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

November 22, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Nov-22 (PDF)

L124 - Wed 22 Nov 2017 / Mer 22 nov 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 November 2017 Mercredi 22 novembre 2017

Orders of the Day

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Firefighters

College students

College students

Endangered species

Hydro rates

Employment standards

Child care

Child care

Ontario Place

Electric vehicles

GO Transit

Waste reduction

Correctional facilities

Visitors

Correction of record

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Anniversary of women’s right to vote

Endangered species

Nighttime Santa Parade

Health care

Diabetes treatment

Hospice Simcoe

Wind turbines

Columbus Centre

Royal Agricultural Winter Fair

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

Garrett’s Legacy Act (Requirements for Movable Soccer Goals), 2017 / Loi de 2017 sur le legs de Garrett (exigences relatives aux buts de soccer mobiles)

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

School closures

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Employment standards

Highway improvement

Prévention du tabagisme chez les jeunes

Road safety

Long-term care

Guide and service animals

Gasoline prices

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Orders of the Day

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

Mr. Duguid, on behalf of Mr. Flynn, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi, la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I believe the minister will be here at some point this morning to speak, but we’ll probably move over to the opposition beforehand.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister Duguid.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the minister is just arriving today. I think he would be much more equipped to speak to this bill than I would be. I see him; he’s smiling. He’s here and ready to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re sharing your time with the minister, that’s—

Hon. Brad Duguid: I share my comments, Mr. Speaker—eloquent as I’m sure they were—with the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Eloquent comments. Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: My speech says, “It’s a pleasure to rise.” I haven’t sat yet, Speaker, but it is a pleasure to rise anyway.

We’re here for third reading today of the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act. This legislation comes out of listening to Ontarians over the past few years. We listened to their concerns but we also listened to their hopes for a better life within today’s workforce. We listened when we initiated the most comprehensive review of Ontario’s labour laws, and we did that through the Changing Workplaces Review. Many of the proposals that are contained in the legislation respond to what we heard during that process. Many of our proposals respond to what we see all around us: a world where the very nature of work is changing.

Everybody in the House, Speaker, and in homes across the province, knows that more of our fellow Ontarians are working in part-time jobs. They’re in casual jobs, contract jobs, and they’re working in minimum wage jobs and just trying to get by. This is despite the fact that Ontario has a very strong and a very growing economy. In fact, over the past three years, Ontario’s economy has outperformed all G7 countries in terms of real GDP growth. That’s something we should be proud of, Speaker. What we see is that our exports have increased and business investments in the province have increased.

Ontario’s unemployment rate has been below the national average, each and every month, for the past 24 months. But that’s why we can’t forget, Speaker, those who have every right and reasonable expectation to join us in this prosperity: those workers and their families.

We did very, very extensive consultation on this bill before we brought it forward. We really listened to Ontarians. We listened to employers, we listened to employees, we listened to people who were advocating for those who find themselves often living in poverty, we listened to small business and we listened to the chamber of commerce. We’ve listened, as well, after the introduction and during the committee hearings and the meetings that have taken place on this bill. Those conversations are reflected in the amendments we have added to our bill and, in my opinion, have made the bill even stronger and more reflective of the wishes of Ontarians.

The plan for fair workplaces and better jobs, Speaker, addresses a very wide range of issues. I just want to review some of the key elements of that plan for the House. First, raising the minimum wage: I think all members of the House would agree

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry. Continue, Minister.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. I think all Ontarians would agree that people who are working 35 or 40 hours a week—sometimes in two or three jobs just to get by—should be paid a wage that they can live on: they can buy the basics, they can pay rent, they can buy food, they can buy clothes for the kids.

In 2016, the median hourly wage in Ontario was $13 an hour for part-time workers. Speaker, I’m here to tell you today that over the past 30 years, part-time work now has grown to represent nearly 20% of total employment in the province. Right now, 10% of workers in our province earn the minimum wage of $11.60. This is something that surprised me. I didn’t know this. I think it surprises a lot of other people when I tell them that about a third, about 30% of workers in the province of Ontario, make less than $15.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry, Minister.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. As I said, this surprises people. It surprised me and I thought I knew the province well, but about a third of workers in the province of Ontario make less than $15 an hour.

When we think about the minimum wage in the past, it was often referred to as a student wage, a trainee wage or somebody that was new to the workforce. But what we’re finding is that half of those people that are making less than $15 an hour are between the ages of 25 and 64. I don’t have to tell anybody in this House that those are the years you’re trying to raise a family. That’s the years that, if you’re going to have kids, would be the years when you would be having those children and all the expenses that are associated with that. The majority of people who earn less than $15 an hour are women.

So that’s 30% of Ontarians earning less than $15 an hour, and that is millions of people in this province. Many of them support a family on a wage that just doesn’t go far enough. They’re raising children. They’re trying to save for their education. They’re wondering if they will be able to pay the bills each and every month, let alone ever being able to get ahead or perhaps even dream of owning a home.

So the movement that I’m asking the House to make today in the minimum wage is going to make a world of difference for millions of people in this province. The increases we’ve proposed in our legislation respond to the human need that we see around us on our streets each and every day. The plan is to raise the minimum wage to $14 an hour on January 1, and $15 an hour on January 1, 2019.

In another key element of our plan, what we’d like to do also is to make sure that those people that are working part-time are treated equitably, are treated fairly, and with dignity and respect, and they’re paid the same amount of money as somebody that is doing substantially the same job on a full-time basis. The reality is—and I don’t have to tell anybody in this House; they see it in their own communities on a daily basis—more and more companies are choosing to hire part-time or temporary employees.

What that’s done in many cases—not all cases, but in many cases—is create a very unfair workplace in which some are paid less than others simply for doing the same job. I think most people in the province would agree that paying people the same rate of pay for substantially the same work is just plain common courtesy and fairness. That’s why we’ve also proposed that casual, part-time and seasonal employees who do substantially the same work as full-timers—the work need not be identical—are paid the same rate of pay.

We’re also proposing to increase minimum vacation entitlements. What we’re saying is that after five years with a company, an employee should be entitled to at least three weeks of paid vacation each year. Ontario is behind other provinces in guaranteeing better vacation rights to their employees. So it’s time to do what’s right.

It’s going to establish fairer rules for scheduling, rules that give greater certainty to workers while maintaining that flexibility we know is so important for employers. Workers deserve a degree of certainty, Speaker, especially when you need these shifts in order to make it through the month.

Our bill is going to ensure that more workers, not just those at large companies, have the right to take up to 10 days of personal emergency leave each year and, for the very first time in the province of Ontario, have two of those days paid. We all need to be able to respond to the realities of life—it could be an illness in the family; it could be the death of a loved one—but what we shouldn’t be thinking about at that time is the prospect of perhaps losing our job just for taking that time off.

I think we’re responding with the necessary compassion to those who experience or are threatened with domestic or sexual violence by providing up to 10 individual days of leave, up to 15 weeks of leave without fear of job loss, and the first five days of those leaves in each calendar year should be paid.

Our plan for fair workplaces and better jobs rewards good employers. The vast majority of employers in the province of Ontario are excellent organizations that provide the best for their employees. It helps ensure that responsible, law-abiding employers don’t face unfair competition from businesses that skirt the law and take advantage of workers. Above all, it focuses squarely on making certain that workers are treated fairly.

Speaker, our economy is a good place to be right now. We’re confident in Ontario’s ability to do even better in the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to say it’s a pleasure to join the debate today, but I have mixed feelings, because this debate only allows us 10 minutes to speak to one of the most controversial but also one of the most wide-reaching and circumstance-changing pieces of legislation ever brought into this hallowed chamber—in the words of the minister himself, the most significant changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act in almost a quarter of a century. Yet we’re given 10 minutes to debate this in third reading.

The minister’s own words—and this is what just galls us. First of all, the Liberals are masters of two things: They are masters of shutting down democracy, which is what they are doing in this House, and they are the masters of politics and political spin. The Premier said the other day in question period that they didn’t go ahead with the changes to the minimum wage until June 1, in this piece of legislation, because the economy wasn’t strong enough.

Well, now we hear the minister this morning saying that for the past three years we’ve had a great economy in Ontario, that for the past 24 months unemployment has been below the national average and that Ontario has been leading the G7 in economic growth for the past three years. He’s been crowing like that for the past three years, yet in February of this year, he defended the current practice of tying the minimum wage to the rate of inflation; as did the Premier.

I don’t have an hour—I have got 10 minutes—but I could give you an hour of quotes from this minister and that Premier defending the current practice of tying the minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

So what changed? What changed? Well, you see, it’s about the high-priced pollsters that the Liberals use. They went out and asked them, “What do we need? We have got the least popular Premier in the history, perhaps, of politics in general, let alone Ontario politics.” But certainly in Ontario politics, no Premier has ever been lower in the polls. They said, “How can we pull a rabbit out of the hat? What can we do—something that is right off the wall, that we’ve never talked about before, that in fact we’ve spoken against in the Liberal Party. What can we do to salvage 2018?”

And those deep-thinking, highly paid pollsters came back to her and said, “You know what? There are no guarantees in life, but we have to do something really categorically different, something that nobody is going to expect. The NDP have been talking about this for a long time and we’ve always told them, ‘Sit down. Be quiet. We’re not going to do it.’” So they said, “What are we going to do? There is nothing we can do to make the Premier more popular.

What can we do to get those people to somehow come around to us one more time?” They came back and they said, “You know, it’s a long shot—it’s a long shot—but we do believe that if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, that could be something positive for us. It’s not a good thing for the province of Ontario. It’s not a good thing for the economy. It’s not a good thing for employers. It’s not a good thing for small business. But we think it will be popular—we think it will be popular—and let’s do it really quick so we get it over with.”

They’re hoping, Speaker, that the change that takes place on January 1 is immediately, essentially, a $2.60 raise from what it was January 1, 2017—$2.60, just like that. You see, before all of the negative effects can be fully absorbed, the people will be going to the polls, and they’re hoping that none of the problems that are going to arise as a result of this will manifest themselves just yet. These are the Liberals now: “We will be able to fool the people. We’ll be able to hornswoggle the voter one more time.” One more time—that is what their hope is in Bill 148.

For two years, they’ve been doing what they call the Changing Workplaces Review—for two years—but not only was it not part of the Changing Workplaces Review; it was actually verboten—it was verboten.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Let’s stop the clock. The members from the government side are having an ongoing conversation with the speaker, who has been diligent to speak to me. I would prefer that you cut back on your comments. It’s a little loud over there. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It was actually verboten in the Changing Workplaces Review. It was specifically cited as not going to be part of the review. But, of course, when they saw just how bad and how low Premier Wynne was in the polls, they had to do something drastic. So this is what they have come up with.

Everybody has recognized that there needs to be a $15 minimum wage at some point in this province. The question is, at what rate should it rise, in order to derive the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, with the least problems?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me. The member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale is rather loud, so keep your comments to—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m talking to you. Keep your comments lower or go outside with it. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: They laugh at the Speaker.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, they just ignore what he said, but anyway.

Now, we’ve got a situation where—and this is not me speaking, but the Financial Accountability Officer, an officer of the Legislature, completely non-partisan, not involved in decision-making but whose role is to evaluate government policy to see what effect it will have on the economy and the finances of the province. The Financial Accountability Officer came out and said essentially what I’m saying today, that this was going to hurt the vulnerable.

They claim they’re trying to help and raise the standard of living for the lower class, poorer people who are not—those who are not experiencing the economic benefits. Well, the very people who they purport to be trying to help are the ones who are going to be hurt. They’re going to be hurt by the changes in the legislation.

The Financial Accountability Officer says the most—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the member from Barrie are having quite the conversation there. Next time I’m stepping it up.

Continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

The very people who they purport to want to help in this are the ones who the Financial Accountability Officer says are going to be hurt. The jobs that are lost will be disproportionately among students, youth, women and visible minorities. Well, aren’t those essentially the very groups of people to whom we are trying to give some sense of equality in this province, some sense that they’re not being left out, that they are not being shifted aside as the rest of us prosper—if this is what we’re talking about in Ontario? But the result of this legislation is going to be precisely that: The people who are the most vulnerable are going to lose out.

I’ve had so many conversations not only with business people but with students themselves who have said, for example, “We’ve already been told that we don’t have a job next summer where we had one this summer.” It’s not because they’re not going to be in business; they’re just not going to be hiring students. It’s not because the student isn’t still going to be in school and looking for a job; it’s because the business won’t be hiring students at the new rate of pay. They’ve said, “Look, I can get people with experience. We’ve always wanted to pay people a fair wage but there has always been an entry level wage where people learn on the job and they gain valuable life experience.”

A job is one of the greatest places to garner life experience. You’re not going to get it here in this place where it’s so partisan most times that you don’t even get objective debate, but you will get it in the workplace where you confront people of every different walk of life; different kinds of people walk through the door. For example, if you’re in retail, you serve a very vast array of customers. That’s a great way to understand and learn life experience. If you don’t have that job you’re not going to get that experience. That’s not going to happen.

This is a bill that is being rushed through the Legislature purely for political purposes, but that’s the way this government operates: not for the best interest of Ontario but for the Liberal Party.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Democrats and Andrea Horwath here in the Legislature. We have 10 minutes to actually speak to a bill that has been travelling this province for the last two years. I don’t know why we only have 10 minutes because we could probably speak on it for 12 hours.

We heard from the minister this morning that one third of workers in this province make less than minimum wage—part-time, casual, temporary, precarious workers just trying to get by—and that they should be able to join in the prosperity of this province. Well, I can tell you, Speaker, that this bill, other than increasing the minimum wage, which really just brings you back to living in the late 1970s in terms of costs and what your dollar will buy, doesn’t do a heck of a lot for people who are in precarious jobs. There are millions of them in every sector.

They are dying in factories across this province as temporary workers. Some of them pick up their paycheques at storefronts on Yonge Street. There’s no health and safety legislation around them.

When the Toronto Star did their exposé this past year, they talked about the hundreds of incidents that places like the Workers’ Action Centre had brought to their attention. We have factories in this province where every employee is a temporary worker, and this legislation is going to do nothing but pay them the same rate of pay as the permanent worker beside them. It isn’t going to give them any pension. It isn’t going to give them any benefits. It isn’t going to assist them in any way around their health and safety issues.

The minister said, “Well, we really listened to everyone,” but, in fact, they didn’t. The Liberal government voted down 36 amendments that the NDP brought forward to committee—amendments that would have gone a long way to fixing precarious work for workers in this province, things like card-check certification. The government introduced it for a couple of more sectors, so now there are four sectors of workers in the province that have card-check, but they’re discriminating against all the other sectors so that it makes it more difficult for workers to join a union. We all know that joining a union decreases the precariousness of workers’ lives.

They put in a minimum wage, but that minimum wage discriminates against students under 18, and it discriminates against liquor servers in this province who have to rely on tips to be able to support their families.

There are no real sick days—two days for every worker in the province for whatever leave you might have to take. We heard from all kinds of health professionals, community social service agencies who said two days is not enough. It takes five days to get over influenza.

We were looking for a definition of employer and independent contractor because there are thousands of workers in the province who are designated as independent contractors when they really aren’t. They’re dependent contractors.

No cap on temporary workers: The NDP had introduced an amendment that would see a cap of no more than 20% temporary workers in any workplace, and no longer than 90 days as a temporary employee so that people would have a ticket to permanent employment. But the Liberals voted that down.

There’s nothing to address the issue of deeming for injured workers. They opened up the Employment Standards Act and they opened up the Labour Relations Act, but they didn’t go far enough. They didn’t open up the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act so that people collecting partial benefits today are not going to be negatively impacted and lose their compensation benefits as the wages increase and they’re deemed to be working in a phantom job or a job that doesn’t exist.

I want to take the opportunity to speak to the people who actually came out and worked on Bill 148: anti-poverty activists like ACORN, the community social service agencies, immigration labour councils, unions, the Wellesley Institute, the Workers’ Action Centre, the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, $15 and Fairness, individuals. They lobbied, they rallied, they demonstrated, they presented, they petitioned, they lettered each and every one of us tirelessly over the last two years.

For 20 years—we had the Harris government, and for the last 14 years we’ve had the Liberal government. Under the Harris regime, the OLRB—the act was gutted. Ontario Works and ODSP payments were rolled back. The minimum wage was frozen. Then we moved to a Liberal government for 14 years. It has taken 14 long years to get to a point where we’re going to address some issues for the most vulnerable, the lowest-paid workers in this province. But the government didn’t go far enough, and they could have.

We saw last week that with the swipe of a pen we could infringe on the rights of workers who were on strike and send them back to work in an hour. In an hour they wrote the legislation, they introduced it—but it has taken 14 years, and this government could have introduced a whole lot more. They could have brought forward a whole lot more issues to deal with the precarious work, but they haven’t.

They didn’t deal with contract flipping and successor rights, so, in fact, companies just continue to flip and employees are negatively impacted every time that happens. Unions need to go out and reorganize those workers every time a contract flips.

Vacation: The NDP had actually introduced an amendment for three weeks’ vacation after one year. That vacation provision has been in the Employment Standards Act as long as I’ve been working, and that’s more than 40 years. We believe that workers should be entitled, after one year, to three weeks’ vacation, but the government introduced a provision in Bill 148 that would see three weeks after five years. We know if there are millions of workers in precarious jobs, the vast majority of them are never going to actually see that vacation improvement.

The member from London West introduced a private member’s bill on domestic violence and sexual violence that would have seen women, mostly, get 10 days’ paid leave so that they could get their affairs in order: counselling for themselves, counselling for their children, see a lawyer, find a women’s shelter or a place to live. But the Liberal government voted down that amendment that would have assisted women in this province.

There were so many more things that could have been put into this language: probation; replacement workers during a strike. We’ve seen long strikes over the last two years in the province of Ontario. We’ve seen people on the picket line—CarePartners, for example, for 10 months—and the government continues to allow replacement workers to be brought in, causing a lengthy strike, where in many cases in the past when we didn’t have replacement workers, strikes would be over in just a day or two.

I think the government could have gone a lot farther. I don’t know why they didn’t, and I don’t know why they are rushing through this bill here today in 30 minutes.

I think it’s important to remember that there are close to three or four million people in this province who are working for minimum wage with no benefits and no pensions. If we really wanted to improve the lives of these people, then we should have had a better look at all of the amendments that the NDP introduced over the second reading and the third reading, and we should have been listening more intently to those people who made presentations to us. There were over 1,500 presentations made to the committee, to the public hearings. I think the Liberal government should have listened more intently.

I know that, as New Democrats, we would have introduced far better legislation, seeing that we had these pieces of these acts opened—and not for the last 20 years.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 16, 2017, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Duguid has moved third reading of Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

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

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

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Time allocation

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 21, 2017, on the motion for allocation of time on the following bill:

Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, to repeal two Acts and to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting alcohol, drugs and other matters / Projet de loi 174, Loi édictant la Loi de 2017 sur le cannabis, la Loi de 2017 sur la Société ontarienne de vente du cannabis et la Loi de 2017 favorisant un Ontario sans fumée, abrogeant deux lois et modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne l’alcool, les drogues et d’autres questions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I believe last time this was debated—the third party now has the floor. The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate the introduction, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion this morning.

I find it extraordinary that we’re dealing with a time allocation motion on this bill. Speaker, I know you won’t be surprised. Frankly, there’s a lot in this bill that still needs to be debated, and my hope is that in a thoroughgoing debate, there will be an opportunity for all in this Legislature to think about the amendments that have to be made to the bill to deal with its underlying faults and problems. So I don’t understand why on earth the government is moving a time allocation motion on this. As I understand it, the debate has been productive. It hasn’t been something that people have been drawing out; people are getting at the heart of a very substantial matter.

Just to go into some of the things that I believe still remain to be addressed, should be addressed in debate and, frankly, will not be properly addressed if there is time allocation: Off the top, this bill just seems to have an awful lot of holes in it, an awful lot of areas that have not been properly addressed. There are real questions about what the rules will be governing where stores will be set up. That’s not addressed in this bill. How many stores will big cities like Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton and Ottawa get?

That’s not addressed in this bill, and no understanding of how that formula will be determined. We don’t know how big these stores will be, how cannabis will be priced or how cannabis will be taxed. These are very substantial questions.

In my community, I would say that people overwhelmingly support the legalization, but the question of where the retail outlets will be is a very big issue. The lack of detail, the lack of discussion, is a real question here.

We in the NDP support the legalization of recreational cannabis and we support the LCBO role: the former, the legalization, because too many people had their lives damaged through charges on an issue that really belongs more to the realm of social policy than to the realm of criminal law. As to the support for the LCBO model of retailing, we know that the LCBO is a well-regarded and responsible retailer. We know that having a set-up that allows retailing without the profit motive driving policy is really important. Cannabis is a substantial substance; it can have serious effects.

With all of that, it is a popular substance, and if you’re going to retail it, then you need it to be retailed by an organization, a corporation, that understands all of the social factors that are involved.

We’ve seen a list of communities that are going to be the hosts to Ontario Cannabis Retail Corp. stores. There are about 40 stores that are planned for a province of 14 million people. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. If we’re going to deal with the whole question of the black market, of criminal involvement in the sale of cannabis, then you have to ask who is actually thinking this strategy through, because this doesn’t look like a comprehensive strategy to move Ontario away from this black market.

On top of all that, although this government has been talking about where it’s going to put retail outlets, as far as we can tell, there’s been no consultation with the affected municipalities and, frankly, there should have been. As I’ll hopefully be able to get to further on in this speech, the local municipalities will be involved in carrying the cost of enforcement. If they’re going to be carrying substantial costs, they need to be part of the discussion as to exactly what is going to be in their communities.

This bill has many, many loose ends and it seems clear that it’s going to be up to a new government to sort those out. I think it would be to the government’s advantage—to Ontario’s advantage, more importantly—to not stop debate on this bill, to not time-allocate it, but to actually let the debate run its course and let there be a proper consultation and a proper debate on exactly what should be in the bill.

We’ve seen this with other bills. Right now, I’m the Chair of the social policy committee. We’re dealing with time allocation on Bill 166. Frankly, the public has wanted to get in to speak on this, but the notice period has been extraordinarily short. There’s a lot of frustration.

I want to touch on a few things that are missing in this bill. I’m happy to say our critic, the member for Essex, has done a very thorough job in his leadoff speech going through all of this. But I want to reiterate some of the things that should be addressed and that probably won’t in the course of this curtailed

schedule of debate on the bill.

First of all, this framework is still a work in progress. Now, some of this is understandable. We’re still waiting to see exactly what the federal government will put forward. We have Bill C-45. It’s not yet law; it’s still being amended. Some of the things that are unaddressed: for example, the original version of C-45 did not legalize edible cannabis products, and so Bill 174 doesn’t seem to accommodate them either. But now the federal government says that they will amend C-45 to allow for edibles within a year of C-45 coming into force.

This is a problematic area. There are a lot of people who are going to have difficulty with second-hand smoke from cannabis users. This will become an issue in multi-unit buildings. In a previous life, I was a property manager in a housing co-op, and the conflict between people in smoking and non-smoking units that were adjacent to each other was profound. It’s bad enough that people are dealing with cigarette smoke. If they are also having to deal with the psychoactive impact of cannabis coming through their walls, there’s going to be an awful lot more conflict.

I don’t know why the federal government didn’t address edibles early on, because that’s going to be one of the ways that you deal with the second-hand smoke problem. Clearly, we aren’t dealing with it in this bill.

The bill, strangely, keeps one foot firmly in the prohibition era in its approach to what will soon be a legal product. There’s going to be confusion amongst consumers between this legalization of cannabis, on the one hand, and on the other, unprecedented new powers for police that are more severe than what exists for alcohol or cigarettes. Speaker, we’re facing a situation where people understand these products to be legalized, but at the same time facing what could be heavy-handed enforcement and some unintended consequences.

The enforcement and the penalties in this bill are focused on unauthorized dispensaries. The maximum penalties facing dispensaries are vastly higher than those for illegal alcohol sales under the Liquor Licence Act. The landlord liability provisions seem unprecedented. I think we do need regulations; I don’t think there’s any question. But this actually raises the issue: Why is this so much more severe than for liquor and tobacco? I think that’s an item that needs to be debated at greater length, and this time allocation motion will choke off that debate.

The maximum penalties for selling non-medical cannabis to minors are actually lower than the maximum penalties for selling alcohol or cigarettes to minors. That seems to be inconsistent with a much tougher approach to retailers and dispensaries. In fact, Bill 174 seems much more focused on enforcing the government’s retail monopoly than it is with protecting minors. That’s a substantial issue. That’s an issue that deserves greater debate in this chamber, not a stifling of debate, which is what the government has proposed and what we’re debating this morning.

There are broadly written provisions that could potentially capture innocuous activities and subject them to steep fines. For example, if an adult is found driving with a half-used package of cannabis for later use in their pocket, even if it’s medical cannabis, they could face a fine of up to $100,000 as an illegal transporter, and everyone in the car can be searched by the police without a warrant. I can see obvious problems with this.

Again, it makes sense to allow debate to continue on this; hopefully, in the course of that debate, solutions being put forward and problems with the bill being addressed. Thinking that time allocation stifling debate is actually going to improve the quality of decision-making here is not a defensible position, has been shown historically to be wrong, but that’s where the Liberal government is going.

The use of non-medical cannabis is pretty much limited to private residences, which exposes cannabis users who lack access to private residences to disproportionate policing and prosecution. Interestingly, I was approached by a person in my riding who works in a medical cannabis dispensary. This was one of the areas that they were most concerned about, because there are many people who don’t have access to a private space where they could consume cannabis.

If we set the law up so there’s no way to function within it without breaking it, we’re going to have people who are charged, people who are entrapped, to no useful social purpose—no useful social purpose. Now, the government says it will explore the feasibility and implications of introducing designated establishments where recreational cannabis could be consumed, but there’s no provision for that in this bill.

Speaker, the bill is half-baked. Ending the debate now means the oven is turned off. It’s a mistake.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change—no, he has decided not to. Oh, you’re a little early.

Further debate? Second call. The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Speaker. I wish I could say I was pleased to stand and rise on Bill 174, the Cannabis Act—

Mr. Michael Harris: But he’s not.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: But he’s right, I’m not. Time allocation is a serious issue here right now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re not dealing with the bill. Stick to the bill, please.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I am; sorry. Again, time allocation, in my opinion and in the opinion of many in this Legislature, is not democratic at all, especially when they talk about the Cannabis Act.

Now, there’s a portion of this bill that I was rather surprised to see. That was a bill related to a previous bill that had been introduced and this government has sat on for close to nine months. That was Bill 94, the school bus safety act. I was very, very concerned about that, because now it’s going to be pointed out—because as I read it in the act as it is right now, it’s going to be decided with regulations. But the point is, what are those regulations going to say? When are they going to introduce it? How are they going to get that information out? How are drivers in Ontario going to know? So I have some real, serious concerns about that.

The Attorney General introduced Bill 174 to legalize cannabis. In my opinion, we shouldn’t even be talking about that, because this is something that obviously the federal Liberal government is imposing. It’s going to be tragic for the entire country of Canada, of which Ontario is very much a part of.

Again, some very serious concerns about that, and it’s just not right for this government to continue to play games with the democratic process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ll try this again. Further debate?

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to have a chance to speak to the time allocation of this bill. I want to take a moment to talk a bit about what we’ve heard on time allocation from members of the opposition. But before I do, I think it’s important that we point out that there is a mandated timeline that is attached to this bill, and that timeline is not of our choosing. The federal government, as you know, has taken steps to legalize cannabis by July 2018. As we know, that date is just around the corner.

That said, Speaker, even though the federal legislation was only introduced a few months ago, our government, knowing it was coming, has been working on these priorities for over a year.

The legislation that we are proposing and the approach it supports were developed through months of research and policy development across a dozen ministries, led by a dedicated legalization of cannabis secretariat. For many months, our government has been working closely with our partners at the federal and provincial level to manage this complex transition. We have been engaged with states such as Colorado in the US and other jurisdictions that have already legalized recreational cannabis at the state level, so we could benefit from the lessons that they have learned and the best practices when they went through this legislation.

Over the summer, we held consultations with stakeholders from across industries and launched an online survey for people across the province.

There is a lot of uncertainty about what’s moving forward with the federal government. For instance, I agree with the member from Toronto–Danforth on the whole issue around edibles, but, let’s be clear: The federal government isn’t going to address that issue until after the July 1 implementation. Therefore, it ill behooves us to delay our legislation until they get that right; it’s happening down the road.

We’ve also heard a lot from members about a lack of debate on the sections. But the sections, like in

schedule 3 that cover the vaping issue; these were all debated almost two years ago and we’re simply taking that debate and putting it in the context of a uniform approach under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

We also had prior extensive debate on the transportation sections in a previous bill—

Interjection.

Mr. Arthur Potts: As the member opposite noted, it was eight months ago.

We’re putting those in and we will be dealing with the specific details in regulations. That’s the right way and the right approach to do it.

We’ve heard so many complaints from the opposition. In response I just ask them to take a look at the calendar. We have been saying since the beginning that to meet the deadline which is imposed by the federal government this legislation must pass before the House rises this session. There are less than four weeks left for us to do this, and we have other legislation which is also extraordinarily important to the people of Ontario.

This legislation does include critical safety measures to protect Ontario communities by strengthening enforcement measures, giving stronger tools for police to shut down dispensaries, tougher penalties to tackle impaired driving to keep our roads safe, and strict rules on where cannabis can be used to keep our communities and our youth healthy.

Moreover, we are committed to opening 40 dedicated cannabis retailers by July 2018, but until this legislation is passed we cannot start the necessary preparations to open these stores. Also bear in mind that once these stores open there will still be opportunities for people to legally purchase through the mail system online and have it mailed as it currently is, particularly with medical marijuana, and no doubt with recreational marijuana as well.

Delaying this legislation, as the opposition seems to desire, will put the people of Ontario at risk. It will make the timelines to actually do the regulations, the consultations and the postings and get these stores open—it puts that process at risk. It’s essential that we do everything that we can to meet the timelines that were imposed on us by the federal government so we can protect the health and safety of all the people of Ontario. Our government has worked diligently over this past year to propose and introduce a plan that will keep Ontarians safe and meet the federal timelines.

I implore the Legislature and the opposition to do the right thing: Support the passage of this legislation so that the necessary protections for the people of Ontario can be put in place as quickly as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Seeing none, Mr. Mauro has moved government notice of motion 42 relating to allocation of time of Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, to repeal two Acts and to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting alcohol, drugs and other matters. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day. The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Speaker. No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Seeing no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 0954 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce two chiropractors that I met with this morning, Dr. Ken Brough from Ottawa and Dr. Murray Townsend from my riding of Perth–Wellington, and also two members of the Stratford Professional Firefighters’ Association, Andrew Rogerson, who is the president, and Kevin Aitcheson, who is the treasurer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome many people from northern Ontario: mayors, chiefs, labour leaders, Jamie Lim from the OFIA and others who are here to talk about the sustainability of the forest sector in this province and how important it is that we maintain this very green industry. I would like to single out Jamie Lim, who is from the city of Timmins. I will talk about those people from my riding and also Al Spacek, mayor of Kapuskasing, along with our good friend Roger Sigouin from Hearst, Ontario.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I would like to introduce the following members of the Ontario Chiropractic Association who are here at Queen’s Park for their annual lobby day. In the east lobby are Dr. Ayla Azad, Dr. Ken Brough, Dr. Carol Cancelliere and Dr. Bob Haig, CEO. I would also like to invite all of my colleagues to room 228 after question period.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I would like to introduce two professional firefighters from St. Thomas, the best firefighters, of course, in Ontario: Warren Scott and Daryl Smith.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just for everybody—we have a very large number of people that want to do intros. Let’s keep them short, please, and do the intros.

Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an absolute delight to introduce our city councillor from ward 13. If you love High Park, you should love her: Sarah Doucette keeps High Park looking beautiful. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Colle: I would like to introduce very important labour leaders on this historic day for workers in Ontario: Pat Dillon, president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario; Buzz Hargrove, Centre for Labour Management Relations at Ryerson University; Nikki Holland, Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario; and Sean McFarling from LiUNA. Welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I want to introduce part of the group from northern Ontario here today, starting off with Jamie Lim from the Ontario Forest Industries Association, also Ian Dunn and Lauren McBride from OFIA, Bill Murnighan from UNIFOR, Matt Wilkie from Weyerhaeuser, Jason Lacko from United Steelworkers, Georjann Morriseau, who is the former chief, Fort William First Nation, and also representing Resolute Forest Products, Tom Ratz from Resolute Forest Products, and Mayor Roger Sigouin from Hearst. Welcome.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I would like to welcome a friend of mine, Jason McMichael, who is the director of government relations for the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089 in Sarnia. Welcome, Jason.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to welcome Rob Hyndman, president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Mark Train, the executive vice-president, John Sobey, the government relations chair, and all firefighters’ associations who are in the House this morning. I know my colleague from Ottawa South has mentioned it, but I encourage all members to come to our reception tonight, to stop by to pay respects and say thank you to the firefighters.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’d like to introduce Robert Brandon, Dirk Franke, Mike Tucker and Bill Banting from the Whitby fire department. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would like to welcome Brett Gibson and Chris Hicknell from the Waterloo regional professional firefighters’ association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome my former principal, Chris Vanderberg, and his daughter Alaina. From my riding of Barrie, we have firefighters Steve Pomeroy and Eric Webster, who are here for the Barrie Professional Firefighters Association, and they are the best firefighters in Ontario. Also Dr. Scott Best, with the Ontario Chiropractic Association.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to issue a warm welcome to Chief Ed Wawia of Red Rock Indian Band, Chief Joe Ladouceur from Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek, Jordan Hatton from Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek, Chief Janice Henderson from Mitaanjigamiing First Nation, Brian Perrault from Couchiching, and Wilfred King from Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, all the way from the city of Timmins, two professional firefighters: John Mavrinac and Peter Osterberg. Welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have some very special guests today in the House: first, to introduce, in the west gallery, my very good friend and strong community leader in Durham, Ibrahim Dinayal, and also his guests, Saeed Asiri, Dr. Khalid Mahmood and, Speaker, from Saudi Arabia, visiting us today, Hassan Muways. I want to thank you for being here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome Dr. Bruce Flynn, who is from the Belleville Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic. He’s with the Ontario Chiropractic Association.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: We have wonderful firefighters from Burlington with us today, and I’d like to introduce them: Dan VanderLelie, their president, Paul Cunningham, Ralph Baigent, Josh Cline and Nick Mitrovich. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Speaker, we also have with us today David Sparrow, the president of ACTRA National, joining us in the member’s gallery for the passing of Bill 148. Welcome, David. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We have with us today Kristen Oliver from NOMA; former mayor and former MP Ken Boshcoff, with the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce; Mayor Al Spacek, from Kapuskasing, who is the president of FONOM; and Mayor Ron Holman, from Rideau Lakes township, chair of ROMA.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome representatives from the Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters association and members of the Better Way Alliance who are joining us for question period this morning: Amanda Terfloth, Anita Agrawal and Damin Starr. We welcome them here today.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Our page captain today is Natalie Conrad from Oak Ridges–Markham. She is joined, in the members’ gallery, by her parents, Donna and Charles Conrad, and her sister Leah.

I would also like to introduce a number of stakeholders who are here to watch the anticipated passage of Bill 148: Stephanie Procyk, United Way; Amy Swanson and April Bateman, from the YMCA; Marlene Ham, from OAITH; and Alexandra Simpson, Jasmine Rezaee and Jeanette Manguiat, representatives of the YWCA.

Mr. Ross Romano: I would also like to welcome a group that has joined us here from northern Ontario: a past president of NOMA and current mayor of Kenora, Dave Canfield; current president of NOMA and mayor of Shuniah, Wendy Landry; the current mayor of Greenstone, Renald Beaulieu; the mayor of Atikokan, Dennis Brown; and mayor of Ignace, Lee Kennard.

M me France Gélinas: I’m pleased to introduce Mark Muldoon and Kris Vopel from the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, and of course their president, Rob Hyndman. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce to the House today Sharleen Stewart, Manny Carvalho and many fellow SEIU members. Dave Millar is here, the president of the Oakville and District Labour Council. Colette Murphy has joined us, the executive director of the Atkinson Foundation. Naureen Rizvi is here from Unifor. And Rob Halpin is here today, who is the assistant to the newly re-elected Chris Buckley, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I had two great meetings this morning with people from my riding. First, from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, Marc Bisson and Marg Harrington; and from the Cornwall Professional Fire Fighters Association, Jeff McIntyre and Dan Patton. Welcome.

Hon. Chris Ballard: On this important day, I’m delighted to introduce Sheila Block and Trish Hennessey, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Deena Ladd, from the Workers’ Action Centre; and members of the $15 and Fairness campaign.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I have one more introduction: grade 10 students from the science, technology, engineering, art and math program, three different high schools who have come together to present their class. I welcome you for being here today and I hope you enjoy your day at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would like to welcome the Welland professional firefighters: Mike Fowler and other members are here today with us in the gallery.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming Jeff Voisin and Greg Horton, firefighters from my beautiful riding of Richmond Hill.

Mr. James J. Bradley: Welcome to Ryan Madill from the St. Catharines Professional Firefighters.

Hon. Bill Mauro: A long list of introductions: First, I had a meeting this morning with the Ontario Professional Firefighter’s Association, and I would like to welcome Mark Train; and from Thunder Bay, Eric Nordlund and Dennis Brescacin.

As well, there are a number of other guests that I see in the gallery all over the place—I’m running out of space on the paper here: Wendy Landry, the mayor of Shuniah and president of NOMA; Dennis Brown, my mayor from Atikokan—great to see you, Dennis; Lee Kennard from Ignace; David Canfield, the mayor of Kenora and past president of NOMA; Renald Beaulieu from Greenstone; Ken Boshcoff, former mayor of Thunder Bay; I see Jamie Lim in the background there, from OFIA; and Al Spacek from Kapuskasing. I think I probably missed two or three, but welcome all. Good to see you.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to introduce Ana Liversidge visiting with her class from St. Agnes school. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: To all the folks from northwestern Ontario, welcome; it’s great to see you again; and, of course, a fine Sudburian, Rob Hyndman, the president of the professional firefighters.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Jason Davison. He is the vice-president of the Sarnia Professional Firefighters Association. I met with him earlier this morning.

Mr. Han Dong: We have some young guests here: It’s my pleasure to welcome members of the University-Rosedale Youth Council here in the public gallery this morning. Both myself and MP Chrystia Freeland work closely with the group, and they do a fantastic job.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Professional firefighter Dan Bonnar, representing Ajax fire services, will be here today.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Ann Bryan of the firefighters of Ontario, from Kingston.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to welcome, from my riding of Kitchener Centre, Stephanie and Reuben Janzen-Martin, who bid on lunch with their MPP at the Rockway Mennonite Collegiate auction. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, I’d like to welcome Scott Allinson, VP of public affairs of HRPA; Dr. Beder of the Decent Work and Health Network, and her colleagues; and Mary Gellatly from Parkdale Community Legal Services, who are here for the third reading vote on Bill 148. Welcome to all of you.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome one of my residents from Hamilton Mountain who I see in the House today, Lisa Pattison. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I would like to welcome the students from Holy Trinity Catholic Secondary School located in my riding of Durham, as well as their teachers. Welcome.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I see, hiding somewhere behind there, Dr. Bruce Flynn. He’s here with the chiropractors’ association. Welcome, Bruce.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome professional firefighters from the Halton region here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Dr. Ken Brough, who is a friend and a very good chiropractor in the beautiful riding of Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to say thank you to Aditya Deshpande, our page captain today, from London North Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I used to do when I wasn’t sitting here, I used to stand up and say this: For anyone who was not introduced, welcome.

I will introduce someone in the Speaker’s gallery: Mr. Gavin Jacklyn, a friend of mine, and also from the Brantford Professional Fire Fighters Association. Thank you for being with us, Gavin.

Also, shortly to arrive is a former member, the MPP for Fort York in the 35th and 36th Parliaments, and the MPP for Trinity–Spadina in the 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments, along with his partner, Evelyn Murialdo, and individuals from Scadding Court Community Centre. Rosario Marchese will be joining us shortly.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I appreciate your patience in introductions. It’s important that we recognize those who have come to visit with us.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. I’m going to put forward a pretty simple question. It doesn’t require spin. It doesn’t require fluff. It doesn’t require historical context. There will be no need to blame people from 20 years ago or say your dog ate your homework.

What I want to know is—directly to the Minister of Energy—exactly what was the net financial loss incurred by the Liberal government when exporting power over the last two years?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The exact number is $236 million in benefits, as estimated by the experts at the Independent Electricity System Operator. These benefits translate into reduced costs for the ratepayers, something that we as a government see as so important. That’s why we brought forward the fair hydro plan and reduced rates by 25%, something that they voted against.

What about since 2013? The net benefit of our exports has been over $1 billion in savings to Ontario ratepayers.

If we want to go, in fact, to when they had their history and their talks about what they did in the sector, they were actually spending $7 million in electricity in one day just to keep the air conditioners going. They were complaining about having to import.

We now export and make money, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Each side has had their chance to heckle. It’s now stopping.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The message has been sent, clearly.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Energy: The Minister of Energy just said they make money on exports. Unfortunately, facts still matter in Ontario. The Minister of Energy’s response is absurd and factually incorrect. The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers laid it all out and it was reported in the Financial Post: “Cheap exports of surplus nuclear, solar, wind and hydro power could have cost Ontario as much as $1.25 billion over 21 months....” The facts are in the Financial Post: $1.25 billion squandered by this Liberal government, lost to Michigan, New York and all across the northern United States. We don’t need fake spin. Facts do matter.

Will the Minister of Energy stand in the House and say that the Financial Post is wrong, the engineers are wrong? No one believes this government’s fake spin. Come clean. Tell us the truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

In fact, while the question was being put, I heard more noise from this side than I heard from the other side. So we are in warnings, and I’ll be quick to come up.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: He is right; facts do matter in Ontario. That’s why we bring forward facts each and every day, while they’re the party that talks about spin when they have no policy and no idea what to do in this sector.

The experts in this sector are at the Independent Electricity System Operator, the people who run our system day in and day out. I take their advice, and I listen to what they have to say very carefully. What the IESO says—and maybe they should listen—is that we have made $236 million—

Mr. Steve Clark: The IESO verified the engineers’ numbers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We made $236 million last year, we made $238 million the year before, and we made more than that the year before that.

You want to go back all the way into history? Let’s go back to 2002 and 2003, when Ontario paid $900 million to import electricity because they let the system go. They let it—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: It’s almost comedy hour here. The Minister of Energy is saying they rebuilt energy? This government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy is warned.

Finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Minister of Energy being proud of his record on hydro—they’ve tripled rates since 2003, and they’re proud of it? They’ve allowed a situation to occur where we’re subsidizing businesses in Michigan, Pennsylvania—the northern United States. You’re charging Ontario families to subsidize our competitors.

Facts matter, so I will repeat my question to the Minister of Energy: Are you saying that the Financial Post and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers are wrong when they say you blew over $1 billion—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is warned.

I’m almost tempted to do something I never thought I would think I’d have to do and offer a blanket warning to everybody. That’s unheard of, but I will if I have to.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I can understand why the government is getting testy about their own record of blowing $1 billion, but I just want the Minister of Energy to come clean, to tell the House the truth. Are the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and the Financial Post correct when they say this government blew $1 billion?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: When we look at the experts, the Independent Electricity System Operator, which runs our system, which knows the day-in-and-day-out needs of our entire system, our entire province, they have said since 2013 that we have seen $1 billion in savings.

Of course I’m very proud of the record of this government and what we’ve done with the electricity sector. We’ve rebuilt the system that they left in tatters—$70 billion to actually fix the system.

Let’s start looking at it: Eliminating coal, making sure that individuals like Matthew, a 10-year-old boy who hasn’t had to go to the hospital for a year and a half because the air is clean. That’s something that I know everyone on this side of the House—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Oxford is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I will continue to work for people like Matthew and for other children in this province who need clean air to breathe, unlike that party, who vote against everything that we do to make this province better for people like Matthew, for seniors, for adults, for children. We make sure that we look after the people of our province, unlike that party.

Firefighters

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Firefighters have indicated they want to see proactive health and safety for the various aspects of their trade. Their

section 21 committee provides guidance, but non-mandatory health and safety regulations for firefighters.

How will the minister address reviewing the

section 21 committee mandate and a commitment to the safety of our firefighters? Will she make the guidance notes and other recommendations mandatory under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: First, I’m glad that the Leader of the Opposition is asking this question, because it gives me an opportunity to thank all of our firefighters across our province, who are working so hard to keep our communities safe.

I had the honour of going to speak with them when they were here yesterday for their meeting. One thing that we have committed to is a partnership with our firefighters, the collaborative effort to raise the issues that they have brought forward for the last 10 years with us.

I’m very proud of our fire safety record. We’ve seen a decrease all around our province regarding fire in buildings, in housing, based on some initiatives.

Again, I want to work, and we are continuing to work, with our firefighters.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: A simple yes or no—our firefighters deserve that. Will the guidance notes and other recommendations be made mandatory under the Occupational Health and Safety Act? Yes or no: Can our firefighters count on you?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I would say definitely they can count on us working in collaboration and partnership, as we’ve done for numerous years.

When I was appointed the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, part of my mandate was to create a Fire Safety Technical Table, where lots of issues have been raised collectively to find solutions to improve the well-being of our firefighters.

Again, I want to commend our member the Minister of Labour for introducing PTSD. That was a huge component of our collaboration and our partnership with our firefighters.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the minister: Since I can’t get an answer on the

section 21 safety aspect for firefighters, let me ask a different question for firefighters. Two years ago, I rose in this House and spoke of the late Billy Wilkins. Over a decade ago, he lost his life running into a fire to keep my community, the city of Barrie, safe.

A year ago, I asked that same question about the need to have survivor benefits in the province of Ontario for our first responders who sacrifice their own safety to keep our province safe. For the third time, I will raise this again in the House and ask the minister if I can have this province’s commitment that we will set up an Ontario survivors benefit for the families of first responders, recognizing that they put their own family at risk, they put their own safety at risk.

I saw what happened to firefighter Wilkins. His family was left with nothing after he gave his life for our community. Can I count on the minister to make sure we have a program like that in Ontario?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: First off, I want to say that my heart goes out to all the families that have lost loved ones in the line of duty. They paid the ultimate sacrifice to keep our communities safe, and we are eternally grateful.

I was also very pleased, actually, to hear that our Liberal federal partners are establishing a public safety officer award which includes $80 million to support the families of those who have fallen in the line of duty. Every member in this House and all levels of government can agree that these families deserve support.

Mr. Speaker, our government currently supports these families through funds such as the Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund. It is named after Constable Joseph MacDonald of the Sudbury police, who was shot in the line of duty in 1993. Our government commends the dedication that our public safety officers exhibit every day.

College students

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today is the second day college students have been back in the classroom since the strike, and they’ve been offered nothing but more chaos and confusion as to whether they can withdraw from their semester, get their tuition refunded and not lose their spot in the program of their choice. One student says, “To everyone thinking that dropping the semester means you can still take second semester, that’s not the case. If you want a refund, you withdraw from your entire program.”

Why is the Premier forcing students who can’t complete the condensed semester to leave college entirely and then reapply, with no guarantee that they will get back into their program?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have to say that the line of questioning that the member opposite is pursuing is disturbing given that that was the party that has said that if they were in power, those students would still be suffering from the strike. They were very clear. At every turn, as we tried to get students back to work, they blocked our legislation. We used every opportunity.

Last Thursday, we sought unanimous consent to introduce legislation. This was denied by the NDP. On Friday, we introduced legislation and then requested unanimous consent to debate the legislation the same day—denied. On Saturday, we asked the House to immediately vote on second and third reading. The NDP said no. On Sunday, we asked for an immediate third reading vote, but again the NDP said no.

Speaker, students are back in the classroom. We’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would appreciate an answer to my question. After five weeks of uncertainty, students need clear information from this Premier and this minister. They have only days to decide about the condensed program, and they need to be able to assess their options.

Another student says, “I only get a full refund if I withdraw the semester, which I can’t even do with the program I’m in or I lose my full year. Thanks for nothing, Ontario government!”

Speaker, why is this Premier forcing students to drop out completely if they want their tuition refunded?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can tell you that we are doing everything possible, and the colleges are doing everything possible, to support students to complete their semester. That is what we are strongly encouraging students to do. That is why we have given a two-week—the member opposite says “days”—two weeks to decide what is best for them. Every student has the right to choose whether they want to withdraw with the full tuition refund, or if they want to continue and work towards a successful completion of their year.

It’s two weeks. We’re urging students to actually take advantage of that two weeks, to understand how they’re going to be able to get back on track after this strike, which would have gone on indefinitely, had the NDP had their way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The minister knows students are being forced to give up their spot in their program in order to qualify for the tuition refund, with no guarantee that they will be accepted back in the future. That’s not acceptable.

These students want to continue the education they started, but they have lives outside of the classroom. Many have kids, jobs and other obligations that will make it difficult to successfully complete an accelerated, condensed course. They do not want to drop out. They want to defer until January, to get a fresh start on a complete semester. Why is the Premier forcing these students to drop out?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am encouraging every student who is considering conditions to actually speak with their college, because there is nothing in our directive that prevents students from beginning in January, but not every college program is semestered. Many have a full year and so students have to work with their college to find the best option for them. If they choose to withdraw, they will get a full refund of their tuition, but I’m encouraging students to work, to do the very best they can to complete the semester.

College students

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Acting Premier: Speaker, this minister knows it was inaction by her Liberal government that prolonged the strike for five weeks. The Premier’s refusal to step in and facilitate a deal meant that some students had to give up their apartments. They’ve been forced to juggle work schedules. They’ve had to rearrange travel plans, maybe plans to go home for the holidays. A hardship fund capped at $500 just doesn’t cut it.

One student said, “That doesn’t even cover my rent for the month I missed, not to mention my groceries, my parking pass that I already paid for ... gas money to get to campus because I work there, phone/Internet bill, etc.” Why can’t the Premier come up with a fund that will actually meet the financial hardships experienced by students?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We’ve taken unprecedented action to ensure that students have access to a hardship fund. It is well within the discretion of the college to determine, in exceptional cases, that the limit of $500 be waived.

The member opposite keeps referring to an opportunity we had to interfere in collective bargaining. I want to make it very clear that if we had interfered, they would be the first to be attacking us for interference. We let collective bargaining proceed.

The member opposite has referred to legislation that allows us to proceed. I explained yesterday that there is overriding legislation, and I am asking the page to send over copies of both bills and actually have real lawyers read them, and then they could advise the NDP whether or not they’re maybe on pretty thin ice with regard to this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Students have been put through the wringer because of this government’s decision to sit on the sidelines, and $500 doesn’t even begin to cover the cost for—

Hon. Brad Duguid: So you wanted us to legislate them back earlier? Come clean.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Economic Development and Growth is warned.

Carry on.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Another student says, “$500 is not enough for all the hardships students had to go through; $500 doesn’t cover rent not to mention all the other expenses during the strike. Money is nice but it doesn’t solve the real issue which is a lack of respect for students.”

Speaker, when will this Premier show students the respect they deserve and direct the colleges to remove the $500 cap on the student hardship fund?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have to say that it’s kind of interesting to note that now there is real concern for students coming from that party. I can tell you, if you review Hansard, if you review the debates that we had about getting students back to the classroom, you will see there is no reference to students, except when they quote the Minister of Labour and myself on this issue.

So this new-found concern for students is refreshing. I’m just not so sure how sincere it is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Instead of supporting students to move beyond the last five weeks of the strike, the help offered by this Liberal government is creating more chaos and confusion. The $500 cap on the compensation for students to recover from the strike simply isn’t enough. Students need to know today if the Premier will direct colleges to guarantee that anyone who wants to withdraw from their program and get their tuition refunded will not lose their place.

When will the Premier stop paying lip service to students and come up with an appropriate solution to the mess that students have been forced to endure over the past five weeks?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite might be interested to know that the hardship fund that we have put in place was informed by consultation with students. We sat down with students. It is the first time in the history of post-secondary education strikes that this kind of fund has been created.

I think the NDP is really struggling because they know that they blocked the return of college students to the classroom across this province. Half a million students, 500,000 students, know that the NDP blocked the return to classrooms. They’re trying to pretend they are concerned for students, but it’s very clear that they are not.

Endangered species

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. As you know, the Ontario Forest Industries Association and a huge group of northern mayors, First Nation chiefs, union leaders and business leaders are here at Queen’s Park today to set the record straight about the sustainability of forestry in Ontario.

Section 55 of the Endangered Species Act, which removes duplication and allows the forestry sector to operate under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, is set to expire next June. When the ESA was introduced, then-Minister David Ramsay promised that the forestry sector would continue to operate under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, which, since 1994, has ensured the forestry sector takes care of not only the forests but the animals that live there.

Minister, will you stand up for northern communities and First Nations, keep your word and let our sustainable forestry sector operate under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’m pleased to answer this question. Unlike the PCs, our government fully supports our forestry sector and the critical role that it plays in the success of the provincial economy. I also welcome so many members from forestry, industry, as well as the northern communities here with us today in the galleries.

Our government continues to work closely with our federal counterparts on caribou conservation and provides information to the federal government to support our shared conservation goals for caribou. Over the last few years, our government has invested $11 million to support Ontario’s caribou conservation plan. The investments allowed ministry researchers to participate in over 50 different research projects, including monitoring of caribou—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: We’re now able to make more informed decisions about resource activities or development in areas where caribou live. In addition, we’re providing this important information to the federal government to support their national progress report on this species.

In the supplementary, I’ll talk about the exemption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I might suggest the minister speak with David Canfield. He’ll give her a lesson on caribou.

Back to the minister: There are also many First Nations chiefs and representatives here today who support and are active in the forest industry. They too are concerned about the upcoming expiration of

section 55 of the ESA and the lack of action on the part of this government to work towards a permanent solution. These indigenous leaders want what everybody wants: the opportunity to provide economic security and jobs for their communities. Yet the lack of action on the part of this government is standing in the way of that.

So, Speaker, I have to ask the minister: When will this government finally get to work on establishing a permanent solution to

section 55 of the Endangered Species Act that is the result of a real partnership with stakeholders and right holders such as industry experts like OFIA and First Nations communities?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Our government continues to engage with indigenous organizations, the forestry industry, municipalities, environmental organizations and other stakeholders as we seek to provide a balanced and creative solution using their input. We had all of these sectors with us earlier this year in a meeting.

We will continue to uphold Ontario’s high standards of sustainable forest management and creating opportunities for northern communities. In saying that, our government knows how important this sector is.

The exemption for the forestry industry expires in June 2018. Our ministry has been exploring possible solutions that minimize impacts on forest operations, protect species at risk and their habitats, and continue to provide economic opportunities for communities in northern Ontario, including those that our indigenous partners are involved with. They continue to be a valuable part of our forestry sector—and I thank you for the work that you do each and every day.

Hydro rates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. In March, the privatized Hydro One filed its distribution rate applications for 2018 to 2022. Instead of reducing its rates, as the government promised would happen, the privatized Hydro One is seeking a 20% increase.

But there’s more. On page 2038 of the application, we learn that Hydro One wants to install prepayment meters, which require the customer to pay first before they get any electricity. Everywhere that prepayment meters have been used, they have hurt struggling families.

Will the government direct the Ontario Energy Board to prohibit Hydro One’s use of prepayment meters?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: As the OEB is the quasi-judicial organization and our regulator in the province, their mandate is to have the ratepayers’ best interests in mind, and so we leave the decisions, when it comes to rate applications, to the OEB.

When it comes to Hydro One and their rate application, it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to say that the OEB is reviewing this and, again, there will be no increase more than the cost of inflation for the next four years. That was part of the fair hydro plan that that member and that party voted against—making sure that ratepayers actually had that 25% reduction.

Talking about Hydro One customers, they can see anywhere between a 40% to 50% reduction because of the action that this government took to make sure that we protect ratepayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the minister: After Margaret Thatcher privatized the UK’s water system, utilities began installing these prepayment meters. They hurt struggling families and they created a public health crisis.

The Premier has hurt families in Ontario by privatizing Hydro One.

Hydro One’s installation of prepayment hydro meters would bypass Ontario’s rules for disconnections. Hydro One won’t have to disconnect anyone; the power will be cut off automatically if the customer doesn’t feed the meter.

The UK finally banned prepayment meters. Will the government do the same thing and stop Hydro One from installing prepayment meters?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, this is an application that is before the OEB, and the OEB, as the quasi-judicial regulator of our electricity system and our energy system, is reviewing every application with the ratepayers’ best interests in mind.

I know the member opposite mentioned the importance of protecting the interests of the people of Ontario, and that’s what this government has done by bringing forward the fair hydro plan and reducing rates by 25%.

But on top of that, with the broadening of ownership of Hydro One, not only have we seen reductions of anywhere between 40% and 50%, but we’re actually seeing a $13.5-billion investment in the GTHA GO regional express rail. It’s going to quadruple the number of weekly trips to 6,000. There’s $5.3 billion in the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, $1 billion in Ottawa’s LRT, $43 million in Waterloo regional transit and the list goes on.

Employment standards

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Labour. This morning, we completed third reading debate on Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act. This concludes more than two and a half years of evaluating the nature of our workplaces, how they have changed and how our labour and employment laws must be amended to reflect those changes. This was a direction given to the minister by Premier Wynne in his mandate letter.

This consultation informed both the Changing Workplaces Review and the resulting legislation, Bill 148. We heard from countless groups and organizations across the province, many of whom are here today with us at Queen’s Park. They include representatives from labour unions, employers, workers’ advocacy groups, employees, women’s advocacy groups, doctors, economists and many, many more.

Will the minister please let us know how their input and feedback has been reflected in the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York for this very important question. Let me start by thanking all the advocates who have joined us today. They have worked so hard across this province. All they’ve asked for is to see respect and to see dignity in Ontario workplaces. They provided incredible insight to the special advisers right throughout the Changing Workplaces Review. We listened to that input. The feedback informed our decisions right throughout the province on things like raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and establishing paid sick days and five days of paid leave for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

We know the province’s economy is doing very well, but not everybody is sharing in that prosperity. We still have people in this province working 35 to 40 hours a week, sometimes at two or three jobs, and they can’t get by. It needs to change. Bill 148 is that change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I would like to take a moment to thank the Minister of Labour for his diligent work in bringing forward this extremely important piece of legislation.

Over the past two years and especially through this summer, I have spoken with so many of my constituents in the riding of Beaches–East York about the challenges they face at work and at home. Many have been left trying to support their families on a minimum wage that just doesn’t go far enough. They need a living wage. They’re trying to raise their children. They’re saving for their children’s education, and they’re wondering how they are going to pay all their bills, let alone get ahead.

Our province’s economy is doing extremely well, and we cannot forget everyone is not sharing in this prosperity. Speaker, I am proud that we have committed to help families in Beaches–East York and across the province of Ontario through the measures that are included in Bill 148. Frankly, I am shocked that anyone in this House could withhold support for this very important bill.

Will the minister please let us know what the supporting legislation means to Ontarians?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York. Again, I do want to thank all members of the House for the advocacy and the support they’ve shown on this legislation.

I agree, it’s shocking to think that anybody in this House would deny support for this bill. It increases the minimum wage for 1.6 million Ontarians. It ensures equal pay for work of equal value, more predictability, and modernizing our organization practices.

This is what our government believes in, but the opposition would like to go back to the Harris years, to when the minimum wage was frozen at $6.85. They’d like to roll back our commitment to $15 an hour. We’re not backing down. We’re not going to back down. We’re committed to ensuring the best of all futures for our families. We’re standing up for the rights of all Ontario workers. We’re committed to fighting for Ontario families, and we stand opposed to those who would block these changes.

Child care

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the minister responsible for early years and child care. Parents across Ontario are constantly struggling to find affordable child care options, and yet a Globe and Mail

article today reports that the government is placing more restrictions on what qualifies as after-school care. Under the minister’s restrictions, businesses offering unique programming, such as theatre and dance, will only be able to offer programs three days a week. Children will go to school five days a week. Working families need options.

How does limiting after-school programming help hard-working families already struggling to find after-school programs for their children?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I want to thank the member opposite for this very important question. I know the situation with Sprouts kids has parents concerned, and I want them to know we are working hard to resolve this issue with them with little to no disruption to the kids out there who are needing before- and after-school care.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. When it comes to children in our province in care, safety is our number one priority, absolutely. Safety is our number one priority, and we brought in rules based on recommendations made by the Ombudsman in 2014. Those recommendations came about because of the death of a child in care.

So we took those recommendations and moved forward almost right away with a set of rules that we were going to bring in place. We gave municipalities and everyone else two years to transition, and those rules came into effect three months ago.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It is offensive that this minister is comparing after-school programs that provide theatre, arts, and math tutoring to unregulated care that happened. It’s offensive to those businesses.

While parents are struggling to find child care they can afford, you are limiting their options. This government appears to be on a mission to reduce the choices and availability for after-school care in Ontario. To quote a mom, “It feels really wrong to have the government come in and tell you what you’re able to choose for your child for an after-school program.”

How many after-school programs will be shut down, leaving families with fewer options for after-school care?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I am once again really pleased to stand up and answer this question. Frankly, it exposes how little the member opposite understands what’s going on. There is a wide range of programs that are offered when it comes to child care. We have child care, we have before- and after-school programs, and we have recreational programs. We are making sure that when it comes to our children being in a safe environment, they are protected. Those children who are five years of age and under have different sets of rules than those who are six to 12 years of age.

I also want to point out that we have introduced before- and after-school care to our schools where there is sufficient demand across the province—60,000 more children in Ontario are now accessing spaces. That is as of September 1. We worked hard to deliver that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

Child care

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. The crisis in child care in this province continues today. In the east end of Toronto, parents of 97 children were given one week’s notice to find alternative before- and after-school care after Sprouts, a neighbourhood recreation and walk-safe program, was found to be in contravention of the Child Care and Early Years Act. Midway through the school year, east-end parents were left with no full-week options. The government created chaos for these families, taking days to respond to parents’ serious concerns, and because of this uproar, the ministry last night made an exception.

Toronto councillor Janet Davis has said it best: the “province has totally bungled the school age program rules.”

It begs the question: Will this government be cracking down on every karate program and dance studio in the province of Ontario now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the minister responsible for early years and child care.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Once again, I’m pleased to rise and answer this question, because it is so important. We are absolutely transforming the way we are delivering child care in this province. We have been doing it for more than a year. Those pieces that we are moving forward with are under way.

I have to say that the member opposite and the party opposite are a little late coming to the party. We have moved forward with a framework that is now in place and that is expanding the child care in this province by 100,000 additional spaces. In addition to that, we have moved forward with $1.6 billion in capital funding. That will now move in to place in 2018 and will build spaces.

Right now in this year, the 2017-18 year, we have moved forward with $200 million, and 24,000 spaces are being created in this year alone. In addition to that, we are making fundamental changes to ensure that we are building a solid foundation when it comes to children and child care in this province.

And when it comes to this instance of before- and after-school care and Sprouts kids, my officials are there right now, working with them to ensure that they are compliant and that those children have care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Acting Premier: One parent with a daughter in the Sprouts program said that the move to limit Sprouts’ before- and after-school care was made by “a government that doesn’t really understand or support a working family.”

Parents across the province who rely on recreational programs like Sprouts do so because they are unable to find licensed and affordable child care for their children; certainly they can’t after 14 years of this Liberal government. With other neighbourhood programs full for the remainder of the school year, these east-end Toronto parents were left with no comprehensive options.

Ontario families deserve quality, affordable and accessible child care in this province. What is the government’s plan for authorized recreational programs? Or will Ontario parents in this case be expected to lurch from crisis to crisis across this province?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Once again, I’m really pleased to answer this question, because it’s so important.

First of all, absolutely, when the situation with Sprouts kids came to light we were concerned about those parents and those kids, and we are working hard to ensure that we resolve the issue. Frankly, I was a bit surprised, because these rules came into force September 1, and for the last two years, various programs around the province have been working to transition. My teams have been working with them to ensure that we do it and help them get on track. Right now, we are working with these families.

But I do want to point out something: When you have children that are five, four and three years old in care, and when you are lumping them in with six- to 12-year-olds, the rules are different. You cannot bypass those child care rules. They are there to make sure that we are supporting those children, and they are strict because of safety.

Ontario Place

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The province has an ambitious vision to transform Ontario Place into a modern, vibrant, year-round waterfront destination that builds on a legacy of innovation, fun and live music, and engages residents and visitors of all ages.

This summer, we reopened the Trillium Park and William G. Davis Trail, which adds 7.5 acres of green space to Toronto’s waterfront. That’s a real benefit to residents of Liberty Village, Little Norway and Fort York. We hosted four diverse festivals in the spring and summer to celebrate the province’s 150th anniversary.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can she tell us more about what she announced earlier this month pertaining to the reopening of the iconic Cinesphere theatre?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you to the member for his question. It’s been an extremely exciting year for Ontario Place. For over 40 years, Ontario Place has been a cultural centrepiece and a hub for activities for all Ontarians to enjoy. I’m excited to have this opportunity to speak to the iconic Cinesphere, an exciting part of our Ontario Place revitalization.

I had the pleasure of welcoming Ontarians back to the Cinesphere earlier this month. In doing so, we were able to introduce a new generation to the world’s first permanent IMAX theatre. We revamped the space to make it a year-round facility that everyone can enjoy, making upgrades to the entrance, acoustics, the lighting, and there’s a new digital projector as well. That’s what makes the Cinesphere truly unique, because it is a Canadian innovation. The IMAX 70-millimetre film experience is truly a visual experience that is unparalleled.

Finally, we’re enhancing access to the Cinesphere too, by partnering with charitable organizations so that the community can come free of charge, so that everyone can enjoy the unique experience that Ontario Place and the Cinesphere bring.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Han Dong: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. It’s wonderful to hear all the great work that’s being done to transform Ontario Place into a lively recreational and cultural space for everyone to enjoy. After all, the legacy of Ontario Place was and continues to be one of cultural engagement and discovery.

The development that we see on our beautiful waterfront is exciting, and to hear that many Ontarians have already been down to the site, whether it’s to watch the great flicks at the iconic Cinesphere or go for a bike ride along the park and trail, makes us want to build on this great momentum even further.

Speaker, to the minister: Can she explain to this House how her ministry will continue to make the vision of a revitalized Ontario Place a reality?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: As the member mentioned, the vision for a revitalized Ontario Place is one of lively cultural engagement. We call it Ontario Place for a reason: It’s a place for all Ontarians.

Our next steps in the revitalization plan will continue to build on that principle. I’m happy to say that we’re now officially in the design phase to create a wonderful green space at the 20-acre Celebration Common at Ontario Place. We heard what Ontarians wanted to see, and we listened. The space will be transformed and be used for festivals, community events and recreation.

The ambitious vision for a modern, vibrant, year-round waterfront destination is well under way, and we look forward to continuing to welcome all Ontarians to what is truly a wonderful jewel on the waterfront of Canada’s largest city.

Electric vehicles

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. While we pay to send our green energy across the border, Ontario auto dealers are being forced to pay here at home for yet another Liberal green scheme—of course, long on promises and taxpayer funding, but short on results. Boasting $14,000 rebates per luxury electric car, and of course the minister’s own electric car lot, the Liberal electric vehicle program has become a costly vanity project propped up by taxpayers.

Now we hear that the rebate delivered at point of sale has auto dealers paying out of pocket while they await promised government reimbursement that’s being held back. Dealers in the GTA alone are owed well over $2 million.

Will the minister explain why he is making auto dealers pay the price for his electric car subsidies?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I thank the member for his question. I couldn’t help but notice from the tone of the question, if not the exact language, that it seems implied in the question that that member and his leader certainly don’t seem to support the idea that we want to deploy more zero-GHG-emitting vehicles on our roads. Our government could not stand more starkly in contrast to that backward-looking assertion on their part.

What we’ve seen here in Ontario since we’ve introduced even more generous electric vehicle incentives through our Electric Vehicle Incentive Program—which, as he pointed out, offers up to $14,000 for those individuals who choose to buy or lease one of these, and up to $1,000 by way of rebate for those families—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re subsidizing the rich.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —for those families that choose to install home-based charging infrastructure.

What we’ve seen is a dramatic increase in terms of the uptake amongst those families, especially as more products come online that are more affordable for those middle-class families across the province who want to do their part to fight climate change, unlike that member and his leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: Talk about prompt payment. We just don’t think that auto dealers should be on the hook to pay for Liberal subsidies.

This program, of course, has been a wheel-spinning exercise since they rolled it out. The Liberals promised 485 electric vehicle charging stations by last spring. A third of them weren’t ready for the summer driving season. They promised 20% of the Ontario public service vehicles would be electric by 2020. In 2017, they are at just 4%. They promised to pay drivers massive incentives to drive electric cars off the lot. Now they’re failing to deliver those rebates to the auto dealer, who is, of course, caught now in the middle.

Minister, why are you leaving Ontario auto dealers to foot the bill for your failing program, and when will you actually pay them back: $2 million alone in the GTA for auto dealers? When will you pay them back?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, I think it would be far more forthright of that member to stand up and just declare he and his leader don’t support the purchase or lease of electric vehicles in the province, that they don’t support supporting middle-class families in this province who want to do their part to fight climate change.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I was saying, Speaker, they’re making it abundantly clear, using the code language that’s embedded in that question, to make it, again, abundantly clear that they don’t support these initiatives, which is a real shame, because we know, as we put more incentives into the marketplace, that more and more middle-income families are actually making the choice to do their part to fight climate change by purchasing or leasing these vehicles.

I will say that, along with the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program and the EVCO program, which is deploying a charging network right across the province—500 charging stations across 250 unique locations right across the province—we’re making it easier every single day to support those Ontario families who want to do their part to fight climate change.

GO Transit

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Deputy Premier. For years, Hamiltonians have been promised frequent all-day, two-way GO rail service, and we’re still waiting.

Now it looks like we’re going to wait even longer. Despite spending $80 million on two new GO stations in Hamilton, it seems the government plans to leave these stations empty most of the time. Hamiltonians are calling them “ghost” stations.

Why hasn’t this government made frequent GO service from these new stations a priority?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I appreciate the question. I always love having the opportunity to stand in my place and talk about the fact that our government is, in fact, building GO regional express rail, Speaker. I will say that perhaps that member would want to speak to her colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. He has told me many times in the past he’s delighted that our government has decided to build an additional GO station at Confederation in Stoney Creek. Of course, thanks almost exclusively to the advocacy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: As I was saying, thanks almost exclusively to the long-standing advocacy of my colleague from St. Catharines, our government has decided to extend GO train service all the way to Niagara Falls. That’s what they will continue to be focused on.

I would point out that there is a

section of the Lakeshore West corridor—that member may not know this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: —that is actually currently owned by CN—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry? I hope so.

Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: The purpose of spending $80 million on two new GO stations in Hamilton is not to provide photo ops for Liberal politicians. The purpose is to provide frequent GO service that Hamiltonians have been promised for years. Instead, we get ghost stations.

Exactly when can Hamiltonians expect all-day, two-way GO service through these new stations?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I have no clue why the member from Hamilton Mountain wants to so vociferously attack the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, but that’s a question they can sort out in their caucus office.

As I was saying in my initial answer, that member may not realize that there is a portion of what’s known as the Lakeshore West corridor that’s currently owned by CN, and they carry an awful lot of freight on that

section of the Lakeshore West corridor. Our government, through Metrolinx, is working closely with both CN and CP to make sure that we can rationalize freight service and ultimately deliver more frequent GO train service to Niagara Falls, to Bowmanville, to Barrie, and ultimately through Stoney Creek all the way out to other places in Hamilton and beyond.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

Start the clock. New question.

Waste reduction

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Each year, Ontarians generate about 3.7 million tonnes of waste from food and organic materials, with more than 60% sent to landfill. In fact, food and organic waste make up approximately one third of Ontario’s total waste stream.

Our government recognizes that this needs to change. Last week, our government introduced our proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework, which outlines our path forward for reducing food waste and increasing the recovery of organic materials in Ontario. The framework is currently posted to the Environmental Registry for public consultation.

Can the minister please explain to the House how our proposed organics framework would help reduce organic waste while benefiting Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you to the hard-working member from Davenport for that very important question. As the member mentioned, last week my ministry introduced our proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework. The proposed framework is the next step in moving Ontario toward a circular economy, an economy where food and organic waste is no longer seen as waste but as a resource.

We know that recovering organic resources is not only beneficial to the environment but also builds our economy. Research from the UK shows that there is $14 of financial benefit for every $1 invested in food waste prevention.

Our proposed organic framework has the potential to create new jobs in Ontario. Current efforts to divert food and organic waste create about 1,700 jobs in Ontario as we speak.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We know that managing waste and reusing our resources is a critical part of achieving our goals to protect our land and environment, create a greener future for Ontarians and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When food and organic waste breaks down in landfills, it produces greenhouse gases. In 2015, greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector accounted for about 5% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the province. That amounts to 8.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

If global food waste were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, after the United States and China. That’s why Ontario is proposing to take strong action to prevent organic and food waste from ending up in landfills. Can the minister please describe to the House how recovering organic and food resources would benefit Ontario?

Hon. Chris Ballard: Thank you again to the member from Davenport for this question. Our food and organics framework is the next step toward moving toward a waste-free Ontario. If we doubled the province’s current resource recovery rate of food and organic waste, we could reduce an additional 1.1 megatonnes in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the equivalent of removing approximately 260,000 cars from Ontario’s roads each year. That’s each year, Mr. Speaker.

It’s bringing us closer to our climate change goals. Under our climate change action plan, we’re moving forward to reduce greenhouse gases and stimulate economic growth. Meanwhile, members opposite have no real plan to reduce organic waste and keep resources out of landfills in Ontario, and they have no real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and no real plan to fight climate change.

Correctional facilities

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. According to the Toronto Star, inmates at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre are suing the government. Between the years of 2010 and 2013, there has been a pattern of systematic negligence. The lawsuit cites overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

Sadly, this is not an isolated problem. A recent report by the independent adviser on corrections reform describes shocking abuses and disorder in Ontario’s detention centres. Detention centres are overcrowded, and cellblock violence is a huge problem everywhere.

Minister, it doesn’t appear as though you have the backs of our COs. You aren’t giving them the resources they need to carry out their duties safely. I’ve said before that minor tinkering isn’t going to fix the crisis in corrections.

Minister, you’re failing our correctional officers. What specifically are you going to do to solve these problems?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you very much to the member for that question. As he knows, I cannot comment specifically on anything, but what I want to share with this House is our full commitment to moving forward in the transformation of our corrections system.

Mr. Speaker, we have made investments in the past few years, and we are going forward in bringing legislation in this House based on recommendations from Mr. Howard Sapers and from the Ombudsman. We have engaged also with our stakeholders—our union representatives, our indigenous communities—in bringing the biggest transformation in Ontario’s history when it comes to our corrections system.

I was also very happy all throughout the summer to visit our institutions and meet with front-line workers. I want to say thank you to the men and women who work in our institutions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister: You haven’t been listening to the correctional officers around the province. On the Liberals’ watch, prisoners like Adam Capay have been held in solitary confinement while awaiting trial. Capay was held for four years in conditions so degrading that previous inmates of the same cell died. But the Liberals didn’t care. They ignored repeated coroners’ inquests warning of unsafe conditions. It only became a problem for this government when Capay’s case reached the newspapers.

Our correctional officers have brought the same problems to this ministry’s attention many times before. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is now suing the ministry over the Capay case, and inmates are suing you for systematic negligence. Minister, you’re not listening to our front-line staff: the correctional officers who are the boots on the ground and who face behavioural uncertainty with inmates daily.

The Premier claims that she wants to be remembered as a social justice Premier. Minister, does this appalling state of corrections pass for social justice?

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: I know I have limited time, but the question from that member is troubling for me in one sense. Let’s remember the time when this party was in power. I heard this, actually, all throughout my tour of our institutions this summer. We heard about the failed privatization of our jails and the cuts of social programs that used to exist in our institutions. I heard about the farming program and the construction programs that were cut under that government, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what? We have made a full commitment in bringing forward the most transformational, policy-driven, new corrections systems act in this House this fall. We have engaged with not only our front-line workers but with everyone in our system to make sure that we get this right for all—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Visitors

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I just want to welcome all of those labour activists and labour leaders who are here today joining us for the vote for Bill 148 coming this afternoon. Welcome, everyone. It’s good to see you here, and thank you for all your hard work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I’m happy to introduce today, in the members’ east gallery, a member of the Cambridge Professional Fire Fighters’ Association and a good friend and neighbour of mine, John Holman. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Correction of record

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I just want to ensure that my record correctly reflects that it’s 16,000 before- and after-school spaces in schools. I understand it may possibly say 60,000. It’s 16,000.

Visitors

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I just want to recognize a dear friend of mine, Ibrahim Daniyal, who is in the members’ gallery.

Deferred Votes

Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 pour l’équité en milieu de travail et de meilleurs emplois

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

Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi, la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1155.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Earlier today, Mr. Duguid moved third reading of Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

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

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Anderson, Granville

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Baker, Yvan

Ballard, Chris

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Dong, Han

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Gretzky, Lisa

Hoggarth, Ann

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kiwala, Sophie

Lalonde, Marie-France

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Malhi, Harinder

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Martins, Cristina

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGarry, Kathryn

McMahon, Eleanor

McMeekin, Ted

Milczyn, Peter Z.

Miller, Paul

Moridi, Reza

Naidoo-Harris, Indira

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Potts, Arthur

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sattler, Peggy

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thibeault, Glenn

Vanthof, John

Vernile, Daiene

Wong, Soo

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

MacLaren, Jack

McDonell, Jim

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pettapiece, Randy

Romano, Ross

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 67; the nays are 26.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

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

Third reading agreed to.

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 42 relating to the allocation of time on Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and