or her own party, I think that, again, weakens democracy.

There are all kinds of examples in this Legislature over the years where individual members, both within government and outside of government on the opposition bench, were unhappy with particular pieces of legislation and had an effect by being able to utilize the rules in a way that allowed that member to exercise some ability to amend what the government was doing.

I’ll give you one recent example. We just went through Bill 5, where the government brought it back and wanted to do the “notwithstanding” clause. I’m willing to bet there were all kinds of members on the government side who didn’t like that. I would just bet, because the odds are—just because you’re a Conservative doesn’t mean to say that you believe in the “notwithstanding” clause and the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. In fact, we know that Mr.

Mulroney, who was the Prime Minister of Canada, spent a large part of his premiership trying to get rid of the “notwithstanding” clause, so we certainly know there are Conservatives out there who don’t like the idea of the “notwithstanding” clause for a whole host of reasons.

Well, in the Legislature that we used to have before all the standing orders were changed, members on the government side who had problems with that legislation would have been much better able to push back at the government that they felt strongly against it. A member could have said, “Listen, not only am I not going to vote for it, but I may very well get up and speak at some length on that legislation in debate, and you’re not going to like what I have to say.” Of course, the Premier of the day would have to take that into account, and that would measure what the Premier does or doesn’t do when it comes to something like a “notwithstanding” clause.

In today’s rules, especially with the changes that we’re making today, all of the power is vested in the office of the Premier, and that is a disservice to the people of Ontario and I think a disservice to members. Because, yes, the premiership is an important position within our parliamentary system.

I don’t think anybody would argue that a Premier should be without power, but I think there have to be limits to power, and that’s what the British parliamentary system was all about: It was about making sure that we put in check the power of the King or Queen, when we used to have that type of government where it was essentially the monarch who made all the decisions. Eventually, when the House of Commons started to take form in the way that we know it now—because the House of Commons has been around for a long time; way before the Glorious Revolution of the early 1700s.

The House of Commons existed way back when, and it served a purpose on a number of occasions of great note to the history of Great Britain and of parliamentary democracy overall.

After the Glorious Revolution, when we went to a responsible style of government with a Premier—or a Prime Minister, in England—and a cabinet, there were checks and balances that were put on the cabinet and were put on the Prime Minister. Why? Because when you change the power from the power of the King and you put it in the hands of the Prime Minister and you give them the same power, well, it’s still essentially a King except that you elect this one every four years.

So I think it’s important in a parliamentary system that we have checks and balances on the Premier and the cabinet. I expect that the government, once they put proposals forward—if they’re sound proposals—they should pass and will pass because of the rules of the House and how Parliament was designed. But there was an ability to hold them to account.

I can tell you that as a member of government back in the early 1990s, under the old rules there were times when we had debates in our own caucus about where members were on particular legislation and about what members were prepared to do when it came to that particular legislation. I will hearken back on one.

There was a member—I have to use the name because I don’t remember the riding. I won’t even say the name, because it wouldn’t be fair. You’re not allowed to do that. But there were a few members of our caucus who had a very different opinion on the creation of casinos. I personally thought it was a good idea. I didn’t have a problem with casinos. I sort of equated that people gamble, people go to Las Vegas and people go to Kuwait and they go to different places. So what? We have a casino in Windsor and a casino in Orillia.

As long as it’s properly regulated and we do the proper things to guard against some of the problems that casinos cause, why not have them in Ontario? That’s something that would be good for Ontarians and certainly good for the treasury.

We had members who were opposed to it. So this particular member—I wish I could remember the riding. It’s terrible; I can’t remember the name of the riding. It was up in central Ontario. He had a great objection to it on the basis of his own experiences and who he was and what he did for a living. He came to caucus and said, “I will get up in the House and I will rail against this, both publicly and in the House, if the government goes forward.” So the Premier of the day, Mr. Rae, had a decision to make. On balance, the caucus was okay with it. There were only one or two members that were offside.

So he decided to allow that person to have their say, and that would be that. But that member had the ability to speak to the views that he had, that he thought he represented: people in the province who were opposed, for a host of reasons.

At the end of the day, the legislation passed. But what that did do was cause the government to take pause and to make some things to strengthen the casino legislation in order to take into account some of the things that this gentleman was putting forward. I think that was a good use of the rules.

In the case of the “notwithstanding” clause, I believe there would have been members on the government side that would have said to the Premier of the day, Mr. Ford, “Listen, if you go forward with this, I will speak at length on this particular issue and I will put on the record what I think is wrong with using the ‘notwithstanding’ clause.” I’m sure as heck that there are Conservative members over there who would have rather not voted for the “notwithstanding” clause, should they have been put in that position, than vote for it. I know because I sat in government; I understand the dynamics of that.

But because of our system as it is now, individual members don’t have the ability to do that, because all of the power rests in the office of the Prime Minister or the Premier. I think that’s wrong.

I think a good parliamentary system, a good system of government, is one where you don’t entrust all of the power in one office, where in fact the power is shared in a way that makes some sense. That’s what the House is all about. Our main function is to do what? It’s to appropriate dollars to the cabinet in order to run the province and to make sure that the money being spent is wisely spent by the processes that we have both within the House and within committee. But the other one is to deal with on-going legislation that goes through the House and to represent our constituents and our political views and our personal views when it comes to that legislation.

Each time that the government comes to this House with legislation—not legislation; in this case, motions, in order to restrict the power of the House by what you’re doing today—you’re not doing a huge amount of changes, but still there are changes that will give more power to the Premier and less power to you as individual members of the government, and certainly less power to the opposition—the further you strengthen the office of the Premier and the more you diminish the importance of this House and, I believe, the importance that the public puts on us when they vote for us in elections.

How many times have we all heard it? We go knocking on doors, or we go to malls, or we go to public events during an election, and they say, “You know, I want somebody who is going to go there and is not just going to be following the party line. I want to make sure that, yes, you’re a New Democrat or a Conservative, and therefore you believe in certain things, and I get that.” But people expect us to also speak our minds and to try to represent, as best as we can, the views of our constituents. This type of change to the standing orders makes that harder and harder to do. I just think, Mr. Speaker, it’s wrong for the government to go in this direction.

I understand why new members of this House would support what you’re supporting now. I’ve done it. Listen, I was in government when there were rule changes, and as a government member, I voted for them. I didn’t know any better. I was a brand new member. I had been in this House for two or three years. My government House leader, along with other people, came to me and said, “Here are all of the reasons that we’re going to do this, because we are trying to pass whatever. We got elected by the people, and we have the right to do it, and that’s why we need to do this. We need to change the standing orders.” I didn’t know any better. I just went along.

But it took me a while to figure out that that was a dis-service. That was the wrong thing to do. Governments should not be utilizing the standing orders, and changing them, in order to strengthen the power of the Premier. The standing orders should be about members of the House being able to do their jobs—yes, with the government, at the end, getting what it needs as far as legislation goes. The basic principle of Parliament is that government ‘proposes; opposition proposes and opposes; and the government, at the end, gets their way. You get to make the decision about what goes in legislation and when it’s passed. And it will pass in the end.

But weakening the standings orders, I think, is a very, very bad thing to do, especially today. If you look at the public—the public is pretty disconnected, to a certain extent, but disenchanted with politicians and government overall. I could have a whole speech on that, about how the right wing has been very effective at demonizing politicians and government, for its own reasons. By demonizing politicians and government—the public looks at those institutions and says they’re no good.

Then they can rail against it and they can diminish the size of government, which allows them to get to where they want, which is a more libertarian approach to non-government and just the private sector doing what it has to do and individuals doing what they have to do. Certainly, in that system, there are some people who do well; there’s no argument. There are certain people who, with their ability, who they’re born to, how much money they’ve got and what their connections are, will do really well in that type of system. But for the average citizen, that’s not the case.

But back to the motion, Speaker: What this does, when the government goes down this way, is reinforce in the minds of the public that all governments are the same, that they’re really worried about their self-interest. That’s the danger in what the government is doing, and that the government members are taking, when they vote for a motion such as this that further concentrates the power in the office of the Premier.

Should the Premier have the ability to lead the province and do what has to be done? Absolutely, but that should be done through his cabinet, through his caucus and through this House.

All of us were elected. The Premier didn’t get a super-election where he, in his riding, is more important than any individual member of this House. All of us, as members, bring a perspective, and we have a responsibility to represent the people who voted for us.

I think—and this is my wish—that if we were really serious about wanting to find a way to re-engage the public and to give people faith in this House, one of the things the government could do is refer the standing orders to a committee, the Legislative Assembly committee, and actually look at turning the standing orders back to what they were pre-1987, because that’s where everything really started to accelerate when it comes to the change of the standing orders. They started changing under David Peterson and they have been changing ever since.

I think that was a mistake, and I think we should trust that the British parliamentary system was designed in such a way to allow us, as a Legislature, to make decisions that are sound decisions for the public and decisions that we can feel good about standing behind.

The opposition, as you know, often will vote with the government on issues. For example, the Conservatives, while they were in opposition to the Liberals, voted 50% of the time for government initiatives. I get a kick out of the Conservatives. They’re a little bit like Donald Trump: They have revisionist history when it comes to what the voting record was. They say, “Oh, you voted with the government 97% of the time.” No, actually, if you go back and look at the last Parliament, the Conservatives voted for the government 49% of the time. We voted for the government 53% of the time—virtually tied.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There were 49% for the government, and 53% for the NDP. Why? Because there are certain bills that you can support. There are certain bills that we’re going to be able to support when it comes to this government. This is the way the place is supposed to work. It’s supposed to be that the government proposes legislation, individual members propose legislation by way of private members’ bills, and opposition parties propose ideas. Then the government goes out and decides how they’re going to react to that.

A good example of that is what happened with pharma-care—or what didn’t happen with pharmacare. Andrea Horwath and New Democrats worked hard and put together a proposal with our good friend the health critic of the day, who is the health critic today, the member for Nickel Belt. They put together a pharmacare program that finally did what Tommy Douglas asked to happen when we created a public health system here in Ontario and across Canada, starting in Saskatchewan, and that was to make sure that drugs were covered by the public health care system.

We put together a position that put some pressure on the government, and the government recognized that they had a problem, so they did the program for those over 65 and for those under 25, but the rest of the public were not covered. So the opposition did manage to affect the government in a way that did things that the opposition thought were, at least, a step in the right direction.

Would I have done it the way that the Liberals did? Absolutely not. New Democrats would have done it differently. In the end, it would have been a savings to the health care budget, because if people take their meds, they don’t get as sick. They are not in hospitals as often. They are not queuing up at the emergency ward etc.

Back to the standing orders: By having standing orders that are harsher and consolidate power in the office of the Premier, you are in a situation where, in the end, it doesn’t serve this House and it doesn’t serve the members well.

I know that there are other members in our caucus who want to speak to this. With that, I would say to Mr. Speaker that I look forward to what the government has to say in response to what I just said, and I certainly look forward to what is going to be said by other members of this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: This morning we’re talking about a time allocation motion. Just to put it on the record, time allocation means that the government doesn’t want us to talk about the issue any more. They want to close debate. The issue that we would like to talk about, and that the government doesn’t want to talk about any more, is changes to the standing orders. “Standing orders” is a fancy name that means “the rules under which we can conduct business.”

Everybody knows that the Legislative Assembly represents all of Ontario. There are 124 of us; we represent every single area of our province. We come together to make the best decisions possible so that Ontario can prosper and a family can live a safe and fulfilling life. We try our best to make our province as good as it can be. In order to do this, we put in rules about what you can say and not say, how can you move things forward and who can do what. This is all fine. Those are the rules of the House so that we, as a group, can achieve our purpose to make our province as great as it can be.

But over the years, and now in this particular debate, the government has brought in changes to the standing orders, to the rules as to how we will conduct business at the Legislative Assembly. It doesn’t take too much effort to realize that the changes that have been brought forward are for one goal, one aim, and that is to give the Premier more power and to give the rest of the ministers, the rest of his caucus—as well as the people in opposition—less power.

If we really think that through, is this really something that we want? Is this really how you get the best decisions made? I would argue that when you take the ideas of 124 people, this is how you get the best ideas coming forward. One person will never have all the truth with a capital T and all the best ideas. We all come from different back-grounds. We all bring something positive to the group of us who are the MPPs for this province. How do we make sure that we respect each other’s point of view? We engage in debate.

So when the government puts forward a piece of legislation—a motion, actually—that says, “We will change the rules,” I am worried. I wouldn’t be as worried if the government said, “We will let a committee look at how we make changes to the rules.”

I’m not against change. I fully realize that some of those rules were written in the previous century, the previous millennium—a long time ago—and they may need to be brought up to 2018. I’m fully open to that. But what I’m not open to is that one person gets to make the changes, and it doesn’t matter what the rest of us think. We won’t have a chance to be heard. We won’t have a chance to effect change. We won’t have a chance to make things better. I think this is a step backwards. I don’t think this is a step forward.

Do the standing orders need to be changed? Yes, Speaker. I will read you page 2. I realize that reading the standing orders is not always the most fun thing to listen to on a Tuesday morning, but what can I say? I will read the French version of it, so Mr. Translator, there, be ready.

« II. LA PRÉSIDENCE

« Élection du président

« 3. L’élection du président de l’Assemblée se déroule de la façon suivante :

« Mise en candidature d’un député

«

a) À l’ouverture de la première session d’une législature, ou lorsque se produit une vacance de la présidence, un député qui n’est ni ministre de la Couronne, ni le chef d’un parti reconnu à l’Assemblée, s’adresse au greffier et propose à l’Assemblée un député candidat à la présidence et propose que ce député “Occupe le fauteuil de l’Assemblée comme président”.

« Le député informe l’Assemblée de son acceptation

«

b) Un député dont la mise en candidature est appuyée informe l’Assemblée s’il accepte sa mise en candidature...

«

c) Le greffier demande... »

Je vais arrêter. Vous avez l’idée de ce que j’ai lu.

I only read you three paragraphs from the standing orders. In those three paragraphs, there are changes that I would like to make. The first one is that we talk about the election of the Speaker—congratulations. You’re sitting in the Speaker’s chair.

The standing orders are written in a way that only assumes that a man could become Speaker. In French, we say “un président” and if it’s a woman, we say “une présidente.” The standing orders are written in a way that, apparently, if we were to put forward a woman, we would be going against the standing orders, because right now the standing order says clearly: “élection d’un président.” It assumes that we could only elect a man.

Well, it happens that forever on end, the Ontario Legislature has always elected a man as their main Speaker, but I take exception to that. This is 2018. In my caucus, I’m really proud to say that out of 40 MPPs, 20 of us are women. I see women across the aisle and I see women in every part of this. Why are our standing orders written in a way that would say that only a man could have the position of Speaker when, really, it should be open to every MPP?

It goes on to say that the Clerk—the Clerk used to be a woman; it’s now a man. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the standing orders are written in a way that the Clerk is a man: “au greffier, à la greffière.” Here, again, the name of the person—the way you say “Clerk” in French, you have to assign it “la greffière” or “le greffier,” depending on if they are a man or a woman. None of that is in the standing orders. When we had a woman as a Clerk, it really should not have been allowed because the standing orders are quite specific and there’s no going back and forth. It is quite specific that it’s “un greffier,” not “une greffière.”

Same thing: It has to be “un député” who nominates the Speaker; it could not be a woman doing that. Yet, in the last election of the Speaker, it was the member for Thornhill, Gila Martow, who nominated the Speaker—she’s a woman—but apparently the standing orders do not allow that. You get the idea. It goes on and on like this.

Would I like a review of the standing orders to bring them up to 2018? Yes, absolutely. How do you do this? You do this with the way that my colleague the member from Timmins had brought forward: You send the standing orders to a committee. You make sure that you have representation on this committee of people who know the standing orders. Let’s face it: There are standing orders that exist in every Parliament in this country. Every province has their standing orders, the Canadian Parliament has their standing orders and the Parliaments in the three territories have their standing orders.

There are people sitting there right in front of me who know the standing orders inside and out and who could give advice as to how we make them to achieve the goal that we want—that is, to set the rules and procedures for debate that would allow us, in the end, to have the best laws possible so that we achieve a goal that motivates all of us to make sure we have the best province possible for people, for families, for all of us, for businesses big or small and for the environment for all of us to thrive.

This is what we want to do, but this is not at all what we are dealing with. We are dealing with changes to the standing orders that are there for one reason: to give the Premier more power. I have no problem with our parliamentary system. The government has a majority. It doesn’t matter what they put forward; they will always cross the finish line. This is the way it works. But, on the way there, sometimes there is room for improvement.

I will give you two examples. The first one is my very first private member’s bill. It was the very first co-sponsored private member’s bill in this chamber. It was something relatively new; it started about 11 years ago that members from opposite parties were allowed to get together to put private members’ bills. Myself and Dave Levac, who was an MPP on the Liberal benches, put forward a private member’s bill—it went under my name but we co-sponsored it, myself and Dave Levac, to ban flavoured cigarillos.

Flavoured cigarillos are like kind of an oversized cigarette, but they’re called “cigarillos.” At the time, they came in over 50 different flavours, most of them targeted to young people. You would see bubble gum, you would see chocolate and you would see all sorts of fruit flavours.

We put forward the private member’s bill, it went through the process of second reading and it became law. Hey, my very first private member’s bill—I was very proud that it became law. But it did not have much time for debate. It did not have much time for people to have a good look at it.

I will tell you that the ink was not dried on the private member’s bill when the tobacco industry had found a way forward. When I had described the cigarillo, I had described the cigarillo by the number of grams of tobacco in the cigarillo because I didn’t know how else to describe it. What they did was add 0.01 of a gram of tobacco in their cigarillo, so therefore it was not a cigarillo as described in the bill. And they just kept right on selling cigarillos.

I learned from that, Speaker. I learned that had we had more time for debate; had I had time to talk to more people about cigarillos; had I had time to look to and listen to more people, we would have described cigarillos in a different way.

I came back with a cigarillo bill. That time, it did not describe a cigarillo with 20 grams of tobacco or less—no, not 20 grams; I forget how many grams of tobacco. We described them in very broad terms, and now flavoured cigarillos are banned in Ontario. You don’t see bubble-gum- and mango-flavoured cigarillos anymore. They are gone.

I’m telling you this story because this was my failing. I’m not blaming anybody. That was me who thought I had done something really good. It was my first private member’s bill. I was brand new to this chamber. I thought I had done very well. But had I taken the time to listen more, had I taken the time to consult more with others, we would have banned flavoured cigarillos four years earlier than we actually did in Ontario. I know for a fact that tens of thousands of youth who started to smoke—flavoured cigarillos, when you smoked them, were not harsh. They tasted pretty darn good; they smelled really good.

They were a perfect gateway to cigarettes for youth. So had I done that, four years of young people getting hooked on nicotine and getting addicted to tobacco would have been prevented. I learned from that.

My second example would be another private member’s bill that I had put forward, which was called calorie labelling. Basically, now, when you go into any big-chain restaurant, you will see the item and the price—pasta, $12—and you will see the amount of calories in that dish, so that you can make an informed decision if calories are something that you would like to know about.

It also had all sorts of other effects. Once the restaurant industry had to show the number of calories in their preparations, they changed a lot of recipes, because they showed that—you know, a salad with 3,000 calories is pretty hard to sell these days, because most people who eat salad want a light meal. You put enough oil and grease and bacon in it and you have 3,000 calories, which is way more than a person like myself or yourself needs in an entire day, never mind in one salad.

Calorie labelling: I put this bill forward at least five times before it finally reached the finish line. But the idea is that the first time we debated calorie labelling in this chamber—I will always remember it. I was sitting back there at the time. I was looking at the east gallery. The east gallery was packed with people, all with little logos that said the Keg, that said McDonald’s. They all had their little shirts on, and they were all from the restaurant industry, and they were all staring me down in the way that—you know, if looks could kill, I would not be there anymore. That was one of those.

Mr. Michael Mantha: You looked like a cheeseburger.

M me France Gélinas: I looked like—yes, maybe. I don’t look like a cheeseburger. Anyway, don’t listen to Michael.

That was the set-up for that. When it came time for the vote, I had talked to my colleagues. That was four years later. With my cigarillo bill, I was brand new. With calorie labelling, I had a few years under my belt. I had talked to the people from the Progressive Conservatives. I had talked to the Liberals. At the time, we did not have Greens. Basically, a lot of people got it. The Canadian Cancer Society was on board. The dietitians were on board, and nurses and physicians. The medical association held a big press conference with me. All of the health care system stakeholders were on board, and even a few restaurants were on board.

When it came time for the vote, I knew that there were some people in the restaurant industry, mainly on the Liberal bench, who felt very uncomfortable about mandating a restaurant to put calories on their menus. So, we actually held a free vote. At the time, the Liberals were sitting on the government bench. Most of them voted in favour of my bill and a few of them actually voted against. The Conservatives were sitting here at the time. When it came time for the Conservatives, it was the same thing. On our bench, the NDP voted in favour. The bill passed, Speaker, with three voices. It was a little bit nerve-racking but it passed.

The idea was really the difference it makes once you take into account—so, I had talked to the restaurant industry. I had talked to the MPPs who had problems with the bill and tried to make changes to it, because I re-introduced it five times.

By the time we reached the finish line, I had put into place things such as having to have at least $1 million in revenue. Why? Because if you are a small mom-and-pop, you change your recipes every day. You make your vegetable soup with whatever vegetable is in season. It is impossible for them to know the number of calories in their food unless they spend a whole lot of time, effort and money to have this counted. Same thing: If you are not a standard chain, the portions may vary quite a bit, because in one you scooped up more noodles and in the other you scooped up more—so I got that.

We got this because we took the time to listen; we took the time to learn. Now you have to have a number of franchises in Ontario; you have to be of a certain size. And it works.

Now, McDonald’s will tell you that since they have the calorie labelling, the people in Ontario order, in general, 27% fewer calories per meal than they did before the calorie labelling was there. But interestingly enough, they spend more money than they used to because they choose to make healthy choices. Where it made the biggest difference was when parents were buying food for their children.

The way we had it before, you had the calories but they were not on the menu. They were on a flyer, under the cash, where nobody could find them, or they were on the way to the bathroom. If you remember, on the way to the bathroom, you would have those big posters that told you all of the differences and the number of calories. Who the heck makes a purchase decision on the way to the bathroom? Nobody does that. One in 1,000 used to use it; now it’s one in two Ontarians who use this information to inform their purchases.

It works. Parents choose healthier food for their kids. They choose food that has fewer calories. They are more aware of the number of calories their children and them-selves should consume in a day.

But it worked, and I’m giving this example, because we had time to talk to one another. We took the time to listen, and we brought forward something—was this exactly what I had wanted when I first introduced it? No. But did it achieve the end goal of making our province better? Yes, absolutely.

I see that I have to leave time on the clock. Coming back to what we’re talking about: If you take away debate, if you take away the opportunity to learn from the other side, if you take away the voices of all of the people who are here, whether you are the Premier, whether you are a minister in cabinet, whether you are part of the government without a ministerial portfolio, whether you are in opposition or you sit as an independent—you all have a voice. You deserve to be heard because you represent tens of thousands of Ontarians who, no matter who they voted for, deserve to be heard.

This is how we will make better laws. To bring time allocation on a bill that is made to limit debate, to me, is adding insult to injury, and I cannot vote for that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

M. Michael Mantha: Encore, on se retrouve ici, à parler d’un projet où on va ôter les voix, on va ôter les paroles, on va limiter les discussions et puis donner le pouvoir au—

M me France Gélinas: Premier ministre.

M. Michael Mantha: Au premier ministre. Puis on regarde : c’est quoi, essentiellement, qui va arriver? Comment est-ce que ça va impacter les gens de la province? C’est ça qu’on regarde. Puis quand on regarde comment ça va impacter les gens, c’est bien franc : on leur ôte leur voix. Il y a plusieurs des députés qui ont été élus, ici dans la Chambre, des nouveaux députés qui veulent participer aux débats, qui veulent offrir leurs commentaires, qui veulent donner leurs perspectives, en effet, de comment les gens se sentent dans leur région.

Ma collègue de Nickel Belt a donné deux de ces exemples, en effet, de comment c’est important d’avoir les discussions nécessaires sur tous les projets de loi, comment c’est important d’avoir des discussions quand on arrive, quand on est dans nos commissions, comment c’est important d’entendre les voix et puis les paroles des gens d’en dehors de la Chambre.

Moi aussi, je vais ajouter un exemple. Je n’étais pas député dans le temps, mais j’étais dans ma communauté. On regardait à faire un projet de loi pour aider les personnes sur les « Ski-Doo trails ». On regardait à emporter un projet de loi ou une pièce de législation qui était pour les aider, en effet, à charger des frais pour faire la maintenance des « trails » pour les motoneiges.

M me France Gélinas: Les sentiers de motoneige.

M. Michael Mantha: Ah, les sentiers de motoneige. Merci, France. Merci, ma collègue de Nickel Belt.

Ce qui fait qu’un projet de loi a été déposé. C’était une super grosse et tellement bonne idée que les partis qui étaient ici dans la maison étaient tous d’accord. « C’est une belle affaire. » Puis on était pour le pousser sans discussion, mais avec les discussions qu’on a eues ici dans la maison, il y a eu un accord entre les partis : « Peut-être bien qu’on devrait l’envoyer en comité pour qu’on puisse entendre le public. »

Puis la surprise qui est venue aux gens qui ont participé c’est que les gens ont eu la chance de venir porter leurs expériences, leurs idées. Puis on a entendu toutes sortes d’affaires, en effet, sur le problème qu’il y avait avec le projet de loi tel qu’il était écrit, et puis des propositions pour essayer, pour les gens dans les sentiers de motoneige, d’améliorer les services et de rendre une ressource pour que les gens puissent maintenir les sentiers.

Mais c’est une bonne chance qu’on l’a fait. C’est une bonne chance qu’on est allé dans les sentiers pour avoir des discussions, pour faire certain qu’on améliorait le projet de loi et qu’on entendait les autres gens à travers la province, entendait les mots des organisations, les gens à qui appartenaient les terrains, les fermiers, les communautés et puis tous les gens qui étaient responsables pour les chemins et qui ont vraiment contribué à faire un projet de loi qui était bon, qui était solide, qui avait été étudié comme il faut.

Puis jusqu’à dire aujourd’hui que c’est un projet de loi qui continue à opérer, qui fonctionne bien. Y a-t-il des améliorations que tu peux faire? Oui, il y a des améliorations qui peuvent être faites, pareil comme il y a des améliorations qui peuvent être faites—où est mon livre, là?—à nos règlements de l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario. Oui, il y a des changements.

Ça fait qu’on apporte encore de quoi qui va limiter les voix des gens à travers la province de l’Ontario. Est-ce qu’il y a des améliorations? Absolument, il y a des améliorations à faire. Il y a tout le temps de quoi qu’on peut rajouter aux règlements, mais limiter les discussions, ce n’est pas ce qu’on est prêt à regarder, ni continuer à donner le pouvoir à une personne pour implémenter son agenda. On devrait regarder plus à ouvrir les discussions et non pas les limiter à une personne de déterminer ce qu’on va faire ici dans cette Chambre.

En rajoutant les gens, à vraiment retirer les idées, avoir des discussions d’un bord à l’autre—et puis, non, on ne va pas être tout le temps d’accord avec les sujets qu’on discute. Non, on va avoir des différences d’opinion. Non, on ne va pas tout le temps regarder les choses de la même perspective, mais tout de même, une bonne journée ou durant une bonne discussion, il y a une lumière qui va allumer : « Hum! je pense que c’est une bonne idée, ça. »

Moi, je suis une personne du nord de l’Ontario. Souvent, on voit des décisions qui sont prises ici à Toronto, et ça marche à Toronto, ça marche dans le sud de l’Ontario, mais l’impact négatif sur une résidence dans le nord de l’Ontario, c’est vraiment de quoi que—il est tellement important qu’on entende la perspective de tous les gens de la province. Puis, je retourne à l’importance de quand on a des projets de loi, nous, comme opposition, oui, on va faire notre devoir.

Je vais prendre ma place, et puis je vais regarder l’aigle qui est là, pareil comme le gouvernement va regarder le hibou : eux, pour qu’ils soient sages dans leurs décisions; et moi, pour que je sois vigilant dans les miennes, dans ma fonction ici comme opposition. Puis, oui, je vais m’opposer, mais je ne m’opposerai pas tout le temps juste pour m’opposer; je vais donner mes idées, les miennes, mes suggestions faites de ma perspective de comment ça affecte les gens dans mon coin de la province, et puis, non pas seulement dans mon coin de la province.

Je suis extrêmement fier de représenter les gens d’Algoma–Manitoulin; je ne les oublie jamais. Mon devoir, premièrement, à tout coup que je me lève de mon siège et que je pèse ma position, c’est pour être porte-parole de la voix des gens de ma circonscription. Mais je suis aussi un porte-parole pour tous les gens de la province, et puis j’écoute les gens.

Il y a plusieurs gens qui viennent me visiter ici à mon bureau, et puis, non, ils ne viennent pas seulement d’Algoma–Manitoulin; ils viennent du Sud, ils viennent de Windsor, ils viennent d’Ottawa, ils viennent de Thunder Bay, ils viennent de Kenora, ils viennent de Wawa, et ils viennent de Marathon. Et ces idées-là, quand ils viennent, sont les perspectives nécessaires pour nous, comme députés, pour utiliser les outils à notre disposition pour faire de bonnes décisions. C’est de quoi que je prends extrêmement au sérieux dans mon rôle comme député.

Changer les règlements de l’Assemblée législative et puis les ordres pour donner moins de discussion et pour, effectivement, ôter la parole aux gens de la province, ce n’est pas pour le bien-être de la province pantoute. C’est une erreur qu’on fait. Puis on continue à faire ces erreurs-là; ce n’est pas la première fois que ça arrive juste dans ces derniers mois depuis que ce nouveau gouvernement est rentré.

Il faut que tu te poses la question : « Bien, pourquoi sont-ils en train de faire ça? » Pourquoi est-ce qu’un gouvernement majoritaire, qui vont présenter leur vision pour la province, qui vont présenter leurs idées et les changements qu’ils veulent faire—ils sont un gouvernement majoritaire.

Ne te trompe pas, monsieur le Président, ils vont venir à bout d’accomplir le projet de loi qu’ils veulent faire, et ils vont passer à travers les étapes nécessaires. Ils sont un gouvernement majoritaire. Ce qui fait que, oui, nous autres, on va prendre notre rôle. On va donner des suggestions, on va donner des oppositions, et on va donner des idées pour l’améliorer.

Mais, à la fin de la journée, en mettant des restrictions de temps et en ôtant la parole à tous les députés ici dans la Chambre, ce n’est pas une avenue qui va aider la nouvelle législation qui va rentrer ou les projets de loi qui vont passer à travers cette Chambre. Ça va les affaiblir.

Avoir plus de discussions, avoir plus de discours entre les partis. Même pour les chefs, les « House leaders » des deux partis; il y a des temps où ils peuvent se parler puis avoir des discussions à l’effet de planifier les affaires—avoir une bonne ligne de communication entre les deux « House leaders » des équipes, comme on les appelle. Ils se rencontrent régulièrement, et c’est à ce point-là où tu as les discussions à l’effet du bien-être de la famille—de la Chambre. Moi, je dis tout le temps « famille ». Oui, c’est une famille. C’est de même que tu vas faire avancer les affaires.

Mais sans avoir ces discussions-là et puis de tout le temps dire, « C’est de ma façon; c’est de même qu’on va le faire, et on le fait de même parce qu’on peut le faire de même », ce n’est vraiment pas quelque chose qui va résonner. À un temps ou à un autre, les gens dans la province vont commencer à réaliser que le premier ministre, avec son marteau—ça va être bien plus facile d’implémenter des changements dans la province avec un coup de main. Sors ta main à la place d’utiliser le marteau. Jase, parle, aie ces discussions. Écoute les autres voix de la province.

Ce que je veux rappeler au gouvernement ici, c’est que, oui, vous avez votre mandat; oui, vous avez un gouvernement majoritaire. J’entends souvent de vous autres, où vous lancez l’idée que, à 97 %, notre parti aurait supporté le gouvernement précédent, les libéraux. Mais, regardez les numéros. Regardez l’histoire. Regardez les faits. Ce gouvernement, le gouvernement conservateur, a supporté le gouvernement libéral dans le temps à 49 %—à 49 %. Le parti NPD a supporté leurs décisions, et quand on a eu des discussions, à 53 % ou 54 %.

Êtes-vous étonné d’entendre ça, monsieur, que le gouvernement conservateur a supporté les initiatives des libéraux à 49 %? C’est quasiment 50 %, ça, monsieur le Président. C’est-tu surprenant? Tu écoutes la façon dont le gouvernement conservateur est en train de parler de « Ô mon Dieu ! quel désastre c’était avec les libéraux », mais ils les ont supportés à 50 %. Il y a eu des idées, il y a eu des discussions et il y a eu temps où—hum—ils étaient d’accord.

Là, la question que je vais te poser, monsieur le Président—puisqu’il faudrait qu’on en fasse l’étude—c’est, quel 50 % a supporté les libéraux? Ça serait intéressant de savoir, hein? Je pense qu’on a des gens des fois qui s’asseyent ici dans la maison et qui peuvent la faire, cette étude-là. Mais pour aujourd’hui, je vais vous laisser aller de même.

Je veux revenir à l’idée que, oui, la discussion améliore les projets de loi. Je vois mes collègues de l’autre bord qui rient. Ils le savent bien trop que, tellement, tu peux lâcher la ligne, tu peux envoyer des « flags », et que, simplement parce que tu le dis plusieurs fois, ça ne veut pas dire réellement que ça arrive.

Vous autres, vous devez avoir du fun, là-bas, à traduire ce que je suis en train de lancer, parce qu’il y en a, un petit peu, de ces nouveaux mots, dont je suis en train de me faire accroire—les nouveaux mots que je suis en train de sortir.

Mais, je reviens au point que je voulais faire. C’est que limiter nos discussions, limiter le montant de débat qu’on a sur certains projets de loi—et puis, je ne dis pas tous les projets de loi. On l’a vu ici avant. On a eu une bonne idée, on est tous d’accord. Les trois partis étaient d’accord. Je l’ai vu fonctionner dans le gouvernement précèdent. Je pense que ça nous est arrivé une ou deux fois, si je ne me trompe pas, ma collègue de Nickel Belt. Je pense que ç’a pris trois jours à passer un projet de loi—trois, quatre jours.

M me France Gélinas: On en a fait un la même journée.

M. Michael Mantha: Ma collègue vient juste de me dire qu’il y avait une journée où tous les trois partis étaient d’accord. Il y a eu tellement de discussion avec les groupes en dehors des sessions qu’on a eu la chance de passer un projet de loi en une journée. Imagine-toi les bénéfices qu’il y a à avoir des discussions entre les trois partis.

Ce n’est jamais une méchante affaire de se parler. Ce n’est jamais une méchante affaire d’avoir une bonne ligne de communication. Ce n’est jamais une méchante affaire d’écouter l’opposition et puis les autres partis qui sont ici en Chambre. Ce n’est jamais une méchante affaire d’attirer le public et de les impliquer dans nos projets de loi. Ce n’est jamais une méchante affaire de prendre des idées. Ça, c’est un signe de leadership. Ça, c’est un signe de quelqu’un qui est prêt à reconnaître que : « Mes idées sont bonnes. Mais, sais-tu quoi? Ce n’est pas une méchante idée, ce que tu m’as donné. Sais-tu quoi? Je suis ouvert. »

Quand je rencontre des étudiants quand je vais les voir à l’école, je leur dis tout le temps : « On a des oreilles sur le bord de notre tête. Il y a bien des gens qui peuvent écouter avec leurs oreilles. » Je vais le dire en anglais.

We have ears on the sides of our heads. Many people hear with those ears but it takes a good person and a strong person to listen with those ears. There is a difference, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to end off by saying that limiting debate on potential changes that will impact all Ontarians by denying the voices that are amongst each and every one, and the right of each and every one of the members who are in this House—denying the opportunity for stakeholders, farmers, individuals and organizations to come forward and express their concerns when it comes to particular pieces of legislation is wrong.

Again, putting this time allocation is still wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 11 relating to allocation of time on government order number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Orders of the day? The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: No further business, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): No further business. This House stands in recess until question period at 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today several guests with the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians: the Honourable Roy McMurtry, former Chief Justice of Ontario and former Attorney General, along with his wife, Ria Jean McMurtry, and also in the gallery today is the Honourable Hugh Segal, former senator.

They are joined by several former members of provincial Parliament: Laura Albanese, Bill Barlow, Marcel Beaubien, Marion Boyd, Annamarie Castrilli, Ron Hansen, Karen Haslam, John Hastings, Helena Jaczek, Al Kolyn, Jeff Leal, Tracy MacCharles, Rosario Marchese, Judy Marsales, Doug Moffatt, Jennifer Mossop, Lily Oddie, Lou Rinaldi, John O’Toole, Gillian Sandeman, Joe Spina, Gary Stewart, George Taylor, former Speaker David Warner, and Bob Wong. Welcome back to the Ontario Legislature. It’s great to have you here.

He’s unfortunately not on my list, but I see him up there: Steve Gilchrist is with us as well today. Have I missed anybody else?

The longest-serving female member in the history of the Ontario Legislature, Julia Munro, is here.

I’m sorry, I see Gerry Phillips is here: Gerry Phillips. And I see Phil Gillies who is here—not on the list.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I hope I’ve caught everyone.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that they are also joined by several former parliamentarians from Manitoba and Quebec, including former Speaker Daryl Reid from Manitoba. Again, welcome to the Legislature.

Introduction of guests: the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, you did introduce those guests, but I was going to point this out: I don’t know if it’s a good or a bad thing, but you and I know most of those people and served with them.

Mr. Will Bouma: Speaker, you may have mentioned it and I didn’t hear it, but my good friend and a former member here, Phil Gillies, is also in the Speaker’s gallery.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Today is Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day, and the Ontario Coalition For Better Child Care is here: Carolyn Ferns, from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care; also early childhood educators Kim Mantulak, Sydney Wilson, Sonia Tavares, Alana Powell, Lisa Johnston, Sophia Mohamed, Nancy Santos and Gurjinder Kaur Sidhu. Thank you for the good work you do in the province of Ontario.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Anna Baggio, Eugenia Kwok and Niamh Wall from the Wildlands League. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Rod Phillips: It’s my pleasure to rise and acknowledge with us today in the gallery Ben Hendry, the president of PEGO, the Professional Engineers Government of Ontario, who is also an engineer in the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; and Martin Haalstra, who is vice-president of PEGO and an engineer in the Ministry of Transportation. Welcome.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I would like to welcome the grade 4, 5 and 6 students and teachers from St. Teresa Catholic Elementary School in my riding of Kitchener Centre who are visiting Queen’s Park today. I look forward to meeting everybody after question period. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m honoured to have two constituents from my riding of Oakville who played a major role in my campaign. I’d like to introduce Alan Boucher and Barbara Greene.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome some friends from the group Water Wells First visiting Queen’s Park today: Kevin Jakubec, Mark St. Pierre, Ron Tetrault, Mark Calzavera and Dr. Joel Gagnon. I want to welcome them here today.

Mr. Ross Romano: I’m pleased to rise and welcome the northern Ontario representative for Advocis from my home riding of Sault Ste. Marie, Eric Barton, and from Sudbury, Todd Boyd and Catherine Muir.

I also want to welcome, from the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology in Sault Ste. Marie, Dr. Ron Common, and the chair of the board of governors, David Zuccato.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I would like to welcome, from Marten Falls, Chief Bruce Achneepineskum, Lawrence Baxter, Alanna Downey Baxter and Denise Baxter. I know one of the chief’s granddaughters is also a page here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I have two introductions to make this morning. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our page, Armita Bhatti. She is serving as a page from Adrienne Clarkson Public School in my riding of Richmond Hill. Welcome. We look forward to working together with you. Thank you for being a page.

For the next introduction I have, it is my privilege to welcome a government and trade delegation from China visiting Queen’s Park today for a study tour. Let me welcome three deputy mayors—Mr. Yan Wanglin, the deputy mayor from Zhangjiakou; Ms. Zhang Yuexian, the deputy mayor from Tangshan; and Mr. Xu Fujun, the deputy mayor from Handan—and also directors of the government relationship association, including Mr. Zhang Zefeng, Mr. Miao Bingsong, Mr. Wang Shaohua, Mr. Li Long, Mr. Yang Yibao, Mr. Song Rentang, Mr. Sun Wenxin, Mr. Ma Yuhui, Ms. Zhang Lange, Mr. Xu Xiangdong, Mr. Wang Zhong, Mr. Jiang Jianming, Ms.

Hao Weili, Mr. Zhang Qiang, Mr. Jiang Zhigang, Mr. Zhao Wensheng and Mr. Xu Peng. Welcome, all of you who joined this study tour. Welcome.

Mr. Ian Arthur: I would like to welcome to the Legislature members from my community who are here for Advocis day: Will Britton, Greg Gies and Craig Bouchard, and also extend a warm welcome to a dear friend, Shaunis Sakell, who is visiting the Legislature.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s always a pleasure to welcome in the House members of Advocis day, especially Kris Birchard, who is here from Orléans—welcome—and also David McGruer, who I will be meeting this afternoon. Welcome to our Legislature.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome two members from my riding: Linda Gratton and Joanne Bedard. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge two former members who are in your gallery: Mr. Jeff Leal and Mr. Gary Stewart.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to acknowledge our new page, Olajiire, whose name in Nigerian means “expect something good in the morning,” and her proud father, Babatunde, who is here in the gallery today.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would like to welcome two con-stituents here for Advocis day today: Sean Lawrence and Rob Stewart.

Miss Monique Taylor: It always gives me great pleasure to welcome Advocis into the House, and to one of my constituents, Grace DiLeo Lindsay: Welcome to Queen’s Park. It’s always great to meet with you.

M lle Amanda Simard: I just spotted him in the gallery, so I wanted to give him a special welcome. It’s the former MPP from my riding, Jean-Marc Lalonde, a very well-respected man in the riding but also in this Legislature, I know. Welcome, Jean-Marc.

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Today, I stand for the introduction of a special guest. I don’t see him here yet, but I know he’s coming: Dr. Charles Godfrey. Dr. Godfrey, in addition to serving as a past member of this House, is still active as a celebrated author of many books. He’s a renowned military historian, philanthropist, a friend with a wicked sense of humour, a neighbour and a mentor. At the tender age of 101, he’s still a practising physician. God bless.

Mr. David Piccini: I just spotted, as well, a former member of provincial Parliament from my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, Lou Rinaldi, who served with distinction and is a very well-respected member of my community.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’m thrilled to introduce my OLIP intern, Clara Pasieka, who is with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the pleasure of introducing a former member for Stoney Creek in the prior Parliaments before the riding changed over. That’s MPP Jennifer Mossop, as well as Rick Firth, the president of Hospice Palliative Care Ontario.

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s always my pleasure to acknowledge in the Speaker’s gallery the former member for Durham, John O’Toole. He has been a wonderful mentor, and it’s great to have him in this place today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The very patient Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Greg Rickford: It’s good exercise, actually, Mr. Speaker.

Sophie Sutherland is the page captain here today. She’s come all the way from Thunder Bay to offer her services to the Legislature. Sophie is the second young woman from her family to represent Marten Falls First Nation as a page in this Legislature. Sophie has some great support from her family here today while she pursues this exciting opportunity: her mother, Denise Baxter; her grandfather, Lawrence Baxter, and grandmother, Alanna Downey Baxter.

I’d also like to welcome the chief of Marten Falls First Nation, Chief Bruce Achneepineskum, who is also here to support Sophie today. Please join me in thanking Sophie for her service, and welcoming her family and supporters to the Legislature today.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park Korreen Bennett, of my riding of York South–Weston, and also former member of provincial Parliament Laura Albanese, and also Ron Hansen.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: In the members’ gallery we have two members from North Bay, from our Advocis group, here: Gord Rymal and Greg Briggs.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I wasn’t going to, but now that we’re introducing them all over again, I notice that David Warner is here, the former Speaker; a good colleague of mine who served in 1990 with me, Karen Haslam; and Rosario Marchese—and unanimous consent to allow him to speak.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, you’ve al-ready introduced her but I don’t think she can be celebrated enough. I’d like to recognize Julia Munro, former MPP for York–Simcoe.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to introduce everybody else in the building. We haven’t missed anybody.

Hon. John Yakabuski: Actually, we have missed one—and it’s great to get Paul Miller on Hansard. In the members’ gallery today, also with the Advocis group, is a gentleman from my riding: Yves Roy. He’s here today from Pembroke as part of the Advocis day. Thank you very much for joining us, Yves.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School. They are visiting Parliament today, and I’m very glad to see them. They are from my riding, and hopefully we’ll see some of them in Parliament in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The last one: the member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker. I wouldn’t want him to go unnoticed because he comes here on a regular basis, but Howard Brown is back. Howard, welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It is now time to assemble the pages.

I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session of this 42nd Parliament: Albert Douglas from Windsor West; Amani Altaf, Markham–Unionville; Amber Dickson from Niagara Falls; Andre Zhang, Don Valley West; Andrei Li, Toronto–Danforth; Armita Bhatti, Richmond Hill; Eiliyah Siddiqi, Mississauga Centre; Ethan Gobin, Scarborough Centre; Harry Dai from Oakville; Honora Murphy, York South–Weston; Ian Williams, Peterborough–Kawartha; Jacob Riddell, Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill; Marcel Audi, Etobicoke North; Maya Bevand, York–Simcoe; Olajiire Fowler, Niagara Centre; Richa Pandya from Brampton West; Rongbin Gu from Scarborough–Guildwood; unfortunately, Rose Martin-Chase from Simcoe–Grey is not here today but she’ll likely be here tomorrow; Sophia Ruffolo, Perth–Wellington; Sophie LaVasseur, Ottawa South; Sophie Sutherland, Thunder Bay–Superior North; and Taya Graham MacDonald from London West.

Again, please join me in welcoming our pages.

Applause.

Roy McMurtry

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next I’m going to recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Todd Smith: I seek unanimous consent that the House pay tribute to Roy McMurtry, 2018 recipient of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians’ award for distinguished service, with five minutes allotted to the government, five minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, three minutes to the independent Liberal members and two minutes to the independent Green member.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to the Honourable Roy McMurtry. Agreed? Agreed.

We’ll start off with the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On behalf of Andrea Horwath and the New Democrats, we want to take this time—there’s not enough time in five minutes, quite frankly—to speak to the accomplishments of the Honourable Roy McMurtry.

Roy came to this place at a very different time, a time when this House was preoccupied with issues that we now take for granted, and he was one of the people, as part of the Legislature of the day, who moved the yardsticks forward on a number of issues that are extremely important—very controversial at the time, but they were the right things to do. I think he demonstrated that it takes courage—it takes courage, quite frankly, sometimes—to stand up to do what’s right. Roy was one of those types of MPPs.

It was at a time when there were a lot of Progressive Conservatives who were in this place who were trying to do the right thing. Yes, they were fiscal conservatives, but they were trying to move the yardsticks forward on a number of things.

Mr. McMurtry, as you know, came from a pretty distinguished law career before he got here, so it’s not as if Mr. McMurtry got here and had to do this job. It was a calling, and he recognized that there were some wrongs, that those wrongs had to be righted and that there had to be progress made on issues that were important to the people of that day, but that we now benefit from. How many members of this House—new, current and those who were there before—could really look back at their career in this place and look back at their time on the bench and say that the types of differences that they made are so far-reaching that they’ll outlast us?

It was something very controversial at the time, because we all know that our nation and our province are often divided on different issues around language, race and religion. Mr. McMurtry, along with the government of the day, stuck their necks out and did what was right for that community.

When it came to reforming family law—I’m not a lawyer, but if I was a lawyer, that’s probably the last law that I would want to advocate on, because it’s a very, very tough part of law to deal with, family law, when it comes to what happens to children in case of divorce or separation and what happens to the couple, what happens to that relationship. The then government and Mr. McMurtry, as the Attorney General, started some very significant changes and law reform that led to what we now know as our family law system that we have today. It is a darn sight better than what it was before Mr. McMurtry got here.

Are there still improvements that could be made? Absolutely; I think there are all kinds of things that could be improved upon. But again, it was one of those things where the generation of that time, those who served in this House, recognized that the world was changing, and that we had to change along with the world and along with the values as our society became more modern and became more multicultural. I think that that government of the day, back in the time under Mr. Davis, although not perfect and although there were obviously things that people may have disagreed with, moved those yardsticks forward on things that are so fundamental today that we take them for granted.

Mr. McMurtry was a large, large contributor to that. He was involved and a key player when it came to the negotiations on the Constitution. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney—no, I’m going to skip and go back to the Prime Minister before that. When we were negotiating the Constitution, Mr. McMurtry, along with Bill Davis, Roy Romanow and others, were key architects in deciding how to deal with what we now call the “notwithstanding” clause. Unfortunately we went through an experience in this House not too long ago where it was threatened to be used, and Mr.

McMurtry—even today, all these years forward—was brave enough and, I think, a person of his word and conviction that he put in writing what he thought about the use of that clause.

Now, I realize that that doesn’t make the government feel comfortable, but I don’t think that’s what Mr. McMurtry was all about. I don’t think Mr. McMurtry was about trying to make us feel comfortable about the things he did back then and the things he does today. It was to make us reflect and think on our actions and to say that if you come to this world and you come to this House or you sit on the bench, try to leave it a better place than you found it. And that means to confront sometimes authority in a way that checks and puts balances in place when it comes to how people are treated in this province.

I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. McMurtry and I just want to say on behalf of New Democrats, Andrea Horwath and the rest of us—and, I would say, a province that has been well served—that we thank you, sir, for the work that you did. Your legacy will live on forever and we’re extremely proud to have had you as a colleague.

Le Président (L’hon. Ted Arnott): La députée d’Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s a pleasure and it’s a real honour to rise today to pay tribute to the Honourable Roy McMurtry, a man for whom I personally and, I know, the entire Ontario community have so much admiration. He is a real inspiration for many of us here.

He does mention that when he came back to Toronto, he was not met with a standing ovation by his colleagues, but he stood by and actually convinced his colleagues that this was the right thing to do, so I think he was an inspiration for all of them. C’est pourquoi notre système de droit maintenant est officiellement bilingue. Merci, monsieur McMurtry.

As an Attorney General, the Honourable Mr. McMurtry had a significant impact on the legal system, from better human rights protection to legal aid reform, and a significant role in ensuring our constitutional reform. The promulgation of the charter is something that all of us benefit from. Whether we are immigrants, religious minorities, women, racialized minorities or Indigenous, we all benefit from this and we thank him for that. Our legal system has been better because of the work of the Honourable Mr. McMurtry.

After leaving this House, he went on to become the High Commissioner to the UK and then the Chief Justice of Ontario. The ground-breaking ruling in Halpern guaranteed marriage equality for same-sex couples. We’re the better for it. Thank you again.

I had the benefit of working with the Honourable Mr. McMurtry when he tried to improve victim treatment. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board criticized the past Liberal government for using an old statute to decide on the G20 protest. He criticized the current government on the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. He continues to be a voice for reason, a voice for the rule of law in Ontario and in Canada.

I want to celebrate him for everything that he has done. I want to celebrate the fact that his granddaughter was a graduate of the University of Ottawa and I had the pleasure of celebrating with him as a proud grandfather at that time. His memoirs are a work that we should all read. His contribution as a landscape artist also has to be celebrated.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, past, present and future, and on behalf of all Ontarians, I want to say merci, meegwetch and thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m honoured to rise today on behalf of the Green Party of Ontario to thank the Honourable Roy McMurtry for your distinguished service in this Legislature and for your incredible service on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Mr. McMurtry’s career in public service is truly in-spiring, spanning many distinguished roles: politician, lawyer, judge, ambassador and, I would say, public intellectual.

I am particularly thankful for Mr. McMurtry’s work in bringing forward the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I deeply appreciate your continued efforts to defend our charter rights to this very day.

I also want to thank Mr. McMurtry for being part of the court and showing courageous leadership, using our charter rights to extend those rights to same-sex couples to marry in Ontario. Few people have helped shape Ontario in the ways that Mr. McMurtry has, and all of us in this Legislature can learn from your leadership and from your example.

I can truly say as a new MPP representing a new party that I have so much to learn from your courage, your integrity and your leadership about how one conducts themselves in this place. So I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, Mr. McMurtry, for continuing to lead the way in protecting our rights and freedoms here in Ontario. Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a great honour to rise today to pay tribute to the Honourable Roy McMurtry, who is being recognized today by the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians with the Distinguished Service Award.

When it comes to distinguished service, I can think of few former parliamentarians who are as worthy of such a description as Roy McMurtry. He was first elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1975, representing the constituency of Eglinton, during the 30th, 31st and 32nd Parliaments. My riding of Eglinton–Lawrence is one of the successors to that constituency, and I can honestly say that I aspire to serve my constituents to the same high standard that Roy McMurtry set more than 30 years ago.

He had a great education at the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School. While attending university, he played football with a future Premier, Bill Davis.

Prior to entering politics, he practised law as a trial counsel for 17 years, and he would soon draw on that experience as an elected official serving as Attorney General of Ontario in the cabinet of Premier Bill Davis for nearly 10 years. Between 1978 and 1982, he did double duty, serving also as the province’s Solicitor General and, I believe, the minister for emergency planning—although in that role, in 1979 when the Mississauga train derailment happened, he had the good sense to defer to Mayor Hazel McCallion.

Some of Roy McMurtry’s most significant accomplishments as our province’s Attorney General have already been mentioned, but they also include overseeing major reforms in our justice system, particularly in the areas of bilingualism and family law. As a testament to his contributions to our justice system, the current head-quarters of the Attorney General of Ontario is, of course, called the McMurtry-Scott Building.

As mentioned, Roy McMurtry has also played an important role in constitutional negotiations that led to the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. One might even suggest that he cemented his place in Canadian history by hammering out a last-minute deal with then-federal Justice Minister Jean Chrétien and then-Attorney General of Saskatchewan Roy Romanow in what came to be known as the “kitchen accord” of November 6, 1981, arguably the perfect example of the classic Canadian compromise that gave us the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 1985, he chose not to seek re-election and was appointed the Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, serving in that role for three years before returning to private practice as a lawyer. In 1989 and 1990, he was also the chairman and CEO of the CFL, the Canadian Football League.

But he couldn’t stay out of public service for long. In 1991, Roy McMurtry was appointed Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, trial division, and later Chief Justice of that court in 1994. In 1996, he became the Chief Justice of Ontario, leading the Court of Appeal for Ontario until his retirement from the bench in 2007. He was selected as a recipient of the Order of Ontario later that year and made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2009.

After retiring from the bench, as if that wasn’t enough, he returned to private legal practice, became chancellor of York University from 2008 to 2014, and continues to practise to this day at Hull and Hull LLP. In his spare time, he has also become a celebrated landscape painter, and savvy art collectors are snapping up his works.

Over the course of his distinguished career as member of provincial Parliament for Eglinton, as the Attorney General of Ontario, as Chief Justice of Ontario, Roy McMurtry has left an indelible imprint on our justice system, and he is certainly most deserving of the recognition for his service to our province.

On behalf of our government and our caucus, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate Roy McMurtry on receiving the distinguished service award.

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: I seek unanimous consent to be able to ask a question on behalf of the MPP from Thunder Bay–Superior North today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa–Vanier is seeking the consent of the House to ask a question on behalf of another member. Agreed? Agreed.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question to the Acting Premier: Does the Premier’s government accept the independent FAO report that cancelling cap-and-trade will cost more than $3 billion over the next four years?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you: I thank the member from Davenport for the question. Yes, because when we say it cost $3 billion, that’s $3 billion back in the pockets of Ontario taxpayers.

The FAO report—and I appreciate the chance to speak to it—on page 10 confirms that the elimination of cap-and-trade will save taxpayers $1.3 billion this year alone and confirms $264 per year, per family. Also on page 12, the report confirms our $5 million in terms of a compensation framework. So yes, to the member, we are putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers. That is going to be over $3 billion at the end of the day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The FAO reports that $3 billion could be only the beginning. Although the Premier made it illegal for anyone to sue the government in Ontario, which is a pretty extraordinary step right there, they could still face lawsuits from other countries.

How much does the government expect to pay for international lawsuits?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: As I mentioned, the FAO identified that the compensation framework, which is the basis for the law-suits that the member is speaking of, has in fact been con-firmed at $5 million. Now, you’ll recall during the election there was a lot of hyperbole, a lot of talk about $3 billion, $4 billion. In fact, the detailed analysis, which we thank him for, points out that $5 million is the expected compensation. That’s the amount that we put forward.

We committed to the orderly wind-down of this program that was killing jobs, that was regressive, and we will follow that through. It’s a promise we made. It’s a promise we’ll keep.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m sure he read a different report.

Again, back to the minister: People are learning that the Premier’s snap decision to cancel cap-and-trade will cost Ontario families and businesses $3 billion. Did the Premier’s office do any due diligence, do any assessment of these costs or figure out what their ideological plan would actually cost the people of Ontario before they ended the cap-and-trade market?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I would recommend that everyone, particularly in this Legislature, read the report.

The mistake that sometimes the members opposite make is thinking that money for government grows on trees. Money for government comes from people. When we made a commitment about affordability to the people of Ontario, we made it knowing that that meant that we were going to reduce revenues for government. We were reducing revenues for a program that wasn’t working, a regressive job-killing tax.

Some $264 per family is confirmed in this report today. Yes, that means less money for government. That’s more money for families. We’ll talk about that all day.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Acting Premier: During the election campaign, the Premier promised that his ideological plan would not cost anything. Now we see that it will add billions to the debt without changing costs to households. Will the minister now admit that the Premier was wrong?

Hon. Rod Phillips: This is only awkward because it’s getting ahead of our lob questions.

We understand that that money comes out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. When people are making choices between heating and eating, we will focus on the fact that those people need that money, that they can spend that money better than the government.

We’re happy to talk about it all day: $3 billion back in people’s pockets. This is a government that will keep its promises. We said that we would cut this tax, and we cut this tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, the Financial Accountability Officer was clear today: The government will add $3 billion to the debt, scrapping programs and paying expensive lawyers. The families will be paying an even higher carbon price and Ontario has no climate plan.

Only this government could spend $3 billion to not have a plan. Does the Acting Premier think that’s some-thing to be proud of?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, $264 may not be a lot of money to the NDP; that’s $264 that goes back into the pockets.

Now, they’ve talked about the federal carbon plan. I’d love to go into detail about that. Their party talks about a higher carbon tax even than Trudeau, but our party under-stands that money best spent is in people’s pockets.

We will bring forward a plan, a made-in-Ontario plan, a plan that deals with the real issues, that balances the economy and the environment, and that doesn’t punish Ontario families. Why does the NDP want to punish Ontario families?

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Here’s what the Financial Accountability Officer found: There will be no savings for households, there will be $3 billion added to the debt and the province has no plan to deal with climate change.

At a time when we need leadership, the government has delivered a $3-billion mess. When are they going to admit that they were wrong?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I wish if the member was going to quote the FAO, he would quote the page numbers. Let me do that. On page 10: The elimination of cap-and-trade will save $1.3 billion this year alone. On page 3: A typical household will save $264. He further confirms on page 13—this has been a question in this House—that the money collected for cap-and-trade will be spent on programs to meet the purpose of the act to fight climate change.

We’ve been clear. We will wind this program down in a responsible way. We will bring forward a made-in-Ontario plan that balances the economy and the environment. We made this promise and we intend to keep it.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre par interim.

One of the communities that tragically has become a symbol of hallway medicine is Brampton, Ontario. Brampton is one of the fastest-growing communities in our province, but its one and lonely full-service hospital is struggling to keep up with demand. Last year, 4,352 patients, some of the sickest, were treated in hallways. Yesterday, they were in code gridlock yet again.

Does the Acting Premier think the community of Brampton deserves a new hospital?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Brampton is, frankly, the example of why our Premier, during the election, and our Deputy Premier and Minister of Health have been working so hard to end hallway medicine in the province of Ontario. We made that commitment, Speaker, because we understand that Peel region and Ottawa and Toronto and Hamilton and London and Thunder Bay—

Interjection.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: —and Kenora all have issues. We made a commitment to do that. There is no one more qualified to lead that study and to lead that change than the Minister of Health. We are very confident that as we move forward—we’ve already started making announcements. We made an announcement on the surge funding last week.

The people of Ontario sent a very clear message, which is exactly why we have nine MPPs from the PC Party representing the Peel region and—

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

M me France Gélinas: The people of Brampton deserve better than an underfunded hospital that leaves them treated in hallways.

The Premier made it clear his plan is for cuts. We know where that leads. It leads to closed hospitals, less nurses, more hallway medicine. It means more patients losing their dignity, losing their privacy, as they try to use a commode with five other people in a TV room with them. It shouldn’t have to be that way, Speaker. It should not be that way.

Will the Acting Premier urge his caucus to stand with the New Democrats today and commit to funding a new hospital in Brampton in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I couldn’t agree more. No one understands more why we need to solve the crisis in health care. I understand that, the Minister of Health understands that, and the Premier understands that, which is exactly why we made the announcement last week.

We are already moving forward on our announcements. We are already putting money, new money, in place for the surge funding to prepare for the flu season. We’ve already announced long-term-care beds. Many of us understand and appreciate that part of the challenge with the alternate-level-of-care beds is because we don’t have the space in long-term care. We are making those commitments. We have started to make those commitments. And I’m proud of the Minister of Health’s work on this file.

Climate change

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. I know he’s a popular guy this morning—rightly so.

Voters soundly rejected the Liberals’ cap-and-trade program in the last election, and it is time for it to come to an end.

Let me be clear: I care deeply about the environment. And I know that our minister is working hard on a made-in-Ontario climate change plan. But our government made a promise to the people of Ontario and, Speaker, we plan to keep it.

As others have referred to this morning, Peter Weltman, the Financial Accountability Officer for Ontario, completed a financial review of the cancellation of the cap-and-trade program, and that review was released this morning.

Can the Minister of the Environment share some of the highlights of this review with us?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Durham for that question.

I should again thank the Financial Accountability Officer and his staff for their hard work. Financial accountability is something that we need to return to the government, and his work is much appreciated.

As mentioned, there are some number of highlights about the cancellation. He did confirm, and I’ve now memorized it, on page 10, that the elimination of the cap-and-trade program will save $1.3 billion. Page 3: The typical family will save $264, a number this Legislature has heard before. Very importantly, on page 12, we talked about a compensation framework, that $5 million will be the likely cost to the government of cancelling that program. Page 13, the money collected for fighting climate change will be used for the purpose it was collected for.

We’ve been clear, Mr. Speaker. We are going to cancel this regressive, job-killing program and tax and we are going to replace it with a made-in-Ontario solution.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you to the minister for that answer. That’s eye-opening information. It seems the voters of Ontario were right. It’s great to see that the estimates spoken to in this House by the minister have been confirmed to be accurate by the FAO. I can assure you my constituents in Durham will be pleased to hear that savings are on the way.

But January 1 is fast approaching. This date is a significant one, as it’s the day the federal government claims that they will impose their own carbon tax on our province. This is not what Ontario voted for. This is not what the people of Durham voted for.

Can the minister explain to this House what our intentions are as a government to prevent this from happening?

Hon. Rod Phillips: The member raises an excellent point. In fact, on page 3 of the FAO’s report, we find the answer to a question that many Canadians have been asking: How much will the Trudeau carbon tax cost families? This is a question they’ve not been willing to answer, but we have an answer today. The FAO reveals that the Trudeau carbon tax will cost $648 per family. That’s every year, year after year, once it’s fully implemented. That’s the equivalent of four hydro bills for an average Ontario family.

Families cannot afford $648 per family. That’s why Premier Ford and his government have promised to do everything possible to fight this carbon tax, to stop the imposition of this regressive, job-killing tax. We’ve been clear to the federal government. We believe and under-stand that climate change is important. We will bring forward a made-in-Ontario solution. We will not punish Ontario families for that solution.

Wind turbines

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. For a long time now, families in Chatham-Kent have been dealing with black water coming up from their wells. Water on family farms that surround the Samsung North Kent 1 wind turbine site became black and undrinkable when Samsung began construction of their turbines. The former Liberal government said that the water was safe and that these families were overreacting.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Now the current PC government is acting with the same indifference that the Liberals did.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry to interrupt the member. The government benches have to come to order.

The member can ask his question.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, as we can see, the PC government is acting with the same indifference that the former Liberal government worked with. I’ve seen first-hand what this water looks like, and scientists have con-firmed that it contains black shale sediments that are known carcinogens.

Why is this PC government taking the same approach as the old Liberal government and refusing to initiate a health hazard investigation? Where is the health hazard investigation that the Premier promised the people of Chatham-Kent-Essex?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome, on be-half of the government of Ontario, the people from Chatham-Kent who are here today from the organization Water Wells First, who have been actively fighting the expansion of industrial wind turbines in the province of Ontario and have also been fighting for those families who are unable to drink water from their wells because of the expansion of wind turbines.

Our Premier, Doug Ford, myself and the entire PC government are committed to getting to the bottom of this issue. We made a promise in the election and prior to the election to stand with these families and, Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say that already that work has begun. The Ministry of Health has directed Ontario’s chief medical officer to begin reviewing data in past collections and begin getting answers for the impacted families living in Chatham-Kent. We look forward to having more to say on the matter in the weeks ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: These families are not just worried about the quality of the water in their wells for their own sake. They’re afraid to report these sediments in their well water for fear of loss of their property values due to environmental stigma.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I’ll ask again: What immediate action is this government undertaking to determine the full nature and the extent of contamination from sediments released in this region’s watershed?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order. I have to be able to hear the question.

Put the question again.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker.

The question is simply: What are the immediate actions this government is undertaking to ensure that these people have clean drinking water? Your government seems to work with a matter of speed when it comes to cheap beer, but you can’t give these people clean drinking water.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Look, I outlined clearly that the Ministry of Health has directed the Ontario chief medical officer to begin reviewing this data to get answers for these families.

Our government moved quickly and decisively on a number of issues, including introducing legislation to scrap the Green Energy Act in the province of Ontario, a piece of legislation that the member opposite and his party supported, as well as every day at Queen’s Park, currently, they’re criticizing us for scrapping the Green Energy Act.

Secondly, the Minister of Energy moved quickly and decisively to cancel 758 wasteful and unnecessary energy projects in Ontario, and one of those cancelled projects is the Otter Creek Wind Farm―

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Step up, Monte. Put your money where your mouth is.

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: ―which was planned for the same area as the North Kent Wind farm in Kent county.

Mr. Speaker, I’m proud to say, promises made, promises kept.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Yakabuski: No turbines, no problems at the wells. You voted for the Green Energy Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Transportation, come to order. Minister of Municipal Affairs, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question?

Automobile insurance

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is for the Minister of Finance. During the last election, I heard a lot about auto insurance rates while knocking on doors, and since, in my great riding of Milton. I heard from countless people in my riding that insurance rates are simply too high. Insurance rates are unfair and discriminatory. People are demanding change to the auto insurance system.

I know our government is committed to building an auto insurance system that puts the needs of drivers first. However, it’s unfortunate the Liberals dragged their feet and could not provide relief on this file for the last 15 long years.

Could the minister please explain how the auto insurance system has reached this breaking point?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Milton for the question. For 15 years, drivers in Ontario suffered under the Liberal government. Every aspect of life became more unaffordable, including auto insurance. And what’s worse is that the Liberals knew people needed relief and did nothing about it. Rather than propose real solutions to issues in the auto insurance system, the Liberals promised unrealistic stretch goals, and the NDP supported them every single step of the way. The remaining Liberal members would do well to learn from the member from Milton.

His thoughtful approach to rate discrimination has resulted in legislation that, if passed, will bring real fairness to the system.

I’d like to once again congratulate the member from Milton on his important work on this file, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the minister for his response. It’s disappointing that the NDP supported Liberal inaction on this file for so many years. Drivers had to deal with unfair and discriminatory insurance rates for far too long, and the only help they received was Liberal-NDP stretch goals.

But now the NDP seem to have changed their minds. They say they want to help drivers. Just minutes after I announced my private member’s bill yesterday, the member from Brampton East rushed into the media studio to announce his own plan to end the discrimination—perfect timing, Mr. Speaker.

As the only member to put legislation forward on this matter—could the minister please explain to me the importance of acting on affordable insurance rates for all Ontarians?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Well, the member from Brampton East hasn’t tabled any legislation yet, so we don’t fully know the details of his plan, but I will try my best, Mr. Speaker.

The member from Brampton East wants the GTA to be considered a single geographic area when insurance companies set their rates. However, this will serve only to increase insurance costs across the entire GTA. In fact, the member’s plan would cause rates to rise in many of his own caucus colleagues’ ridings.

On the other hand, the member from Milton got it right. He took the time to consult, to listen and to develop a plan that will deliver real fairness to the system. If passed, drivers all across Ontario will benefit from the thoughtful plan the member from Milton put forward.

Early childhood education

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Education. Today we are joined by early childhood educators from across Ontario. They are hard-working professionals who educate and care for some of the most important people in our province, our children. These professionals play a vital role in the early years of young children across the province. They also contribute to the economy by ensuring that parents can participate in the workforce or finish school.

Today is Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day. They get a day. Minister, to say that ECEs across the province are undervalued and underpaid would be an understatement. Is this government still committed to in-creasing wages for early childhood educators, as you promised to do?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to rise today and welcome our early educators who are here today in Parliament. This is your House, this is where it all starts, and the responsibility for ensuring that you have a good working environment absolutely rests squarely on the shoulders of this PC government, under the leadership of Premier Ford.

We feel very strongly that we have to take every step possible to ensure that the classroom environment is the best it can be for our people on the front lines. We have met with amazing ECEs across not only my riding but the province. We know the valuable work that they bring, and we look forward to working with them in the weeks and months to come , o ensure that the value they bring to the environment in our schools is respected and valued.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, I didn’t hear a promise that you are going to appreciate ECEs by actually paying them what they deserve.

Minister, not-for-profit care means that the focus is on children, not multinational profit margins. Any investment in early learning and care should ensure that public money goes to affordable, high-quality care where children can learn and grow, and also to ensure that ECEs have resources to provide the education and the care that they’re trained to do, because they are professionals in this province.

Is the government interested at all in high-quality, accountable, affordable public services, or just padding the profit margins of multinational big-box daycare corporations, as you have indicated in the past and even today by not answering this question?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, the easy answer to this question is yes. But I think there’s a little bit of concern—I’m feeling a little bit of concern—coming from the focus of the question from the member opposite in the NDP. There’s a lot of rhetoric there.

I know a lot of ECEs who work in private daycare facilities who are doing an amazing job—and that’s in addition to the facilities that we have in our public institutions. We need to be celebrating them all, and that’s what we’re doing today.

Environmental protection

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Ma question est également pour le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs.

This morning, I met with representatives from the Wildlands League, an organization committed to bio-diversity.

Ontario has a tremendous, rich, natural heritage. It no longer has a climate change plan, but this government should do something for the environment. We are blessed with a bounty of fresh water, forests and wetlands, but we need to do more.

Can the minister commit today to meeting the national target of protecting 17% of our natural heritage by 2020, as recommended by the national advisory panel report this year?

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

We are a government committed to making sure that our air, our land and our water are clean, and of course within parks that Ontarians—10 million last year, and hopefully more in the future can enjoy Ontario parks.

I’d be pleased to meet with the group that you referenced. I’d be pleased to speak to them about their objectives.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Back to the minister: In my meeting this morning, the Wildlands League provided me with a blueprint of how we can meet this 17% protection target, working with Indigenous communities. As Liberals, we want to hold the government accountable to that particular objective.

The evidence is in. There are specific projects, such as the north French River, an immense natural wetland, which can help us achieve this target.

So I’m asking the government, will it commit to working with the Moose Cree First Nation to protect the north French River, and commit to that today?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: As I said, we’d be happy to sit and meet, to understand the objectives. This is a government that is committed in terms of our wild spaces, in terms of our parks, both the operating parks and the non-operating parks. As the member would know, of course, there are the sensitivities we must manage with First Nations and others in terms of the expansion of protected areas. But there is a proud PC history of creation of things like the Oak Ridges moraine and other important landmarks from a parks perspective, including our very first parks in this province.

I’d be pleased to meet with the group mentioned.

Cannabis regulation

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is for the Attorney General.

In less than 24 hours, the federal Liberal government’s decision to legalize cannabis in Ontario and across Canada takes effect. Many families in my riding of Oakville have raised questions about what will be done to keep it out of the hands of their children. They’re looking for assurance that the health, well-being and safety of their children is a top priority. Most importantly, they want to know what policies will be in place to protect their children.

I know this government is working hard to protect our young people, and I’m hoping the Attorney General can share with the people of Oakville and all Ontarians what efforts the government is making to keep our children safe.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Oakville for the question.

I’d like to assure the people of Oakville and all across the province that Ontario will be ready on October 17, tomorrow. We will be putting forward an approach that puts the safety of children first.

I’d like to tell you about some of the safeguards that we will have in place to protect our children. Ontarians will have to be 19 years or older to buy, use, possess or grow cannabis. Consumers who purchase cannabis through the online Ontario Cannabis Retail Corp. will be required to confirm that they are 19 years of age or older before entering the website. Purchases will be delivered to consumers’ homes, and Canada Post will have the ability to check ID to verify the age of the recipient. Packages will not be left at the door.

In stores, products cannot be visible or sold to youth, and must be sold from behind the counter. Promotions must be limited to factual information and cannot be appealing to youth.

While this is a policy that was put forward by the federal Liberal government, I can assure you that our government is doing everything it can to keep recreational cannabis out of the hands of children.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I appreciate the Attorney General providing that information.

As a father myself, I know parents in my riding will also feel relieved to know that our government takes the safety of their children seriously.

I also know that, by establishing the minimum age as 19, Ontario is striking a balance between the health risks of cannabis use for young people and the need to eliminate the illegal market for cannabis. This is also a serious matter of concern to many people in the riding of Oakville who are concerned about the illegal use.

I’m hoping the Attorney General can provide some information on what is being done to combat the illegal market.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the member for that important question. On October 17, the only legal retailer of recreational cannabis in Ontario is the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corp., through its online platform. Anyone found at the time to be selling or allowing their property to be used for the distribution of cannabis can face fines of up to $1 million and/or up to two years in jail.

I have introduced legislation which, if passed, clarifies that while participation in the illegal market before October 17 will not necessarily preclude someone from potentially participating in the private retail market, continuing to do so after October 17 will.

Mr. Speaker, our message cannot be more clear: Any-one currently participating in the illegal market should stop now.

Hospital funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Christine and Marcel Turgeon are constituents of mine in London–Fanshawe. They went through enormous hardship because of the overcrowding crisis in our hospitals and long-term-care facilities.

Marcel suffers from dementia and recently had a heart attack. Following the treatment, he was involuntarily placed into a long-term-care home hours away from his wife, causing him to lose his priority status at London long-term-care facilities. The reason the hospital gave for doing this was that they needed the bed.

Will the minister stop the cuts and provide our health care facilities with the funding they need?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again I will say to the member opposite, your example very eloquently highlights why we need change in the system.

To be clear, there are no cuts in the health care system. We have the most engaged and excellent front-line workers in our health care system and in our long-term-care facilities. So to suggest that there are cuts to that system I think is really, really inappropriate on the member’s side.

We talk about why health care is such an issue in the province of Ontario. We talk about why we’ve made commitments for long-term-care beds. We’ve already talked about commitments that we’ve made on the surge funding. We’re doing this work, and I wish that the member opposite would be part of the solution instead of constantly highlighting the issues that frankly show why we need to make these changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The minister is incorrect. I have been part of the solution many, many times, suggesting things about how long-term care can be improved. Our party, the NDP, has also suggested how health care can be beneficial to everyone in Ontario by being public and having the infusion it needs to continually provide care for Ontarians.

Speaker, cuts to health care have torn apart this couple. Christine doesn’t drive and must depend on the kindness of her friends and neighbours to drive her two hours out of town to visit her husband.

Marcel and Christine have been married for 53 years. The distance between them has put incredible stress on Marcel, who has experienced that stress of being separated from his wife, and now his foot is being amputated.

The chronic underfunding of our health care system hurts seniors and families. Seniors like Marcel are being pushed out of hospital beds because of overcrowding and funding cuts. Will the government do the right thing and make a serious commitment to hospital funding so families can receive the care they need?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think you and I can agree on one thing, and that is that the system is not properly caring for our seniors, who need the assistance where they live and where their families are.

We made an announcement last week, as you know; in the city of London there is an announcement that has already been made about new long-term-care beds. We need to do better. We get that. But we’ve made that commitment.

All I’m asking for is that you work with us and make sure that we provide the system and the opportunity for your constituents and all constituents to benefit from the health care system.

There is a reason why Dr. Reuben Devlin has been tasked with this very important work. We understand there are systemic problems. We understand that there need to be system-wide changes. We cannot hive off city against city, municipality against municipality. We need to make sure that the entire system is working, and that’s what our Minister of Health is doing.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The previous Liberal government strung along the people of Ontario for years—broken promises, stretch goals and nothing to show for it. Life in Ontario became more unaffordable every step of the way.

People in Ontario deserve a change. People in my riding have suffered from rate discrimination in the auto insurance system for years and deserve better than NDP members who have enabled failed Liberal auto insurance policies. The previous government did nothing to help them.

Could the minister please explain what action is being proposed to address fairness in Ontario’s auto insurance system?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Brampton South for the question.

Yesterday we saw exactly what is being proposed to help address fairness in our auto insurance system. The member from Milton introduced his Ending Discrimination in Automobile Insurance Act, 2018. I would like to congratulate again the member for his important work on this file. He got this right.

His proposed legislation is a great way to combat rate discrimination in our auto insurance system. There are nearly 10 million drivers in Ontario who expect us to do everything we can to ensure the auto insurance system is working for them. This is an excellent step forward in building an auto insurance system that serves the needs of the people. Congratulations once again to the member from Milton.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the minister for his response. It is very exciting to see our caucus taking direct action to support drivers in Ontario. There’s no doubt that this legislation brought forward by the member from Milton, if passed, will bring more fair-ness to our auto insurance system. I’m very happy with the proposed action to combat rate discrimination. We finally have a government that listens to the needs of the people and takes action.

The Liberals let drivers suffer for too long, and for too long the NDP supported their broken promises.

While the opposition sits idle, this minister is taking action to end the war on drivers. Could the minister please update the House on what is being done to address other aspects of the auto insurance system?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: It’s clear that the Liberal-NDP system of failed stretch goals on auto insurance is broken. It’s yet another Liberal promise that never came to fruition and, sadly, the NDP supported them every single step of the way.

To clean up this mess, our government is looking at the regulatory environment surrounding auto insurance in Ontario. We want to work with industry stakeholders to ensure Ontario has an auto insurance system that serves the needs of the people. We are committed to ensuring fairness in rate setting. We are committed to ending discriminatory rate practices and we are committed to building a system that puts the drivers first.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): If this keeps going, we’ll never have lunch.

Start the clock. Next question.

Hospital funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. London’s hallway medicine crisis is being ignored by this Conservative government. The crisis is so serious that earlier this year, London Health Sciences Centre was forced to implement a hallway transfer protocol to deal with the daily, year-round reality of patients lined up for treatment in the hospital hallways. With winter coming, there will be more people going to hospital for cold weather-related illnesses and more patients competing for already limited beds.

Will this government commit today to adding permanent beds to London Health Sciences Centre to help end hallway medicine in my community?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for that question and thank you for allowing us to highlight our government’s recent announcement: 6,000 new long-term-care beds in the province of Ontario, including London.

We all understand that the health care system needs assistance. That’s why the Premier has appointed Dr. Rueben Devlin. That’s why we have the most capable and talented Deputy Premier and Minister of Health on this file.

We understand there are systemic problems, but we also are taking action. As I said, 6,000 new long-term-care beds were announced last week. Surge funding for hospitals in need in preparation for the flu season was announced.

We’re taking action. Where are you?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Systemic problems require more than band-aid, one-time solutions. The flu season is already upon us. This government’s flu surge funding won’t come close to alleviating the pressures in our health care system. With none of the funding currently allocated to new beds at London Health Sciences Centre, it won’t do anything at all for my community of London.

Again to the Acting Premier: Will this government commit today to adding not only flu surge beds to LHSC, but permanent beds as well? Or are Conservatives completely indifferent to the health care needs of Londoners?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: While the NDP continues to play political games with our health care system, I am proud of our government’s action on this file. I think that we need to move beyond the rhetoric and actually move to action.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Six thousand new beds.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, I will reinforce: 6,000 new long-term-care beds have been announced. Those are long-term-care beds that will take some pressure off of our hospitals. Alternative level of care is a problem, but 6,000 new long-term-care beds will make a difference.

I just wish the NDP would understand some of the problems and work with us instead of fighting with us.

Francophone entrepreneurship / Entrepreneuriat francophone

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Our government was elected with a mandate to create and protect jobs. Unfortunately, the last 15 years under the Liberals have been devastating for the small business community. They have been hit with high taxes, increased employer costs and suffocating red tape, making Ontario uncompetitive.

Our number one priority is ensuring that Ontario is open for business. Our government has been holding a series of round tables across Ontario to hear directly from those who create jobs on how we can help them thrive.

Last week, the minister held a series of round tables to hear directly from francophone business owners. Can the minister inform us