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

October 3, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-03 (PDF)

L032 - Wed 3 Oct 2018 / Mer 3 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 October 2018 Mercredi 3 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Employment standards

Hospital funding

International trade

Hospital funding

Job creation

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Employment standards

Curriculum

International trade

Immigration and refugee policy

Opioid abuse

International trade

Missing persons

Senior citizens

Women’s shelters

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Time allocation

Member’s birthday

Members’ Statements

London-Middlesex Suicide Prevention Council

Visitors

Reena Foundation

British home children

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association

Employment standards

Mental health and addiction services

Ontario Agriculture Week

Injured workers

Palliative care

Henry Maracle

Introduction of Bills

Tax Fairness for Real Estate Professionals Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’équité fiscale pour les professionnels de l’immobilier

Accessible Parking and Towing Industry Review Committee Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le Comité d’examen du stationnement accessible et du secteur de remorquage

Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Genetic Characteristics), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant le Code des droits de la personne (caractéristiques génétiques)

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Helmet Exemption for Sikh Motorcyclists), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant le Code de la route (exemption de l’obligation de port du casque pour les motocyclistes sikhs)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Ontario Agriculture Week

International Day of the Girl

International Day of the Girl

Ontario Agriculture Week

Petitions

Curriculum

Mental health and addiction services

Employment standards

Mental health and addiction services

Social assistance

Mental health and addiction services

Injured workers

Mental health and addiction services

Mental health and addiction services

Injured workers

Mental health and addiction services

Orders of the Day

Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 annulant le programme de plafonnement et d’échange

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

Adjournment Debate

Anti-racism activities

Anti-racism activities

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

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

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 36,

An Act to enact a new Act and make amendments to various other Acts respecting the use and sale of cannabis and vapour products in Ontario, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 11, 2018, from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Friday, October 12, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. for public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 36:

—That the deadline for requests to appear be 5 p.m. on Friday, October 5, 2018; and

—That the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee following the deadline for requests to appear by 11 a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2018; and

—That each member of the subcommittee provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters received by the Clerk, by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2018; and

—That each witness will receive up to 10 minutes for their presentation followed by 10 minutes for questions divided equally amongst the recognized parties; and

That the deadline for filing written submissions be 12 p.m. on Friday, October 12, 2018; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 6 p.m. on Friday, October 12, 2018; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall be authorized to meet on Monday, October 15, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That on Monday, October 15, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, October 16, 2018. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill with 50 minutes allotted to the government; 50 minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition; 10 minutes to the independent Liberal members, and 10 minutes allotted to the independent Green member; and

That at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day; and

That, except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading or third reading vote shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 10. Who would care to lead off the debate? The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 36 and the time-allocation motion on Bill 36.

I should start off by addressing this fundamental function that has been—as we’ve gone through the debate on Bill 36, and we’ve heard lots of good debate on Bill 36—some very thoughtful and appreciative comments from all sides of the House—what has always arisen during the debate is the recognition that we’re under a tight deadline, a deadline that was enacted by the federal Parliament to create recreational marijuana in a legal sense.

I want to bring up that as we talk about that deadline it’s important for us to understand what that all means. This Legislature has until October 17 to enact the rules regarding provincial jurisdiction on the sale of recreational marijuana. If we don’t have that in place, then we have a real problem—a real problem—in this province in that we would have no laws regarding the sale and use of cannabis. So this is not just a deadline of October 17 in the abstract; it has real, serious consequences should this House fail to uphold our obligations enacted by the federal Parliament.

We’ve only had a short period of time. This government was sworn in on June 29 of this year, so that’s about three months to put together the framework for the regulation and the legalization of recreational marijuana in Ontario. I think we’ve done a bang-up job in that short period of time—three months to put together one of the most substantive bills, and also a bill that recognized the significant transformation that is under way in this country with the legalization of cannabis.

I commend the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance for both doing an excellent job in their consultations and getting the bill right. It’s substantially different than what had been proposed under the previous Liberal administration in this province. This bill recognizes fundamental Conservative principles. As we’ve heard this debate—and we’ve heard, I will say, generally widespread support from all sides of the House, from the Green Party and Liberal members; I’m not sure where the NDP really are, but somewhat supportive—it’s been generally recognized support for this bill, and I think it’s because of sticking to those principles.

Instead of having a nanny state, a socialist state, a public operator for the retail of cannabis, we’ve gone and recognized that the free market is the best vehicle to sell and distribute recreational marijuana, but also to have those strong safeguards in place, both in the development or the authorization to operate a retail store, those functions, as well as the government and an agency of the government maintaining the controls on the wholesale side of recreational cannabis. So we got that right.

I think another thing fundamental principle that we should recognize: It recognizes the maturity of adults to make choices and decisions, unlike the previous incarnation of this bill. Let me just give you one example on that: In the previous bill, the use of recreational cannabis was restricted to a private dwelling only. There’s been some discussion about this, but think of the consequences of only permitting it in a residential dwelling: the controversies, the complaints—and the legitimate complaints—that would have arisen from tenants.

Tenants throughout this province would be upset—same with landlords—because people would be restricted only to their private residences, plus the opportunity to cause more harmful effects on dependents of people who use recreational cannabis if we only allowed and permitted its use in a private dwelling.

I think we’ve got it right. We’ve tailored it so it works with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act in that we have safeguards for the public, so that the offensive natures or traits of smoking are significantly mitigated or minimized—not extinguished, but minimized. There’s no use of recreational cannabis in playgrounds, school fields, sports fields or schools. So we’ve got a number of safeguards in place on where it can be used. Is it perfect? I don’t think there’s any such thing as perfection here as we take on this new recognition of legalized recreational cannabis, but we’ve struck a good and proper balance.

That also recognizes that under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and the Municipal Act municipalities still have further opportunities should they determine it’s wise to restrict recreational cannabis smoking in even greater places—beaches, wherever they may think it’s important. So we’ve got some latitude there, but also the safeguards built in to begin with. We have to understand that in the context that law enforcement and none of us can distinguish between a recreational cannabis user and a medicinal cannabis user.

Watching somebody on the sidewalk or hidden around the corner of a building having a joint—you don’t know if that’s a medicinal cannabis product or a recreational cannabis product. We have to keep those elements in mind when we craft our laws. Our laws must be enforceable, and they must be practical.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I just wanted to interrupt the speaker for a moment. We’re not allowed to have props on our desk, and I’m wondering if you could remove that for us, please. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It was the first one. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Please continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Some of those products get heavy in the pockets, and I put them out on the desk.

Anyway, you cannot determine the difference between medical marijuana users and recreational users.

As you just mentioned, that product that I put in my pocket was a vaporizer. That can be used to ingest cannabis oils or it can be used to ingest other oils. There is no way anybody would ever be able to determine what it is unless they saw the person putting the fluid in or had a lab test. Law enforcement would never be able to determine if that was cannabis or something else. So harmonizing our recreational cannabis use with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, and recognizing these, just makes good sense. It is the only way forward that we can do it in a practical manner.

There’s a host of other things. I know the smoking of recreational cannabis causes a lot of people concern, but I will say this: It is my view that as technology continues to rapidly advance, technology is finding solutions and minimizing that offensive nature of combustibles or smoking—things such as vaporizers; things such as edibles and oils. There are many ways to consume recreational cannabis which are less harmful than smoking, and we know that is a trend.

I am sure that within a few years technology will continue to advance and the numbers of people actually smoking cannabis as cigarettes are going to decline ever further with the use of technology. Those are all things that we need to understand.

I think we also got it right, Speaker, on the retail side, where we’ve opened it up to the marketplace—having those safeguards in place, but also recognizing that this is a market opportunity for small operators, not just big operators like the LCBO or big operators like the government. This is going to allow individuals, mom-and-pop operations to invest and operate a cannabis store with the proper safeguards in place, creating some good and needed positive economic benefits for society as we move into this legalized recreational cannabis use.

I think we also got it really right on the municipal side in permitting and allowing municipalities the latitude and the authority to make choices on their own. This is, again, something that was absent in the previous incarnation of this bill. Municipalities, if they so determine that it’s worthwhile, may choose not to have retail cannabis stores in their municipality. I think that’s proper. We’ve seen too often in the past where the provincial government has imposed obligations and imposed conditions on our municipalities and not given them an opportunity to make choices that they believe are more beneficial to their communities—so another good, strong, Conservative principle.

I’m also glad to see in this motion that, even though we’re under this very, very tight timeline, this exceptionally tight timeline, there are going to be opportunities for committees to hear more. I know we’ve heard some good commentary around the Legislature on this bill and some good thoughts about how people may choose other ideas that may need to be or could be incorporated.

I think there’s a real fundamental—putting a mandated two-year review into this legislation really hits it home. There, we’re telling everybody, “We think we’ve got it right. We’ve done all our due diligence. We’ve put a lot of thought and a lot of consultation into this. But this is a new environment, a new reality, and we may not have everything 100%.” We’ve incorporated a mandatory review of Bill 36 in two years’ time. I think that is a very thoughtful and appropriate legislative approach to the legalization of recreational cannabis.

I will make one other comment, because it came up during the discussion, and I’ll say this to the member from Timmins, because he had a thoughtful presentation on Bill 36. It was a personal reflection on recreational cannabis use. That is a story that is not unique to the member from Timmins. We have all heard of these stories, and there is evidence—whether or not it’s overwhelming evidence—that excessive cannabis use in young and developing minds can have significant negative consequences, things such as mental disorders and schizophrenia. There seems to be either a correlation or some connection there.

I think it is incumbent, again, that we task our ministries and the federal department of health to thoroughly keep an eye on and survey and research how recreational cannabis is affecting our youth.

I think we’ve got it right: We’ve put those safeguards in to limit or prevent youth from engaging in this legal product. But, at the very end, it really comes down to all of us—all of us in our schools, all of us in this Legislature, all of us in our ministries—and every parent to make sure that their children are well informed of the consequences and well informed of the dangers. Even if a product is legal, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences. That goes without saying. Cars and driving are legal, but they can be dangerous. We have to take those appropriate steps to facilitate its use but to safeguard against improper use or dangerous use.

I do think this is just the beginning. All of us will have to be outspoken and ensure that everybody knows they have a role in providing that level of education to our youth to prevent excessive use and prevent those negative consequences from happening. If our research and studies so demonstrate, then, of course, we have another mechanism to review and alter the contents of Bill 36.

I do want to just say one more thing, and the member from Ottawa–Vanier brought this up. It is a “permit but discourage” concept. And I think we got there; we got it right there. It is permitting—we have to permit the use—but we are not promoting its use. We have a very strong regulatory regime. Retail stores will have a number of safeguards to limit its promotion and exposure, but not so much that we continue to facilitate the underground and black market cannabis use.

It has been a tricky bill to get right, but I’m very thankful that the Bill 36 that has come forward seems to hit all the notes that we need it to in order to provide those safeguards, to provide the access, and also to get it done in such a tight, tight time frame: less than 100 days to do a substantive bill like this.

Speaker, it has been my pleasure to engage in Bill 36 and this time allocation motion. I look forward to seeing the bill pass shortly.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got to say, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston certainly has a very different demeanor and tone in debate as compared to what he had in opposition. I think he would have been apoplectic on this side of the House given any bill that came before us. It’s kind of interesting to listen to the now tame member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. Anyway, I leave it at that.

Listen, we’re at time allocation. I don’t want to take a lot of time. I know that our deputy House leader also wants to speak to this at some length as well. But I think there are a couple of things that need to be said here.

The first thing is, the government brings forward time allocation because they’ve put themselves in a time crunch. We know that by October 17, this month, pot is legalized, and it’s not as if the government didn’t know, on being sworn in this June, that they had to have legislation in place about regulating the use of marijuana in the province of Ontario and the sale and distribution of marijuana. It’s not as if they didn’t know that this was an issue coming.

We know that the government took the time to call the House back for the Premier to change the composition of the election in the city of Toronto from 45 to 25 members using “notwithstanding” clauses. We sat until midnight. We moved heaven and earth this summer for the government to do its politics when it comes to the chaos that they created as a result of all of those initiatives, and never did the government bring forward a bill such as this that could have been before us back in August, could have been before us back in July. Then we could have allowed proper committee consultations in order to get the public to come in and tell us what they think of the legislation.

Are there aspects to this bill that make some sense? There are some parts to it that are actually quite okay; there are other parts that I disagree with. I think the distribution side of it is wrong. I think you should have followed an LCBO model—I spoke to that yesterday—and there are other items.

The point I make is, the government created its own crisis here, and then they come before this House and they say, “Well, we have to have time allocation in order to move this bill forward because it’s such an urgent thing. We have to have it done by the 17th. If anything was to happen, it would be a terrible thing.” Then they would try to blame the opposition if we were holding up this bill, which we’re not.

I just say to the government across the way, you can’t pretend to be good managers and then bring forward initiatives such as this in the way that you have, because it really does reflect on your inability to run this House and to make the decisions that need to be made in this province in a timely way, and one that’s more respectful. For example, I just listened to members yesterday in debate, and again this morning, where members got up in this House and said, “You know, this bill generally is okay but we know there are going to be problems.

We know there is going to be some problem that needs to be fixed in the bill.” How are you going to know that if you don’t have proper consultation? So the government says, “No problem. We’re going to do consultation,” because the opposition has been pushing them and embarrassing them about not having any committee hearings.

The government chose, on its first number of bills, to move the bills directly from second reading to third reading and cut the public out all together. You can’t pretend to be the government for the people when are you not willing to talk to the people. Finally, the government said, “Well, that is a bit of a problem,” so they say, “We’ll have two days of hearings next week, on Thursday and Friday during our constituency week.” What about people who are living down in Windsor? What about people living down in London or people living up in Sioux Lookout or wherever it might be in this province who may have something to contribute when it comes to this particular bill?

I’m not suggesting for one second, even if we would have called the bill in July, that we could have gone to every community in Ontario to speak to people about it. But we could have gone to the main regions in this province with the bill in order to hear from the police, mental health experts, addiction experts, the public and others who have something to say that would have helped us form a better bill.

But the government said no: “We’re too busy doing crises in other areas and we’ll leave this until the end, and we have time allocation to do whatever we want at the end.” This reflects on the inability of this government to be able to manage its affairs in a way that makes sense from a time perspective and from a quality-of-policy perspective. It just astounds me.

The Conservatives across the way say, “We know how to do things because we’re big businessmen. We know how to run things. We’re real good.” You can’t run this Legislature. How can you convince us that you can even run the decisions of the government at cabinet within your own ministries? To me, it’s preposterous.

A government has two or three responsibilities. A majority government, and this is what happened in this case, with 40% of the vote the Conservatives got a majority—end of story. That’s democracy that spoke and we all respect that. But with that trust that the public has given them—any party—you have a responsibility to govern for all the people, to make sure that the public is listened to, and to be thoughtful about what it is that you are doing.

Yes, every government is going to have ideological bills. Conservatives in power are going to have bills that are going to look very different than bills that we would have as New Democrats if we were in their place—fair enough; I don’t have a problem with that. But my issue is, it’s incumbent upon the government of the day to make sure that you respect the process so that you respect the people. Again I say, this government says, “I’m the government of the people.” You’re not for the people; you’re only for your friends. That’s really what it’s all about.

There are all kinds of people in this province who want to be consulted on issues of importance such as this bill who are not going to get the opportunity because the government has gamed the process such that it’s such a short period of time to try to pass a bill that is, quite frankly, pretty darn serious and needs to be done.

Nobody is disagreeing that it has to be done. The government has legalized pot. That’s not our call, that was theirs; the federal government did it. We have to enact how you’re going to sell the pot, where you can use it, and all that kind of stuff. But the government has put itself in a position where it has rushed the process, and by doing so is short-circuiting the policy perspective of what this bill could be, and is giving short shrift, quite frankly, to the public.

I’ve said this before and I’ll keep on saying it: This Legislature is a body where we reflect what Ontario is all about. We all get elected from different parts of Ontario to sit in this Legislature and to represent the people who are in our ridings—not just those people who voted for us, but all people in our ridings. We have a responsibility to them.

We’re not always going to agree. All of us understand that at some point you have to make a decision in this House and vote one way or another. There are always going to be people in your riding who are going to like and dislike what your vote is. That’s fair enough. I think most members in this House feel comfortable as long as we do our job of making sure that we listen to our constituents back home. What this government is demonstrating is that they’re not listening to the constituents back home. They’re just doing what the cabinet decides or, I would even argue, they’re doing what the Premier decides.

What that corner office decides is what happens in this House, as we’ve seen in this House time and time and time again, with the government House leader being embarrassed having to bring motions in the House at the last minute to try to enact something that the corner office has come up with, and having to wear a face of embarrassment about how that puts him and his office in a position of looking as if they don’t know what they’re doing, or that they’re trying to hoodwink the opposition or, more importantly, trying to hoodwink the public.

I just say to the government: You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment and you could have respected the people much better if you would have brought this bill forward sometime before now. You could have done it in July; you could have done it in August. You brought the House back twice this summer in the intersession. We all showed up to work. New Democrats were there. We have no problem coming here in the summer. We will come here whenever this House sits.

But we could have actually put a bill in this House, had the six and a half or seven hours of debate and sent it out to committee so that people in this province could be heard. We could have gone to the various regions of this province to listen to what the experts have to say. I think you’re not doing anybody any favours by moving time allocation on this particular bill.

As I said at the beginning, we don’t have any intent of holding this thing up to any great extent, because we understand there is a timeline coming and this bill has to go through. As imperfect as it is, we need to move forward. I recognize that there’s a majority on the other side of the House, as our leader, Andrea Horwath, and New Democrats do. We will have those political fights with you, but we understand that you draft the bills and you decide what’s going to be in them.

Our job is to try to hold you to account and to make sure that your policy decisions are those that better reflect what the people of Ontario want. I think by actions and the way that you’ve done this bill, you’ve given that short shrift.

Le gouvernement avait tout cet été, au mois de juillet, au mois d’août, pour introduire un projet de

loi sur le cannabis, pour être capable de dire : « Tiens ce qu’on propose et à quel point vous autres avez des idées pour mieux former nos décisions ici à l’Assemblée quand ça vient à ce que ce projet de loi veut regarder quand il est finalement fait. » Le gouvernement en place a décidé et a choisi de ne pas amener ce projet de loi cet été. Il l’a amené à la dernière minute. Là, ils rentrent à cette Assemblée et nous amènent le bâillon pour nous dire : « On va forcer une décision pour être capable d’avancer ce projet de loi dans une période de deux semaines. »

Écoute, le public, ils ont besoin d’être consultés. La police, les travailleurs en addiction, le système de santé : tout le monde qui est impliqué dans la question de l’utilisation du « pot » a quelque chose à dire. Puis on aurait pu produire un meilleur projet de loi qui était plus réfléchi si le gouvernement avait pris le temps de faire ce qu’il avait à faire cet été.

Moi, ça me dit et ça démontre que ce gouvernement ne sait pas comment gérer cette Chambre. Le bureau du premier ministre, M. Ford, décide tout. À la dernière minute, il s’en va voir le chef parlementaire, et lui, il reste avec l’embarras d’essayer de faire les affaires à la dernière minute. On se connaît comme amis, le chef parlementaire conservateur. Ce n’est pas la manière dont cette Chambre doit être gérée.

Je sais que ma collègue, la chef parlementaire assistante NPD, aimerait vous dire un couple de mots. Avec ça, je vous remercie pour votre temps dans ce débat.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: You know, it’s kind of a pattern that I keep seeing over and over again that there’s a lot of time allocation happening in the Legislature. As the member from Timiskaming—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Timmins.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Timmins, I should say—pointed out, it does speak to the lack of management skills around legislation. It truly does.

The poor House leader, who has to come and deliver those messages time and time again—I feel for him. I feel for him. I know his anniversary just happened recently, and he told me that he was talking to his wife on the phone. It’s hard because maybe, if this House were managed better, he could have taken that night off and gone home and spent some time with his wife of 19 years, because I think she’s put her time in.

Hon. Todd Smith: That’s why it’s lasted so long; I’m here all the time.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: That’s right. They say distance make the heart grow fonder, so that’s probably a saving grace for him.

So first, I would like to wish him and his wife a happy anniversary—

Interjection: Nineteen years.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, 19 years.

That’s something that needs to be done, because it’s important. Yes, this is the work of the Legislature, and it’s an extremely responsible job that we have. We have to account for what we do, and we know what our role is here. But we also do have families. We have to acknowledge that those things are a reality of our responsibilities.

Talking about time allocation to this bill, it has been brought up—and it’s a very good point—that this government called us back early. I’ll tell you, New Democrats are hard workers. We are happy to be here when we are needed. When there’s work to be done, we are the first ones at the table, we roll up our sleeves and we sit and make sure we don’t leave that table until the job is done.

This government need to take a lesson from us, I think, in that respect. They could have—exactly what is being discussed: Instead of tampering with the Toronto elections bill, they could have made this a priority. We could have been talking about this, because it’s a very serious milestone that’s happening in this country. Cannabis is being legalized, and we need to be prepared in many aspects.

The member from Timmins–James Bay—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Timmins.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Timmins. It got switched. He made it very clear that the meddling or the tampering with that legislation really wasn’t a priority of the people; it was a priority of the government. When you campaign on efficient government and then you just pull out legislation that you decide is what the people need, that is not good government. That is actually not even being transparent during an election.

We all knew this was coming. This was something that was coming to this Legislature. There were discussions prior to this. The previous government talked about putting 40 stores throughout the province. People had discussions about how that wasn’t enough. They talked about putting it in a regulated facility, the LCBO, so we make sure that as it’s rolled out we are taking a responsible approach. There is public safety and there is public health involved.

I can’t imagine being in law enforcement and having to determine, if you pull someone over, what kind of test you are going to give them in order to determine if they’re legally impaired and is it a medical thing. We know we have the Breathalyzer when it comes to alcohol, but we don’t know what the real test would be for cannabis. That’s a scary thing.

Imagine if you’re pulled over—I mean, I don’t know if that would ever happen to me, but imagine if you’re pulled over and you are using it responsibly, and then the police officer has to administer a test, and the results are kind of sketchy; they’re not clear. That could actually affect someone’s life tremendously.

I think we forget that the legislation that we bring forward in this House impacts people’s lives. I hope, most of the time, when we bring legislation in this Legislature, it’s for the best and it’s for the betterment of people. But, in this case, if you’re that person, it could actually destroy your life, depending on what the outcome is. Nobody likes legal situations where you have to defend yourself with respect to whether or not you’ve been impaired.

We can avoid that. We can avoid that if we have this brought forward. The opposition has pushed this government to at least two days of consultations during the constituency week. Again, it’s not a full consultation. A government that’s responsible to people—responsible to people—needs to make sure the people have an actual opportunity to give their feedback. When we do that, we’re going to learn how to make legislation better. That means having law enforcement come and speak to us, discussing their barriers, discussing their suggestions.

That means having health care providers come forward and talk to us about how long it’s in your system, what the appropriate amounts are, the long-term effects, those kinds of things.

This is a new thing that is happening to us. I’m not educated around cannabis and what the long-term effects are, what the short-term effects are, the benefits of it medically—there are benefits, I’ve heard. That would be something I would value as a member of this Legislature: to understand the actual inner workings of what people face who use it, health care providers who have to prescribe it, people who have to sell it in the private market, their responsibilities.

Children—we know that in the 1960s—some members here may remember the 1960s; I personally don’t recall them that much. The 1960s was a different time when it came around cannabis. People ingested it differently—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s very fuzzy.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s very fuzzy. Yes, that’s right. It’s very fuzzy.

But the youth who are here now, they’re—we’re using the vaping devices. A member kind of had it on their desk and it was a very bulky-looking item. I can tell you, I wouldn’t be able to identify what a vaping device is because I haven’t been in that realm of using that cannabis, medical or otherwise. But children, or even youth—I’m going to say young adults and youth. They don’t look like that item the member had. They’re sleeker. They look like USBs. They’re small. They look like little race cars, they look like perfume, maybe a lipstick.

As a parent—my children are older, but as a grandparent, as a concerned citizen, I wouldn’t have a clue that somebody has that item and they are using it for recreational or medical purposes, so education is huge.

Before we roll out this legislation, I think that’s part of the piece that has been missing. How well do we know what we’re doing on this side of the Legislature? We had an opportunity to take a responsible approach. We had an opportunity to say, for an example, we could utilize a current system that’s in place, a structure that’s very responsible and proven very successful, which is the LCBO, but this government chose a different path. We are where we are but, come on, you’re going to maybe create more legislative problems because you’re not taking that initial model and then looking at how that works.

You could actually have put a timeline on it. You could have said, “Let’s look at it for a year. Let’s implement the LCBO model. It’s responsible; there are professionals who are trained. Let’s look at that and try it for a year. Then let’s revisit and let’s look at perhaps there is room for expansion. Maybe we need to put more LCBO stores.” That’s my approach and I think that’s the more responsible thing. It is a substance that people are going to be prescribed and use recreationally, and so is alcohol.

I think we have a role to make sure, as things progress in our society, that we are learning as we go, not after the fact. Like I said, when you talk about law enforcement and their challenges around whether or not to determine if someone needs to be charged and the person who is being charged may feel that it’s unfair because of the testing— those things, then, will be challenged in court, and more problems and complications around legislation.

It is truly incumbent on us to make sure that we have to do it right. And doing it right—time allocation doesn’t facilitate that outcome. It actually hinders our ability to do that. I can tell you, Speaker, when we talk about the government saying that they’re for the people and they’re the majority government—again, we respect the process of this House. We know that they can pass legislation based on their numbers. That’s not the issue. But we can certainly speak our minds on this side of the House on how they determine decisions around their authority.

So having consultation, having people being heard—again, the two days that it’s happening, it’s mostly in Toronto. What will be the opportunities for people outside of Toronto to come during that constituency week, as we call it, when we’re out in our ridings doing a lot of the work?

They’re going to have a full consultation around sex education. They’ve got the snitch line; people can call in. They should have taken a better approach when it comes to cannabis legislation. The kids are going to school with these little USBs—the cartoons. We know they’re going to school with those things. I have a colleague here who’s a teacher, and she said that is happening. When that happens, teachers know what’s going on. Why aren’t we consulting with professionals to make sure we understand what’s really going on in our schools? You want to understand how parents feel about health education and sex ed.

I think we need to agree that everyone needs to be on board in all legislation, but then we need to understand how cannabis is building into that equation, because it is in our schools. Come on. Kids sneak cigarettes to school and think it’s cool. Well, this is the new cool thing, I think. It’s in their lifestyle, and it’s now going to be legal.

My colleague brought up a really good point earlier: that people who smoke—are they joints? What do they call it?

Mr. Chris Glover: Spliffs.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Spliffs. “Joint” is the term that I know, but there’s all kinds of other language around that.

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: No. I had no interest and still don’t.

That’s the terminology. If my kids were speaking like that—or young children—I wouldn’t really clue in. I need that education. So when we talk about parents being educated around sex ed, we need parents to be educated around cannabis use in this generation today—what it looks like when they’re holding their canisters. What’s the language around it? It really needs to be done.

Interjection.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, there’s another good point someone made: You can have the edibles. You can have candies—gummi bears—I heard that the other day, and cookies and brownies. That was the big joke back in the day; people brought brownies to your party. Again, that is a new level.

I have grandchildren. I’ll say this with full disclosure: I don’t know if I’ll ever have those brownies, cookies or gummi bears around. It’s legal now. But if you did, as a parent, you have to make sure those things aren’t out there so that it’s mistakenly given or taken out of—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Edibles aren’t legal.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Edibles aren’t legal, someone just said. Jeez. There you go.

Miss Monique Taylor: They will be in one year.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: They will be in one year. So when that time comes, when they become legal, again, what is our responsibility as caregivers to children? Even when it becomes legal, you should be talking about, do we have education around how to lock that up so children don’t have access to it at home?

It’s important that we have these conversations when it comes to responsibility around cannabis, and we are missing that. We are missing the education piece. We don’t know how these things affect our—well, we know. We say that you shouldn’t have it until a certain age because of brain development. Do parents know that specifically? That’s quite a challenge.

I think this bill is going to be quite a challenge in this generation, for parents to navigate how to do this. Now kids will go off and have a house party and they’ll have alcohol under age. It happens; let’s not pretend it doesn’t. So this will be maybe the new thing. When a child comes home, you’ve got to say, “Hey, don’t drive your car. Call me.” Right? We used to do that. Parents say, “Look, if you’re going to drink”—even of age; you’re in college—“don’t take that chance. I don’t care what time it is. You wake me up, and I will be your Uber, your taxi to bring you home or to take you to a safe place.” Now we’re having the conversation about cannabis, and we need to do that.

Speaker, I am going to respectfully ask that this government conclude that we need more time on this bill. I know it’s something they don’t think is doable, but I think we needed the time—we still need that time. If they can come to an understanding, even creating legislation, after this piece, about education and responsibility and having those consultations—maybe do the work after the legislation is passed—I think it’s really necessary.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk to this bill, and good morning, Speaker, and have a nice day.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much.

Further debate? Further debate? Last call: Further debate?

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, has moved government notice of motion number 10 relating to the allocation of time on Bill 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Good morning, Speaker. You look like you could use a coffee. No further business at this time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): This House now stands recessed, so I can grab a coffee, until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0957 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d like to call the attention of the House to the fact that we have some special guests with us today in the Legislature. Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery today are my sister, Debbie Jackson of Barrie; my aunt Ruth Arnott and uncle Keith Arnott of Barrie; and my uncle Earle Corbett of Toronto. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

I’d also like to welcome the former member for Perth–Middlesex in the 36th and 37th Parliaments, Bert Johnson, who is with us here today in recognition of Ontario Agriculture Week. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Also with us today is Mr. Tae-In Chung, consul general of the Republic of Korea in Toronto. The consul general is here for the flag-raising ceremony celebrating Korea’s National Foundation Day.

Finally, we have Ketel Jean-Philippe and Jacques Beauvil, members of Parliament visiting from Haiti, as well today. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. It’s a pleasure to have you with us.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature one of Canada’s youngest and leading mental health advocates, Noah Irvine, and his grandfather Ross Irvine. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m pleased to say the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network was here for breakfast this morning. The Minister of Health spoke at that breakfast.

We also had Julianna Leone, cancer patient advocate and survivor; her dad, Palmerino Leone, cancer patient and survivor; Doug Nugent, cancer patient advocate and survivor; Jennifer Hazel, cancer patient advocate and survivor; John Adams, Canadian PKU and Allied Disorders; Louise Binder, Save Your Skin Foundation; Cailey Crawford, Ovarian Cancer Canada; Kelly Gorman, Canadian Cancer Society; and Jackie Manthorne, CEO and president, Canadian Cancer Survivor Network.

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Hello, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome the delegation here today from the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, specifically Mr. Ron Bohm, the president; Allen Wynperle, the president-elect; Laura Hillyer, the vice-president; and John Karapita, director of public affairs.

I would also like to inform members that they’re hosting a reception today, starting at 5 p.m. in the legislative dining room.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I have a number of guests here today. First of all, it’s a privilege to welcome Catherine Shearer, who is with McKenzie Lake Lawyers, from Guelph, an important member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to welcome a long-time friend of mine, Ted Leckie, who’s here visiting Queen’s Park today. I’d also like to acknowledge Noah Irvine and his grandfather Ross Irvine, who are both from Guelph as well. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, like yourself, I would like to introduce Bert Johnson to the Legislature today. Bert was the MPP for Perth–Middlesex from 1995 to 2003. Bert was the member who introduced the private member’s bill creating Ontario Agriculture Week, a bill that I was proud to support then and even prouder to celebrate today.

As we celebrate this week, I’d like to thank him for his work and success on this bill and, moreover, welcome him to Queen’s Park once again. Thank you. It’s good to have you here, Bert.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome, from the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, representatives from my area, Windsor and Essex county: Greg Monforton, who is the past president of the OTLA; and Jennifer Bezaire, who is a board member of the OTLA. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Jane McKenna: It’s a privilege to welcome Laura Hillyer and Claire Wilkinson from Martin and Hillyer Associates in the beautiful riding of Burlington, and members of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. On behalf of members of the Legislature, we welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to introduce two great people from my riding of London North Centre.

It’s my privilege to welcome Maciek Piekosz from Siskinds LLP, a board member with the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. In addition to his busy law practice, Maciek also gives back to our community with his Helmets on Kids campaign and organizes an annual soccer tournament to raise money for charitable causes in the London area. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, welcome to Queen’s Park.

The next person I’d like to welcome is Jane Kovarikova, a constituent in my riding. Jane grew up in the foster system from the age of six and was a crown ward at 12. She left the system at 16 with only $600 a month from the government. Today, Jane is a PhD candidate in political science and the founder of Child Welfare Political Action Committee Canada, an advocacy group dedicated to changing the Ontario child welfare system’s outcomes. Welcome to the people’s House, Jane.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: It’s a privilege to welcome members of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association to Queen’s Park today. They have a delegation here: Ron Bohm, president; Allen Wynperle, president-elect; Laura Hillyer, vice-president; Linda Langston, CEO; and John Karapita, director of public affairs.

The association is having a reception this evening from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the legislative dining room. All MPPs and staff are welcome to attend.

On behalf of all the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I’d like to welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It is my pleasure to welcome Evan Tanovich. Evan was a former page—my first page—five years ago, when I arrived here. He’s now a student at the University of Toronto. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Evan.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m happy to introduce two constituents from my riding of Oakville today: Ms. Nadia George, who is an advocate for child welfare in the province of Ontario; and Mr. Sandev Purewal, who is a board member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, we welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Before I introduce so many guests today, today is Korea’s National Foundation Day. The Consulate General of the Republic of Korea will provide a free lunch of Korean food and a performance. Everybody is welcome.

The consul general was already introduced—and Hyeon Mi Lee, consul, Republic of Korea.

This Christian minister is a special guest: Rev. Hyeon Soo Lim. He was detained in North Korea for 31 months and finally rescued by our government.

—Mrs. Geum Young Lim, Rev. Lim’s wife;

—Wan Soo Kim, publisher of Korea Daily Toronto;

—Pastor Hyung-Gu Tak, senior pastor at Haiti Korean church;

—Worllim Kim, Haiti;

—Ms. Yang Sun Kim, assistant to Rev. Lim;

—Woo Youp Song;

—Kwoi Youn Son;

—Sun Young Song; and

—Jeong Sung Lee.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s a great pleasure to welcome a wonderful constituent from my riding, Carina Chan, who is here with the Child Welfare Political Action Committee. I know they’ll be hosting members later today, and I want to welcome them all here today.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: On behalf of the Honourable Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women’s issues, I have the honour to introduce and welcome the advocates, directors, managers and front-line staff representing:

—the Ontario Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth;

—the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies;

—the Ontario Association of Child and Youth Care;

—the Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth;

—the Ontario Association for Family Mediation;

—the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses;

—Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada;

—Children’s Aid Society of Toronto;

—Children in Limbo Task Force;

—Children’s Mental Health Ontario;

—Foster Parents Society of Ontario;

—Justice for Children and Youth;

—Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions;

—Adopt4Life;

—WomanACT;

—YSM Cornerstone;

—Earnscliffe Strategy Group;

—Tanner Steffler Foundation;

—Nottawasaga resort;

—Western University;

—University of Toronto;

—Wilfrid Laurier University; and

—youth raised in government care, even as far as Saskatchewan and New York City; and

—the many others who are here today.

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the Child Welfare Political Action Committee, who are here today lobbying for evidence-based policies in child welfare. The list of guests is long:

—Jane Kovarikova, as we’ve already heard;

—Meaghan Martin;

—Dr. David Bernstein;

—Dr. Rebekah Jacques;

—Christine Bradley;

—Paul Berendson;

—Amy Cote;

—Nadia George;

—Amelia Merhar;

—Carina Chan;

—Brittany Seaward;

—Carleen Joseph;

—Ingrid Palmer;

—Kristy Denette;

—Leanne Speight;

—Shannon Valriote;

—Stephanie Vizi; and

—Tom Randall.

I’d also like to welcome the 100 stakeholders who will be joining the political action committee today in room 228-230. I invite members of the House to join them.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I would also like to introduce a member from the Child Welfare Political Action Committee from my riding of Simcoe North, Mr. Paul Berendson. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: It’s a privilege to welcome Simona Jellinek from Jellinek Law Office Professional Corp. and a board member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. On behalf of all the members of the Legislature, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Doug Downey: I have a special guest with me here today. Hale Mahon, who comes from my riding, is one of the most effective campaigners I’ve ever worked with. He’s here with his grandparents Frank and Lois to celebrate his birthday.

Mr. Parm Gill: I’d like to recognize one of the pages from my great riding of Milton, Molly Jin. She’s also the acting captain today. She is joined by her family: her dad, Baosheng Jin; Xueli Sun, her mom; and grandmother Guifen Liu. Welcome.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome Maciek Piekosz, a constituent from London West who works with Siskinds. He is here today with the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Aris Babikian: I would like to recognize a bright young man, a page and acting captain also, from Scarborough–Agincourt, Eric Li. His mother, Jiao Jiang, was here earlier, but she had to leave.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I’ve noticed that we have a good friend of the Legislature in the west public gallery today. Paul Kossta from OSSTF has joined us for today’s proceedings.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: In the members’ gallery today, I’d like to introduce Sherry Holmes. Sherry is a tradesperson, a TV personality and a champion of involving women in the construction field. On October 11, we will celebrate the International Day of the Girl. It was a pleasure to meet with Ms. Holmes this morning, along with the minister of women’s issues, about ways this government can assist in ensuring that girls feel empowered to go into trades and other male-dominated fields.

Joining her this morning is Gail Vent from Skills Canada, Greet Hussain from Holmes Group, Sue Wastell from Wastell Homes, and Seth Atkins from Holmes Group. Welcome. Thank you for joining us this morning and having a meeting.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to welcome Muhammad Alam from Alam Law Office in the great riding of Mississauga–Malton.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And if anyone wasn’t introduced, we welcome you, as well.

I ignored the clock; I informed the House to allow all of the guests to be introduced. But I would ask all members that if they’re introducing a guest to keep it brief and to make no political statements while they’re making introductions.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question is for the Premier. Last Friday, a woman named Christine visited Queen’s Park to talk about the minimum wage. She works four different jobs, all of them paying the minimum wage. Even working four jobs, she finds it hard to make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would make a big difference in her life.

Does the Premier think she deserves a raise?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: Everywhere I go, no matter if it’s small businesses, medium businesses or large businesses, they tell me that Bill 148 is a failed Liberal policy that is driving jobs and investment out of Ontario. Our Minister of Economic Development is reviewing Bill 148, holding round tables with stakeholders and investors to determine the best way to move forward.

I’ll tell you, Bill 148 is the worst bill for the front-line hard-working people this province has ever seen. It is worse than the carbon tax. As a matter of fact, it’s equal to the carbon tax when it comes to job-killing.

TD Economics predicts that Bill 148 will result in 80,000 to 90,000 jobs lost on top of the thousands and thousands of jobs that have already been lost.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s my understanding that the Premier is visiting Alberta on Friday. He might want to note that Alberta’s NDP government just raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour and, more importantly or as importantly, they’re gaining jobs. They gained 16,000 jobs in August where this government lost 81,000 jobs. They’re leading the country in GDP growth. He should learn those facts when he goes there.

One of the realities is that Christine is one of thousands of people who are struggling to get by on two or more minimum wage jobs. She’s scheduled to get a raise in January. If the Premier thinks that’s too soon for Christine to get a raise, how long does he think she should have to wait to get one?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: We’re actually protecting the minimum wage. We aren’t touching the minimum wage. We’re going to make sure we attract investment.

I can’t wait to go out west and talk about the worst tax ever, about the carbon tax with Premier Moe in Saskatchewan. And then I look forward to visiting our friend Jason Kenney out in Alberta. Because Alberta has dropped so low, I predict Jason Kenney will sweep Alberta, bring proper reform in and create more great-paying jobs like we are here in Ontario.

This is about job creation. We said we’re there for the people. We’re going to continue representing the people by making sure we create an environment for great-paying jobs.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The last time the Conservatives were in office, they protected the minimum wage and froze it for eight years running. For eight years running, they froze the minimum wage and hard-working people suffered greatly under that regime.

But for Christine and thousands of other people struggling in tough jobs, the current minimum wage leaves them falling behind. As she put it, “You can’t live in Toronto on that. You can’t live anywhere in Ontario on that. You just can’t. I’d like to say that’s after taxes”—this is still the quote—“but the truth is, I don’t earn enough to pay taxes.” Eureka moment: A young woman on four jobs earning minimum wage does not earn enough to pay taxes.

She’s looking forward to that raise, Speaker. Why does the Premier think that she doesn’t deserve one?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the Opposition would like to sit down at the round table with my minister and listen to the job creators, listen to the small businesses, listen to the medium and large businesses that—Bill 148 is a job killer.

We’re going to protect the minimum wage. We’re going to protect the front-line workers by lowering their hydro rates, by lowering their gas by 10 cents a litre, making sure that we thrive in Ontario.

We have seen 300,000 jobs leave Ontario. The biggest concern—Ohio is terrified, Michigan is terrified and so is New York state, because we’re going to be more competitive than all of the states that we’ve lost the 300,000 jobs to.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The law in Ontario allows working people to take up to two paid sick days when they are ill. Does the Premier think Christine and working women and men like her should be able to take a paid sick day when they’re ill, or is that a benefit that he plans to take away?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We’re going to send a clear message to the world that Ontario is open for business. We’re going to make sure we have attractive incentives for businesses to come to Ontario, because we will be competitive. We’ll create thousands and tens of thousands of jobs.

I’ll never forget when I went to Renfrew—Minister of Transportation John Yakabuski. I saw 20 people with disabilities come up to me and say, “Doug, I lost my job because of Bill 148.” These are young people and young adults with autism. Thousands across the province lost their jobs because of Bill 148. Students lost their jobs because of Bill 148.

We’re going to create jobs. We’re going to make sure we hire students, hire people with special needs. We’re going to support the front-line workers of this province. We’ll make sure they thrive in this province.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s really taking the province backwards when a Premier believes that “open for business” means being punitive to workers. I think you can have both. I think you can have a province that is open for investment and business but at the same time treats its workers with dignity and respect.

The law in Ontario allows working people to take leave to care for family members in an emergency without losing their jobs. Does the Premier think Christine should be able to care for a sick family member in an emergency and still keep her job, or is that a protection that he plans on taking away?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are 385,000 regulations here in Ontario. Those are job killers.

We have a round table put together, and I encourage the Leader of the Opposition—rather than penalize companies, small companies, medium and large companies, why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition sit around the table? The red tape—we’re going to cut the red tape. We’re going to cut the regulations. We’re going to make sure we make Ontario open for business.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I’ve been talking about sick days, I’ve been talking about emergency leave, and I certainly haven’t heard the Premier once stand up for everyday working people and say they deserve a fair shake in the province of Ontario.

Too many people in this province are falling behind. They fell behind when the Conservatives were in office and froze the minimum wage for eight years. They fell behind for 15 years under the Liberal government.

Raising the wage to $15 an hour in our province, allowing people to take a sick day and care for loved ones are ways to ensure that hard-working people can pay the bills, can pay the rent and see their families. These are things that we would expect any worker to be able to enjoy.

This is not Victorian England, Speaker; this is the province of Ontario in 2018. Why is the Premier opposed to things like a $15 minimum wage, paid time off when you’re sick and making sure people can take an emergency day off when their family needs them?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the Rae days, the NDP days, when hundreds of thousands of people, 700,000 people, lost their jobs. They increased our debt by $60 billion. That was the beginning of the end of the NDP. We saw five years of destruction under the NDP.

We’re turning the corner. We’re going to be the most prosperous province in the country. We will thrive with opportunity and prosperity, the likes of which this province has never seen.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Almost a year ago today, the health minister for the Liberal government proudly announced that they would be investing $100 million to help hospitals deal with crowded hallways during flu season. A year later, patients are still stacked in hallways, but it’s a Conservative government making the same empty announcement.

Patients languishing in hospital hallways expect real action. Why is the government offering Liberal band-aid funding repackaged as a Conservative plan, instead of doing something tangible to end hallway medicine for good?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: As the leader of the official opposition knows, one of our primary campaign commitments was to end hallway health care. We are working on that each and every day. We also have an advisory council that is advising the Premier and me on steps that we can take, because it’s a multi-faceted problem. It involves moving patients who are alternate level of care and who don’t need to be in hospital to appropriate places, long-term-care homes. That was another one of our major commitments, which we are also working on.

It’s also about developing a comprehensive mental health and addictions system so that people don’t need to be in crisis and have to go to emergency departments, that they can receive care in a proactive way.

We are working on both of those issues right now. We are investing more money into it, and we have a further announcement after today. We will have an announcement that we will be making with respect to that specific issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I may be incorrect, Speaker, but I think what the minister was acknowledging is that the $90 million is not for hallway medicine. Patients who need care are left sometimes for days in hospital hallways. I saw this myself when I visited Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, where they’ve been operating at surge capacity for years now. Instead of help, the Conservatives offered cuts to mental health funding and to the opioid crisis, all of which force people—guess where, Speaker?—back into emergency rooms.

Does the Premier really believe that warming up the same tired Liberal plan is going to make a difference for patients stuck in hallways in hospitals?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Speaker, to the leader of the official opposition: You are not correct with what you just stated. We are investing more money. We are investing money into our mental health and addictions system, which is an increase—$3.8 billion over 10 years is a major increase. It’s going to be a comprehensive and coordinated system to get people the help that they need.

But we also do recognize that with flu season upcoming, a lot of the hospitals that are already at 100% capacity are going to face additional stresses and strains. We have dealt with that, we have a plan with that, and we will be announcing that later today. So I hope you will be listening to that announcement.

International trade

Mrs. Amy Fee: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The constituents in my riding followed the free trade negotiations between Canada, the United States and Mexico closely.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs across Ontario depend on free and fair trade with our largest trading partner. Nearly nine million American jobs depend on Canada-US trade and investments, and approximately 400,000 people and $2 billion in trade travel across our border every day.

Continued uncertainty for our dairy farmers and steel producers is of great concern to our Premier and to myself and the people in my riding. Can the minister please inform the Legislature how our government for the people is protecting job creators like Toyota in Kitchener South–Hespeler?

Hon. Jim Wilson: I thank my honourable colleague for the very good question. Like the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler, I was fortunate enough to tour with her this summer the Toyota plant in her riding and met with the workers and the management. We were very much impressed with the work that they do and the cars they produce. They’ve won many international awards. In fact, they’re one of the companies in the world that has won so many awards in the automotive sector. The workers asked us to look after their jobs and protect their jobs, and that’s exactly what our government for the people has been doing. We do that every single day.

More recently, we’re disappointed the federal government hasn’t been able to get the tariffs taken off of steel and aluminum. That’s starting to affect companies like Toyota. So there’s more work to be done. Premier Ford will be there. I’ll be there. I know the honourable member will be there. We will protect those jobs and stand up for Ontario workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amy Fee: Thank you to the minister for his response. I appreciate the work our government is doing to protect the auto industry and, by extension, the Toyota plant in my riding. I was certainly honoured to tour that facility this summer with Minister Wilson, parliamentary assistant Skelly and MPP for Cambridge Karahalios.

Parliamentary assistant Skelly has also been speaking to businesses, large and small, and to workers across the province, including in my riding, on trade relations between Canada, the US and Mexico. After 13 months of uncertainty surrounding free trade with the United States and Mexico, it is positive to see a deal and to know that our government stood up for the people every step of the way.

Can the minister please inform the Legislature what work is left to be done?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you, colleague. Indeed, we have mixed reviews on the new NAFTA. On the one hand, as the honourable member said, it’s good news that they settled the threat of future tariffs on auto and auto parts. There’s a special

section to protect us against 232, should the US ever decide to do that; they can’t do it under NAFTA. However, the 1962 law on national security allows them to continue, in spite of NAFTA, to put punitive tariffs on steel and aluminum—they’re there today—and on any other commodities or services that they may want in the future, and the heck with NAFTA.

So the federal government left a NAFTA that you can drive a truck right through—hopefully a Toyota truck—because of these 232 tariffs. So what work is left to do? They have to get back to the table before they sign this deal at the end of November and look after those punitive tariffs.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

For years now, hospitals throughout our province have been operating at over capacity. That means that every night there are thousands of Ontario patients who are crammed into bathrooms, shower rooms, TV rooms and storage closets, anywhere you can fit a bed or a stretcher. In Sudbury, Health Sciences North is presently at over capacity, and they are expecting a surge with the flu season just around the corner.

The Ontario Hospital Association tells us that they need a minimum of $300 million just to maintain what we have, not to fix it. Does the minister believe that $90 million, shared between 150 hospitals, will fix hallway medicine in Sudbury and prepare them to care for us when the flu season surge starts?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. The fact is, we are aware that many hospitals across Ontario are operating at over 100% capacity, and this puts good patient care in jeopardy with the flu season approaching.

Any one patient who is being treated in a hallway is one patient too many as far as I’m concerned. They deserve better. Many are seniors. They deserve to be treated in a proper hospital room, and for the health care professionals who are tending them, that is not the kind of care that they want to provide either.

We have anticipated the flu season. We are providing relief across Ontario. We are injecting $90 million into it, but there is more than that. We will be making an announcement about that shortly after noon today. Should you have any questions following that, I would be very pleased to answer them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Thunder Bay regional hospital, like so many other hospitals, has been operating at over capacity. Last January, they had 447 patients and 375 beds. I’m strong in math, Speaker: That’s 72 patients who were cared for in corridors, bathrooms and TV lounges, anywhere but a hospital room. The situation in Thunder Bay is still very dire as they continue to try to provide quality care while providing hallway medicine. Let me be clear: You cannot provide quality care in a hallway. It is not possible.

Does the minister think that investing in 1,000 beds among 150 hospitals will fix the hallway medicine crisis in Thunder Bay and will prepare them for the surge with the flu around the corner?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, I would say to the member that this is a situation that has been growing over a number of years. This didn’t just happen after June 7; it’s been growing for 15 years. We need to deal with that. There’s not going to be one simple solution that’s going to come forward that we’re going to be able to instantly end hallway medicine.

I agree with you: No one deserves to be treated in a hallway or a storage room. We are taking steps to deal with it. It is a multi-faceted problem. It does involve people who are ending up in emergency departments but can’t get to a room because of the alternate-level-of-care patients who don’t need to be in hospital but can’t go home. They can’t get enough services and there’s no long-term-care home for them to go to. We have to build in steps along the way to make sure that patients get the care that they need.

We are working on it. Are the steps we’re going to take today going to end hallway health care? No, unfortunately not. We are working on a long-term health capacity plan that we will be working on and bringing forward over the next few months—

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

Job creation

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Our government for the people is committed to creating and protecting Ontario jobs by sending the message that Ontario is open for business. After 15 years of failed Liberal policies and a radical NDP that voted for the former government 97% of the time, Ontarians, on June 7, voted for relief. Well, relief is here. Could the minister please inform the Legislature of the details surrounding Shopify’s recent investment announcement in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to the honourable member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the question. I was pleased and our government was pleased at Shopify’s recent announcement. I was pleased to tour Shopify this summer when I was in Ottawa, and last week Shopify announced its plan to invest up to half a billion dollars in a new Toronto office. This office will be home to thousands of new employees.

Our government for the people is thrilled this expansion is taking place right here in Ontario. You know Shopify had the world to look at, and they chose Ontario, and they made that decision after we came to office on June 7 and a series of meetings that we had. So we are very, very pleased that Shopify has gotten the message that Ontario is open for business.

In the supplementary, I’ll mention some other companies that have gotten the message that Ontario is open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the minister for his response and for all the great work you’re doing to get our economy in Ontario moving once again.

Every day over the last many years, I have heard in the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and all across this province that life under the previous Liberal government had gotten far too expensive. That is why our government for the people is cleaning up the hydro mess, consulting with businesses on red tape and lowering taxes. Can the minister inform the Legislature of recent investments in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Wilson: I thank the honourable member. I should note that Shopify is making this half-a-billion-dollar investment in Ontario without a government handout. Those days are over. They’re doing it because they have our assurances and the word of the Premier of Ontario and all of our caucus on the PC side that we are going to cut red tape. We are going to make the regulatory environment easy for businesses to create jobs. Ontario is open for business and all that entails, including Bill 148, I say to the people on the other side.

As I’ve already mentioned in this Legislature, Amazon and Instacart have both recently announced major investments across Ontario. CBS Television Studios, just this week, announced it will open a 260,000-square-foot production hub in Mississauga, and APAG Electronik, an automotive electronics and lighting company, is setting up its headquarters in Windsor, creating 148 jobs.

Together, these announcements mean thousands of new jobs, good-paying jobs, across Ontario. Mr. Speaker, jobs are our number one priority, and we’re not going to give up until everybody who works in this province has a job.

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Mr. Jeff Burch: To the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks: Last week, the Auditor General released a special report on the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. The report shows that the NPCA is having difficulty fulfilling its mandate. It is plagued by financial mismanagement, a high employee grievance rate, and conflict-of-interest issues. We’ve seen the NPCA fire key staff, censure board members, lobby the government to develop on provincially significant wetlands, and even sue a private citizen. The Auditor General herself recommended that the province could do more to oversee the NPCA.

Will the minister hold the NPCA accountable and appoint a supervisor to oversee the implementation of the Auditor General’s recommendations?

Hon. Rod Phillips: I thank the member for his question. As not everybody may know, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts asked the Auditor General to look into the NPCA as a result of some concerns that were raised. That report was delivered last week by the auditor. I do want to make sure that we thank the auditor for her recommendations. They were a very balanced set of recommendations. We have reviewed them and are going to be working with municipalities to see where we can support conservation authorities better in terms of the governance of those authorities and how we work with them to make sure they have the resources involved.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, that we are assured, both by the auditor’s reporting and her review as well as the other work we’ve done, that the concerns that were raised in Niagara are not concerns we have for all conservation authorities. But be assured we take the report very seriously. We have reviewed the recommendations and will be working with municipalities, including in the area, to support the conservation authorities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thanks for the response, Minister. Former MPP Cindy Forster has asked the previous government to intervene in the issue of the NPCA since 2014. Conservation authorities are created to advocate for conservation in order to maintain the balance between the environment and development.

Speaker, the NPCA continuously advocates for the latter. One of the most troubling findings in the audit is that the NPCA is not responding to local complaints when the conservation act is violated. It’s clear we need a supervisor, a clean sweep of the board, and changes to the conservation act to ensure that at least 50% of the board are community members with a working knowledge of conservation.

To the minister: Is he prepared to make these changes and work with local area MPPs to implement the Auditor General’s recommendations?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: To be clear, the Auditor General’s recommendation was that there needs to be work done. I was pleased to see that the conservation authority in question did embrace the recommendations and has agreed to and is already implementing a number of them.

There are interesting issues raised by the Auditor General with regard to governance; in particular, the role of board members vis-à-vis their municipality and the conservation authority and how they need to approach that in the future. We are looking closely at those items and will ensure that we work with municipalities to make sure that the 36 conservation authorities across the province are well-managed and governed.

Employment standards

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’ll direct my question to the Minister of Economic Development. Minister, I think your government is making a false choice between supporting small businesses and minimum wage workers. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour makes life more affordable for families and provides them with more money to spend in the local economy supporting local businesses, and lowering payroll taxes on small businesses provides them with immediate cash-flow relief to create more jobs and to pay higher wages.

I ask the minister if the will government support local job creation by committing to lowering payroll taxes on small businesses by doubling the employer health tax exemption, and at the same time raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour on January 1.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to the leader of the Green Party for the question.

We just had the most significant lowering of payroll taxes in my 28 years here with a $1.45-billion injection into businesses, particularly small businesses, with the decrease in the premiums of the WSIB. That’s the largest investment I’ve seen in job creation in years. The books are balanced now at WSIB so premiums can come down, the Minister of Labour tells us, an average of 30%, some sectors much higher than that. That’s fantastic news.

As part of our initiative of Ontario’s open for business, I know that our hard-working finance minister, Mr. Fedeli, is looking at every tax we have and every burden we bring in, as I’m doing, as my parliamentary assistant Mike Parsa is doing, to make life easier for small and medium-sized businesses.

The greatest dignity we can give a human being is the opportunity for a job. That’s what we believe; I believe your party believes that. Stand with us to create jobs and not lose jobs like we saw under the previous Liberal government.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Yakabuski: Stand with us, Mike. We know you want to be here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Transportation will come to order. I can hear you.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Minister, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for years has been calling for lowering payroll taxes on small businesses by increasing the exemption level for the employer health tax. At the same time, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will put an additional $2,000 in the pockets of minimum-wage families. Both of these policies provide more money for small businesses to create jobs and more money for local workers to spend with small businesses in local economies.

I ask again, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Will this government support minimum-wage workers by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, while supporting small businesses at the same time by lowering their payroll taxes?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you for the question. Everything that we have done is for the people. We are bringing relief for families; we are returning prosperity to the people of Ontario.

As Minister Wilson said, we’re open for business: some $1.5 billion back into businesses to reinvest through the WSIB; scrapping the cap-and-trade, putting $285 back into families; lowering the gas by 4.3 cents on its way to 10 cents a litre; lowering corporate tax rates from 11.5% to 10.5% so those businesses can hire again; lowering the small business tax rate by 8.75%; a 20% tax cut for middle-income families; hydro rates going down 12%; getting out of costly wind and solar projects, saving $790 million over 16 years. That is all about bringing real—real—relief to families.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. The member for Mississauga Centre.

Curriculum

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: My question is for the Minister of Education.

This week we learned that for the third time in history, a woman was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. That woman is Canadian-born Dr. Donna Strickland. From Guelph, Ontario, Dr. Strickland is an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo. Her work has mostly been focused in the laser physics field. Alongside her colleague, Dr. Mourou from France, she developed technology known as chirped pulse amplification. This work has led to a number of inventions that we are all familiar with such as laser eye surgery. Dr. Strickland is a testament to the potential of her students, and girls, right here in Ontario.

Can the Minister of Education tell us what our government is doing to ensure that Ontario students will continue to be global leaders in subjects like math, science and technology?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member from Mississauga Centre. She, herself, is a wonderful role model for girls and women throughout Ontario.

I’m proud to stand up on behalf of the Premier, the PC government and as Minister of Education to recognize and congratulate Dr. Strickland for her incredible achievement. As we heard earlier today, October 11 is the national day of girls, and it’s important that we recognize our role models.

Her success is also a tribute to the calibre of academics we need right here in Ontario. Since day one, it’s the PC government that has been committed to providing that quality of education. In today’s world, our needs are constantly evolving. It’s important that we provide world-class education fields like STEM: science, technology, engineering and math.

We’ve already started by scrapping discovery math, a failed method of teaching that only left our students behind. In Ontario, we have some of the best teachers in the world, but it’s up to the government to set the baseline for what students should be learning, and we’re doing—

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

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Thank you for that response and thank you for all the hard work that you are doing to ensure that our students succeed today and tomorrow.

I am happy to hear about how important teachers are to this province. Many of my good friends chose teaching as their vocation, and I am so proud of the work that they do in inspiring students to reach their full potential. I am equally as pleased to see that as part of the education consultations, parents can tell the government about a teacher who has gone above and beyond to support their child’s learning.

However, Mr. Speaker, parents in my riding have also expressed their interest in doing more to ensure that their child is prepared for the future, especially when it comes to skills and subjects like math, science and technology. I think we can all agree that parents, guardians and student support systems are the most important partners that we have in education.

Can the minister explain how the government will continue to involve parents in their child’s education?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: There’s no doubt that in order to prepare our students for the future, we need to support students starting right here within our homes across Ontario. Our approach is a simple one. It’s all about getting back to the basics.

We’ve provided parents with a facts sheet so that they can be engaged as well, outlining learning expectations when it comes, specifically, to mathematics. This facts sheet suggests how parents can involve their children in everyday opportunities to learn the fundamentals about math. Whether it be at school or at home, there’s always an opportunity to engage children in mathematic fundamentals.

Our government believes that it’s attitude and plans for the education of our children that will prepare our students for success like Dr. Strickland’s. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind every member in this House that our education consultations are now open. We’re welcoming written submissions, and we’re encouraging all parents, teachers—

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

Next question.

International trade

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Yesterday, we heard a lot of talk from that side of the House on what the federal government needs to do to support our dairy farmers in the wake of the renegotiated NAFTA agreement, but what we didn’t hear was what this government is prepared to do and going to do to help farm families who have been hurt by this deal.

This government talks a big game about supporting our farmers. Here is your chance to actually prove it. Will the minister step up to the plate and support our farm families if federal support is not forthcoming?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, it’s a grave concern with us about the impact that this trade agreement will have on our farming communities. The farmers are the bedrock of our communities. When one sector of the economy in rural Ontario is hurting, the whole community is hurting.

As we started this process, we had a federal government that said that they were going to stand with them, protecting our supply-managed sector in our society. We said that we would stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They’ve let us down here.

They’ve also now said that they are going to make us whole by presenting a funding package that will in fact cover the cost of the impact this trade agreement will have on our rural communities, and we will hold their feet to the fire. The Trudeau government has a responsibility to live up to the cost of their actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: With all due respect, Speaker, the members of the opposition don’t have the same blind faith in Justin Trudeau to come to the rescue as the Minister of Agriculture does.

The question is back to the Minister of Economic Development: If the government is not going to do anything to help support our farm families, maybe they’ll do something for our steel and aluminum industries. The steel and aluminum tariffs have been in place since June 1. Other provinces have stepped up and offered support for their producers, but Ontario so far has done absolutely nothing. Will the minister commit today to developing a support package for Ontario’s steel and aluminum producers now that we know that those tariffs will continue to be in place?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I refer it to the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You can refer it back.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you. I just say to the honourable member across the way: O ye of little faith.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Defending Justin Trudeau? Oh, my God.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Well, the Prime Minister has put forward $2 billion to offset the damage that’s been done with US tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The premise of the question, that Ontario has to do anything—I, this government, moments after we got the text of the agreement on Sunday night and all of Monday, were the only ones in Canada saying, “Hey, he’s left us out to dry on dairy?” It took a couple of days before other people stood up. And we pointed out the truck that you can drive through NAFTA, which are these punitive tariffs, beginning with steel and aluminum and God knows what else they feel like doing in the United States to hurt our economy, to drive jobs to their economy.

We’re the ones standing up for jobs in Ontario and, in fact, for jobs in Canada.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There you go propping up the federal Liberals again.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Timmins, come to order.

Start the clock. Next question.

Immigration and refugee policy

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. I, like many of my colleagues in this House, have had requests for assistance from individuals who have come to Canada through proper immigration channels to work in fields where we have a shortage of skilled trades. We welcome people who want to work hard and contribute positively to our economy.

As a prime example of how the federal immigration system is ineffective, an individual case caught my attention. This individual went through the legitimate application process and obtained a work visa. Unfortunately, through a minor clerical error, this individual and his family will be deported this Friday. As a result, we were told that immigration Ontario cannot assist with his claim, but that it must be referred to the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, what is Ontario doing to help legitimate immigrant claimant issues?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member’s question from our side of the House. As I previously mentioned on this matter, Ontarians are quickly losing faith in the federal government’s ability to handle issues at the border, our immigration process and the refugee process.

I’ll remind this House that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over border security and refugee claimants. That’s why we’re calling, as a part of this government, for the federal government to pay $200 million and growing as a result of the pressures on our social assistance costs, temporary shelters in our two largest cities, $20 million and growing in education costs, as well as additional costs with respect to legal aid, child welfare and the Red Cross.

I will simply continue to call on the federal Liberals to fix their flawed system so that legitimate claimants will have a shot at actually getting in.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the minister. I’d like to describe this situation a little further.

Minister, this individual came to Canada with his family on a work visa and, as a result, the individual and his family wished to stay. He withdrew his original application and reapplied to the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program, but realized that he had applied to the incorrect job.

We have a federal government who ignore their responsibility for those crossing at illegal points of entry, but throw the book at you for checking off the wrong box on an application form.

Will the minister stand up for skilled newcomers looking to make Ontario home and urge the federal government to take responsibility for their policies that have led to illegal border crossers?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I very much appreciate that question. Almost immediately after becoming the minister responsible for immigration, I did two things. One is to hold the federal Liberals to account on the escalating costs that we have seen as a province, which is $200 million and growing. The second thing is, we have requested and we are going to hopefully receive more additional economic immigrants so we can work with the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to ensure that there are more skilled workers coming into Canada as a result of that program.

But let me be perfectly clear: We have a broken border. Canadians, particularly Ontarians, are losing confidence in the federal government’s ability to manage the illegal border-crosser issue in the province of Quebec. That is having a very big impact on us in our province. I just want to be very clear. There are people right now who are on welfare rolls in Ontario who could be there for up to two years and then deported. We are calling on the federal government to fix the claims process with refugees.

I’m not the only one because I’m going to read what John McKay, a federal Liberal MP, says: “The only fair thing for everybody is to process them quickly and I think that’s where the government’s weakness is.”

Opioid abuse

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Health. On Friday, the minister received an open letter, signed by 18 health care leaders across Ontario, urging her to take immediate action and open more overdose prevention sites. One of the signatories is the Windsor Essex Community Health Centre. The letter states: “Since supervised consumption services and overdose prevention sites began opening in mid-2017, they’ve already saved 917 lives by reversing overdoses....” That’s 917 families who didn’t receive the worst news possible. That’s 917 people who still have a chance to build a better life.

Will the minister listen to these experts? Will she open more life-saving sites?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member, very much, for the question, because every loss of life is tragic, and we have lost too many lives in Ontario. So I do take this very seriously, as does everyone, I’m sure, in this House.

That is what I have been listening to for the last several months. I have been listening to the people who are the experts, the people who run the supervised consumption sites and overdose prevention sites, people with lived experience, neighbours, community centres and so on. I have been speaking to all of the people who want to have something to say on this issue.

I am in the process—you are no doubt aware—that we have applied to Health Canada in order to have the exemption extended for another six months while I finalize my recommendations to the Premier, which will be finalized very shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the minister: Windsor continues to struggle with rising poverty. One in four children now grow up in low-income households.

Our community has also been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, so much so that local harm reduction workers and advocates are planning to open an unsanctioned overdose prevention site, because they just can’t wait any longer for this Conservative government to step up to the plate while members of our community die needlessly. But opening this site means that they are risking criminal prosecution.

Is this government really comfortable with harm reduction workers and advocates being treated like criminals just because they’re trying to save lives?

Hon. Christine Elliott: There is no doubt that this is a very serious issue, and one that we have been dealing with for several months. I know that everyone wants an answer right away, but the Premier has indicated that he wants to make a proper evidence-based decision, and I don’t think anyone in this House would disagree with that. That is what I’ve been studying. That is what I’m going to be recommending to the Premier.

Saving lives is of course very important, but the other part of it is also very important: You want to be able to help people get into treatment and rehabilitation so they can help improve their lives. You have to do both; both are very important.

But that is part of the recommendations I am going to be making to the Premier, to discuss these situations. He will be making a final determination. We are working with his office right now, and there will be a decision and an announcement to be made in very short order.

International trade

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As we celebrate Ontario’s 20th Agriculture Week, I’m reminded of farmers in my riding of Carleton, farmers like Graham Green and Janet Acres Smiley, and all they do to put food on Ontario’s tables.

However, it’s also been a tough week. The USMCA will result in significant market access being given to the US at the expense of Ontario’s farmers. It’s disappointing that our federal counterparts have created this uncertainty for our agriculture industry. Last week, our Premier and our Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade went to Washington, sending a strong message that Ontario’s farmers remain top of mind.

Mr. Speaker, through you: What will the minister do to ensure the federal government will keep the concerns of Ontario’s farmers top of mind?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Our farmers are the bedrock of our communities, and we are reminded of their contributions during Ontario’s 20th Agriculture Week.

Indeed, it’s been a rough start for the week for our supply-managed sector following the USMCA. However, the Premier and I have taken immediate action to do everything in our power to help our farmers. We have met with our supply-managed stakeholders to assure them that we are calling on the federal government to compensate our farmers for their losses. Federal Minister Freeland has mentioned that our farmers will be compensated fully, fairly and for the concessions that they’ve made, and we will hold them to account for that.

Protecting our farmers ensures that our food is protected, safe and of the best quality. Our government is committed to working with our farmers as we continue to review the USMCA.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m proud to be part of a government that stands up for its farmers and appreciates their contributions to our communities. I look forward to working with our government to ensure we can assist Ontario’s farmers to the best of our abilities and to urge the Trudeau Liberals to keep Ontario’s farmers top of mind.

Back to the minister: Can the minister please tell us what else he is going to do to create an environment that is supportive and open for business for our farmers?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the supplementary question. I also wanted to thank all the caucus members who took time to visit and take pictures of our tractors on the south driveway yesterday in celebrating Ontario Agriculture Week.

As mentioned before, our government is committed to standing up for our farmers. As we continue to review the USMCA, we will work with our farmers and urge the federal government to compensate them accordingly.

Our natural gas expansion plan, if passed, will put more money into the pockets of farming families and businesses so they can continue to provide more of the best quality food. Our plan to scrap the cap-and-trade carbon tax will also do the same, if passed, to put more money back into the pockets of taxpayers. We’re cutting red tape and regulations, as seen first through our changes to our wildlife damage compensation program, with more announcements to follow.

On June 8, our government was elected to make Ontario open for business again. We have taken immediate action to make life more affordable and efficient for our farming—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Missing persons

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Four years ago, Maureen Trask, a parent, came to me looking for help to find her missing son, Daniel. After countless petitions to this House and a motion calling for missing persons legislation, Ontario’s first Missing Persons Act was passed this past spring. I want to thank Maureen for her advocacy. She turned her grief into action in this province.

But because it is part of the Safer Ontario Act, it’s on hold. This government has put that act on a pause.

Can the minister provide an update as to when the Missing Persons Act will come into effect in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for the question and for giving me the opportunity also to give an update.

I’d like to begin by stating that, in fact, my staff has already been instructed to begin the work on developing the necessary regulations to bring the Missing Persons Act to life. The Missing Persons Act, once in force, will address a current barrier faced by police in Ontario when investigating missing person occurrences by providing police with tools to use in circumstances where there’s no evidence a crime has been committed. The Missing Persons Act will allow police to apply for judicial orders to access records, such as information about travel or telephone and other electronic communications, or to authorize entry into premises to search for a missing person.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s good to hear that the ministry is working on the regulations, but the act needs to be brought to this Legislature in order for those regulations to be put into action.

Maureen is one of the strongest advocates for the Missing Persons Act, and Ontario is one of the only provinces that does not have this legislation. Maureen was briefed by ministry staff on the legislation’s development because it was her family’s experience losing Daniel that drove the creation of this act in the province of Ontario. Yet, since the election, that communication has unfortunately broken down.

Speaker, after Maureen’s tireless advocacy, the government owes it to her and to people across this province to provide an answer and to bring the legislation back into this House. What is the status of the Missing Persons Act coming back to the Ontario Legislature so that we can have this act in the province?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you once again for that question. I’d like to repeat that my ministry takes this matter very seriously. My staff has already been instructed to begin development of the necessary regulations to bring the Missing Persons Act to life. The Missing Persons Act will provide the men and women of our police services with the tools necessary to more effectively conduct investigations into matters regarding missing persons.

Senior citizens

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the hard-working MPP from Burlington. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Monday’s celebration and why acknowledging the contribution of seniors was important to me and worthy of our collective support.

Our seniors are the foundation of our society, this province and this great nation, Canada. Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal to the women and men who helped build our province and our country. Right now, there are two million seniors in the province. In 25 years, that number will double to four million.

I want to be clear: We intend to support them every step of the way. Seniors are living healthier, independently, and are more socially engaged.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Jane McKenna: Back to the minister: Can the minister let this House know just how this government intends to support the seniors of Ontario?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you for that excellent question. Premier Doug Ford and this government have the highest regard for Ontario’s seniors. Treating them with respect is at the heart of everything we do as a government.

As the AMO conference last August, I met so many mayors and their councillors. They’re working so hard to build age-friendly initiatives in their municipalities. I have also attended many events, such as the recent Ontario seniors’ community association conference in Alliston. I also visited two excellent seniors’ living centres in Ottawa.

We reach out to Ontario’s seniors through so many excellent, hard-working stakeholders who share our passion and commitment.

Women’s shelters

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Mission Services, which operates London’s Rotholme Women’s and Family Shelter, is in crisis. The shelter is operating at 195% capacity, with 20 families in the shelter and another 19 spending their nights in motels.

In July, we asked this government if they would open provincial and federally owned properties to deal with the unprecedented and alarming demand for housing. To the minister: While this government blames the federal government and points fingers, what is being actually done now to help shelters continue to serve our most vulnerable?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much for the question. I very much appreciate it, particularly since we will be celebrating and marking International Day of the Girl later on this afternoon.

I can tell you that violence against women is something of a very important priority for me, and I have been working within my ministry in order to figure out how we can build more shelter capacity. I will have more to say about that in the weeks to come.

I do appreciate your question. I’m interested in learning more about your specific issue, so we’ll have that conversation after question period if that’s okay with the member opposite.

But I want to be very clear: It’s really difficult for the member opposite to equate what’s happening with the illegal border crossers and asylum seekers that are filling up the shelter capacity in the city of Toronto and in the city of Ottawa when at the same time we’re trying to build capacity for women’s shelters across the province.

I remain committed, as the minister responsible for women but also the minister responsible for community and social services, to working with the member opposite. We’re going to continue to invest more money into this area. I can say that in 2017-18 we invested $160 million into this area.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: While I look forward to meeting with the minister, I’m concerned about the people who are not being served right now. Calling this a refugee crisis is calling it by a different name than what it actually is. There are people who are in crisis right now. There are people who are homeless, and that answer does nothing for people who are homeless right now.

Shelters like Rotholme need the government to step in immediately. We’ve seen social assistance increases and social housing repair funding slashed by this government, all while misusing the word “compassionate.” We need something done now. We need the minister to step in today and deliver the relief that the people of London desperately need.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Again, I think the member opposite is confusing the situation that is happening in the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa with what is happening in London.

I can tell you that the capacity we have in our shelter systems has been impacted significantly. I would like the member opposite to join us in asking the federal government to come to the table with $200 million so that the people who are most vulnerable in my ministry, who are women escaping violence, women who are being trafficked, children at risk, children in care and children in the justice system, and those who are developmentally disabled—they deserve the funding. I have no idea why the members opposite won’t join Ontario’s calls. Every single Premier in Canada has joined with this ministry.

So I’ll meet with the member opposite after question period—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

That concludes the time for question period today.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Someone sent me a message indicating they wanted a point of order, but didn’t sign it. Someone wanted to correct their record. Is there a point of order? The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: On a point of order: I’d like to correct my record. My memory was on my first election rather than on my most recent election. It should be the 7th of June rather than the 8th.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members can correct their own records.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to government notice of motion number 9 relating to allocation of time on Bill 4,

An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016.

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

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1155.

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

On October 2, Monsieur Bisson moved an amendment to government notice of motion number 9, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 4. All those in favour of Monsieur Bisson’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bell, Jessica

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yarde, Kevin

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

Nays

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hillier, Randy

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Mitas, Christina Maria

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 39; the nays are 70.

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

I am now required to put the question on the main motion.

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved government notice of motion number 9, relating to allocation of time on Bill 4,

An Act respecting the preparation of a climate change plan, providing for the wind down of the cap and trade program and repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion. the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be another five-minute bell.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Same vote, reversed.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1201.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved government notice of motion number 9 relating to allocation of time on Bill 4.

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

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Fullerton, Merrilee

Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hillier, Randy

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Mitas, Christina Maria

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Pettapiece, Randy

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Roberts, Jeremy

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bell, Jessica

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France

Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 70; the nays are 39.

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

Motion agreed to.

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next we have a deferred vote on government notice of moti