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

December 11, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Dec-11 (PDF)

L140 - Wed 11 Dec 2019 / Mer 11 déc 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 December 2019 Mercredi 11 décembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Susan Swift

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour dispute

Teachers’ labour dispute

International trade

Government appointments

Hydro One

Death registration

Youth suicide

Job creation

Anti-racism activities

Mental health and addiction services

Public health

Nuclear energy

Highway tolls

Consumer protection

Tenant protection

Introduction of Visitors

Supplementary estimates

Members’ Statements

Student Choice Initiative

Ontario Health Team–Northumberland

Alex Patterson

Battle of Crysler’s Farm

Tenant protection

Rural Rascals, Cockwombles and Legends

Reg and Liz Samis

Season’s greetings / Meilleurs voeux

Road safety

Government’s record

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Climate Crisis Strategy for the Public Sector Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Stratégie du secteur public de l’Ontario relative à la crise climatique

Great Lakes Protection Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative

Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme

Motions

Consideration of Bill 159

Committee sittings

Consideration of Bill 123

Legislative reform

Petitions

Public sector compensation

Plasma collection

Teachers’ professional development

Land use planning

Assistive devices

Spine surgery

Documents gouvernementaux

Government’s agenda

International baccalaureate program

Government’s agenda

Long-term care

Real estate industry

Orders of the Day

Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 10, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156,

An Act to protect Ontario’s farms and farm animals from trespassers and other forms of interference and to prevent contamination of Ontario’s food supply / Projet de loi 156, Loi visant à protéger les fermes et les animaux d’élevage en Ontario contre les entrées sans autorisation et d’autres actes susceptibles de les déranger et à prévenir la contamination de l’approvisionnement alimentaire en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 156, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane had the floor and had made his presentation. So now, we’re going to do questions and comments in response to the speech that was given by the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. Dave Smith: Listening intently to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s speech yesterday, there were a couple of things that jumped out to me. One of his comments was that we do things because of the 1%. I want to quote Plato on that: “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly....” He’s absolutely correct: Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly.

Unfortunately, what we are looking at with this law is, we don’t want to limit someone’s ability to protest, but we want to make sure that, in the actions of their protests, they are not doing something unlawful, that they are not going onto the farmers’ property and they’re not endangering the livestock, that they are not putting the farmers at risk.

In May of 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs came out with a statement that said, “Owning a farm business can be very stressful. If you are struggling with the impact of these stresses, you are not alone.” That was around a mental health initiative that we were putting out because we recognized that having a farm is something that is very stressful. There is a lot of pressure that’s put on you. And when you have activists who are coming onto the property and adding to that level of stress, that’s something that needs to be taken a look at.

Every person should feel comfortable in their home. Every person should feel comfortable at their workplace. What this legislation does for us is it allows us to say, “We recognize that those who are on farms, those farmers and those families, need to feel safe in their home. They need to feel safe in their workplace.”

We’re trying to find a balance so that people have the ability to continue to protest but they’re not doing something that might affect the food supply, and I think this bill finds that. I was a little bit disappointed in the member, who was a dairy farmer, who didn’t recognize that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I was here yesterday on House duty for both the minister’s lead and our critic for agriculture, from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I respect our critic, and I also respect the Minister of Agriculture as well, because they both had that experience in farming and the food production of Ontario.

This bill is a very important bill because we know that the one main concern that farmers have is the biosecurity of their animals and the chain of that production as it goes along, to make sure that that isn’t compromised. We also know that farmers, as our agriculture critic said, have a lot of pride in what they do. Farmers do really, really great jobs in making sure we get the food from the farm to the table.

Where I think there are concerns is around if someone does come onto someone’s property, that the farmer is responsible for that reasonable force. That needs to be strengthened. It needs to be discussed. We don’t want to put farmers or protesters in a situation where there is escalation.

There are some provisions in there about having the livestock zones with signs, but, again, when this goes to committee, those discussions need to be had around the table to make sure that we get it right. We don’t want a test case going to court, having people’s lives dragged through the court, or unintended consequences that could occur from this provision in this legislation.

So, yes, we certainly want to make sure we protect biosecurity, but we do have concerns around some of the things that we need to tighten up.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? I recognize the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Speaker. It’s great to be up.

I saw my colleague from Carleton stand up, and I know she’ll have an opportunity, I think, to speak later. I just want to say she has been doing a great job in standing up for her rural constituents in Carleton—a lot of farmers inside the largest agricultural city in the world, which is the city of Ottawa.

I do represent an urban riding, but I do have a few small farms because we are a large agricultural city, and this issue has come up time and time and time again with urban farmers.

I want to make special mention of my friend, a great community leader, Peter Ruiter, who has an urban farm on Prince of Wales Drive in the city of Ottawa. I was decorating my Christmas float about a month ago, and Peter said to me, “Lisa, we’re going to need your help to make sure that our livestock, my cows, and my family are protected from people who trespass on my land.” I said to him I would bring that, raise it, to the Minister of Agriculture, and I’m so proud of Ernie Hardeman, our agriculture minister, for recognizing that this does need to happen.

We have to stand up on behalf of those farmers, who, by the way, feed our cities. Whether you agree with farming or not—I have no idea how you could not agree with farming—you should at least understand that those people who live and work on the farm deserve to feel safe and secure. That is their home, it is their livelihood, and they should not be under threat. That’s why I’m happy that we’re here today to speak to this piece of legislation and, quite frankly, to support this legislation.

If I may, in my final seconds here, just reiterate how kind and compassionate people are in the rural and farming communities. I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to represent Nepean–Carleton for 13 years, and now Nepean for a year, and to meet many of these farmers who are doing great work and who really do care about what they do and the communities that they live in.

Thanks very much, Speaker, for this opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning.

I was here yesterday when the member from Cochrane did his hour lead on this bill for New Democrats, and I listened intently. I know we say that word a lot here in this House, but I truly did sit and listen to the member, to hear his thoughts on this very important bill, because we know that we need to ensure that we have food security. That is important to every single person in this province, to make sure that there cannot be any hindrance by any outside interference when it comes to the farming community, and to make sure that they have a safe space.

He also raised some very good questions about things that could be worked on in the bill. I believe all members of this House take what this member says to heart, and truly listen to the voice that he brings to the table. He was a farmer. He has lived through this life. He understands the farming community. He understands the food security needs. But he also understands the consequences that could possibly happen without meaning to do so.

There were some things that he raised about the transactions, possibly, that could come between the farmer and the protester, and how that could go bad very quickly. I don’t think anybody in this House truly wants that to happen.

So I think it’s a conversation that needs to happen, to be able to work together to make sure that we do get it right for the farmers in this province and for the food security that we all count on here in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I now return to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his final comments.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. Once again, it’s a good opportunity to talk about agriculture and farming and Bill 156—anti-trespassing. I made it clear in my comments yesterday: We support everything in this bill that protects biosecurity and protects farm families in their place of business and home. We fully support that.

What we brought up is that there are some instances in this bill where, after it passes second reading and goes to committee, we should take a long, hard look at the unintended consequences. One of those is with the retroactive trespassing provisions where you can be charged two years after, under this bill. This could be seen as anti-whistle-blower.

As a farmer, as someone from rural Ontario, I’m very concerned that all the hard work that farmers and the processing sector have done to defend their reputation, which is stellar, could be tainted when something that’s perceived as anti-whistle-blower legislation is taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it could very well lose. I made it very clear in this House yesterday that you can’t buy trust.

Now, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary assistants mentioned how every farm leader in the province fully supports this bill, but if this bill is challenged, if that specific

section is challenged and loses in court, then the opponents of agriculture will be able to point at every one of those farm leaders and say, “But you supported this.”

I’m asking the government, when this passes second reading, to work with the farm community and make sure that this bill is rock-solid and that it cannot be challenged, because there are sections where it appears, or you could make it appear, that agriculture has something to hide, and it doesn’t. We need to make sure the wording of the bill does not leave that crack open.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour to rise in this House today and speak to Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019.

I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for introducing this critical piece of legislation. If passed, this bill will protect farm animals, it will protect our food supply and it will protect farmers, and so many others as well, from risks created when trespassers enter places where farm animals are kept, and from other unauthorized interactions with farm animals.

Ultimately, Bill 156 looks to protect against the risks of exposing farm animals to disease and stress, as well as the risk of the possible introduction of contaminants into the food supply, something that affects every citizen of this province and abroad. Safety has always been on top of the agenda for our government, Mr. Speaker, and this bill intends to keep farmers, their families, agri-food workers and farm animals safe. It does so by reducing the likelihood of trespassing on farms and processing facilities.

These are unique risks and challenges that are associated with the agriculture industry, and I’m proud to be part of a government that took on this challenge by addressing the various issues that accompany trespassing onto these premises.

I want to take a moment to talk about the importance of agriculture, not only in my riding of Carleton, as the minister mentioned earlier, but all across Ontario. Farms help strengthen rural communities and farms feed families. I know first-hand the sense of community farmers bring, and I see genuine gratitude from their neighbours and from members of their community who know how important their work is. It is a job of long hours, early hours, late hours, hard work and commitment. It is a trade that Ontarians rely upon. Our families rely upon our farmers to feed them and their children.

Agriculture is vital to the success of our province, and I am proud to stand here today and speak to this bill that is centred around farmers, their livestock and their craft.

It’s our government’s responsibility to protect Ontarians and their livelihoods. This includes the men and women who work in the agricultural sector and their livestock. Owning and working with livestock is a difficult, time-consuming job that requires patience, hard work and discipline. After all, farmers are dealing with animals, with living and breathing beings, so it’s only right that farmers and others in the agriculture industry are able to reap the rewards of their labour and feel protected, knowing that their government, our government, has put forth legislation protecting that for which they work so hard.

We believe that every Ontarian has the right to feel safe at home and at work. For so many farmers, work and home are the same place. Their income, their livelihood—their legacy, in fact, Mr. Speaker—all exist at home, and Bill 156 is here to protect that.

I know that in modern society, things are different. People are speaking up for what they believe in, and I respect that. Activism for animal rights is becoming increasingly popular in our society, and it is also something that our government puts as a priority. In fact, when I was in law school, in my third year of law, I took a course called Animals and the Law. It was a very interesting course. It spoke about the dynamics between animals as living beings and animals as viewed as property under property rights within Ontario legislation.

It’s great to see legislation like the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, along with the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, that looks to modernize the way we view and treat animals while still respecting those who work with them and deal with them, such as our hard-working farmers. This is why, again, we’ve introduced other legislation such as Bill 136, which I just mentioned, the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

Now, with Bill 156, we can go even further to demonstrate how our government cares about the safety of animals, including the welfare of livestock. As I said earlier, farmers and agricultural practices face unique issues that have often been ignored.

Mr. Speaker, being from Carleton, I know plenty of hard-working, passionate farmers, ones who put their trade, including the safety and well-being of their livestock, above all else. Sometimes others do not recognize this.

That’s an example of how aggressive animal rights activism is an issue that’s plaguing many livestock farmers across Canada, including Beking’s Poultry Farm and others.

Farmers know the responsibility on their shoulders to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety, the standards that we expect in Ontario. Our farmers rely on their livestock for their livelihood, so of course, farmers are going to ensure that their animals are taken care of in the best possible way, because they know what’s best.

And the reality is that while many good people are shining light on real cases of animal abuse and neglect, there are others who consider any form of animal husbandry to be mistreatment. This could involve trespassing on farms and interference with livestock. In many of these cases, criminal activity is often overlooked, and charges against those who have committed trespassing offences are often dropped.

Nous croyons que chaque citoyen mérite de se sentir en sécurité dans toutes les régions de l’Ontario. Les agriculteurs sont tellement importants pour l’Ontario, et nous voulons les protéger.

How can we sit by, Mr. Speaker, when so many farmers are working so hard to uphold these standards of care and treatment for their animals, yet are still having their work put in jeopardy by those who trespass illegally onto their properties?

It’s a very dangerous situation to have someone enter a farm and tamper not only with the livestock but also with food products that serve a magnificent proportion of Ontario. If passed, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act will implement escalating fines of up to $15,000 for a first offence and up to $25,000 for subsequent offences, compared to a $10,000 maximum fine under the current Trespass to Property Act. This ensures that farmers and consumers will have peace of mind that no one in this province is able to tamper with livestock and our food supply without swift and just consequences.

If passed, this bill will improve protections and working conditions for the agri-food sector. It will ensure that Ontario remains open for business and open for jobs. This bill will also give our judicial system the much-needed tools to ensure that there are real, substantial consequences for those who choose to break the law by disrupting farming and food production.

It’s also important to note that, if passed, this bill will allow exemptions to be provided to allow those enforcing animal legislation, as well as emergency personnel, federal and provincial inspectors, municipal bylaw officers and other authorized people to access the property.

The health and welfare of animals and agri-sector employees are ultimately at the heart of this bill. Our government has built around that mentality to ensure a fair and rational approach to protecting Ontario’s farmers and livestock.

I’m proud of the approach that our government has taken when drafting Bill 156. It’s a rational solution. It was formulated after listening intently to people from across Ontario and, in fact, across Carleton, as well, who work in the agricultural sector and have been affected by these issues.

Bill 156 recognizes the unique risks of trespassing on farms and agri-food processing facilities, and of interference with livestock transport. By considering these risks, Bill 156 enhances the security of farmers, their families and our food supply while protecting the right for people to participate in legal protests. People have the right to participate in legal protests; that’s a given. It’s a constitutionally protected right under the charter. But this does not include creating safety risks on farms, interfering with livestock in transport or trespassing onto private property.

Farmers are worried about their personal safety and the safety of their staff, as well as truck drivers. Farmers and others in the livestock industry respect the right to peaceful protest. But unfortunately, especially in my riding of Carleton, increasingly, they find their homes, property, land and vehicles encroached upon by individuals seeking to tamper with their practices—individuals who are not very familiar with agriculture, who are not aware of what it means to be a farmer in Ontario, in Carleton, in Canada.

I’ve had the pleasure of going to several farms in my riding. I’ve been to Schouten Dairy Farm. I’ve been to the Fosters’ cattle farm. I mentioned I’ve been to Beking’s Poultry Farm. I’ve been to the Acres lamb farm. I’ve been to other farmers who have small farms—the Green Brothers, Abby Hill Farms; they have some farm animals there. There are so many other cattle and dairy farmers.

At one point, I remember, Rideau Pines Farm had a sow and piglets, and they had a big pen and it was just the cutest thing ever. People don’t see this. They just see factory farming in the States and they assume that’s what is happening here in Ontario, but that’s not the case at all. Our farmers take such good care of their animals and have the utmost respect for them.

Just as you would want your home to be protected, Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation will ensure that no person will enter animal protection zones on farms, animal processing facilities or other prescribed premises without the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the facility. For so many farmers, these farms are their homes; they live and work in the same place. Just as I would not want someone entering my home without my consent, they deserve that same protection, as do all Ontarians.

Monsieur le Président, nous nous engageons à faire en sorte que les agriculteurs se sentent en sécurité à la maison et au travail. Ceux qui empiètent sur leur propriété devraient être tenus responsables.

This is a realistic approach to ensure that people do not trespass in areas where they could interfere with livestock. This is not only for the safety of the farmers and the animals, but also for anyone who could enter the premises. It is a learned skill to be able to properly work and interact with livestock. It is a skill that the hard-working men and women in the agricultural sector have years of experience perfecting, and it takes specific knowledge about the trade in order to operate safely for both the good of the worker and the animals.

Individuals who enter a farm or processing facility without authorization are unlikely to be aware of safety protocols, and may unknowingly introduce a variety of risks. These serious risks include endangering farmers, employees and their families; stress or trauma to animals; risks to public health; risks to biosecurity; and risks to our food supply. These are the key areas that this bill is looking to protect.

I know that the minister and many others from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, including his parliamentary assistants, have worked diligently to create a piece of legislation that accurately reflects and assists the needs of Ontarians.

We have heard many concerns from farmers who are frustrated that not enough is being done to ensure that unauthorized trespassing is addressed. During consultations, our government received more than 900 stakeholder letters, and over 30 rural municipalities have passed or supported council resolutions calling for increased protections. These letters primarily focused on concerns over the growing amount of trespass incidents, expressed frustration over convictions not being pursued in the judicial system, and called upon the government for assurance of a more rigid process to prevent and address incidents.

With this overwhelming response, it is clear that this is something that is important to the people and the critical agricultural industry in Ontario.

Merci à tous ceux qui ont participé aux consultations. C’est grâce à vous que nous sommes en mesure de régler les problèmes qui sont vraiment importants en Ontario. C’est grâce à votre expérience que nous continuerons à travailler pour que l’Ontario soit un meilleur endroit pour cultiver et pour travailler.

Various stakeholders expressed that they are not only exposed to peaceful protests, but they find themselves exposed to illegal activity. Farmlands have been illegally breached and animals have been stolen, which not only creates a food safety issue, but endangers human lives as well.

Ontario farmers follow high standards of care, including biosecurity protocols protecting animals from disease. When someone trespasses onto a farm or food processing plant and is unaware of the proper biosecurity protocols, they put the health of animals, the safety of food and the livelihood of farmers at risk. Food security is something that this government takes very seriously, and we are putting forward this legislation to ensure that the integrity of our food systems will not be put in jeopardy.

Ultimately, our government conducted extensive consultations and held more than 20 round tables, meetings and conference calls with various stakeholders, municipalities and representatives of animal advocacy organizations to discuss concerns with trespassing and the integrity of our food systems.

In my own riding of Carleton—actually, one of the first public town hall meetings that I had was called Carleton Conversations, and it was on the topic of agriculture. This was well before I was even elected. I distinctly remember that we had over 80 farmers attend. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. I was a candidate at that point, not even elected—the election was probably almost a year away—and I held a public town hall meeting on agriculture and over 80 farmers showed up. To this day, we still continue those Carleton Conversations, because it’s so important.

Ultimately, how are we as a government supposed to represent the people that we are here to serve if we don’t listen to them? That’s why I’m proud to be in support of this bill, because this bill is evidence of our government having consulted with Ontarians, listened to them and taken their feedback to bring some positive change.

We have already heard so many positive responses from stakeholders that are directly involved in the agriculture industry and who have lived experience with these issues that we have discussed today. This positive feedback from these important stakeholders, who were ignored by previous administrations, who were ignored for 15 years, is a fantastic indicator that our government has tackled the issues that matter most to people.

The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act is part of our government’s commitment to protecting the health and safety of our agri-food sector, farm animal welfare and food safety. I’m proud to support this bill. This bill is fair and balanced. It prioritizes the safety and security of farmers, their families and our food supply, while protecting the rights for people to participate in legal protests. This legislation is just one of the many examples of how our government for the people is listening to Ontarians and getting results.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to thank the member from Carleton for her input on this bill. You can hear very clearly that she understands the farming community in Carleton, that she has been working with them for years, and that she understands that there is a need. We agree completely. As I said, I take great stock in what the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has to say on this bill. So I see a pattern of us agreeing on the fact that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and nobody is disagreeing with that. We need to ensure we have food security, that biosecurity is protected, that farmers are protected, that protesters are protected and have the right to do so.

Our position on this is that we’re concerned that there could be unintended consequences, and I’m quite sure that the member from Carleton wouldn’t want to see her farmers fall into something of an unintended consequence either. That’s why it’s important that we have these debates. That’s why it is important that we go to committee. Maybe this is a bill that needs to travel. Maybe people need to come together to have a different perspective. Farmers are not the ones who write this legislation, right?

So we want to make sure that we get it right and that the farmers understand, too, what consequences could happen just from the particular wording. Maybe that’s what needs to be changed. The concept is exactly what everybody wants. It’s just how we get to the right place so that there are no unintended consequences.

Thank you to the member from Carleton for your input, for sharing with us the stories of the farms that you’ve visited and the knowledge that you’ve been able to gain, and how important it is to bring that to this House. That’s how good laws are made: by discussion, by consultation, by making sure that all points are considered, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: It’s wonderful to rise today to provide some comments on the remarks that my colleague from Carleton delivered.

Carleton is a neighbouring riding to Ottawa West–Nepean, although I represent a more urban part of the city. The member from Carleton is right: Her riding has a very, very large, vibrant and robust farming community.

A lot of people don’t know this, but Ottawa at one time was, and still remains today, one of the largest cities, geographically, in Canada. The mayor of Ottawa has this wonderful map where you can see within the boundaries of Ottawa the cities of Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, all within those boundaries of Ottawa, and it’s because we have such a large rural population, which, of course, includes our wonderful farmers.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who isn’t a farmer myself, when I’m looking at this sort of legislation, I like to take a look at what people from the actual farming community are saying. I’ve got some quotes here. I’ve got one from Eric Schwindt. He’s the Ontario Pork chair. He says, “Over the past year, we have seen protesters move beyond peaceful protest to illegal activity. Recent actions including trespassing onto our farms—our homes—and stealing animals have created not only a food safety issue but also that of human safety. Farmers need the support of government through the creation of new legislation to protect farm families and our food supply.”

I’m not going to have time to get into it, but I see supportive quotes here from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s president, and the list goes on. This suggests to me that we have some good, robust stakeholder support.

I appreciate hearing from the member of Carleton, who has her finger on the pulse of the Ottawa farm community.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s an honour to stand in the House.

I listened very intently to the member from Carleton and her 20-minute presentation, and I was impressed by the thoughtfulness, by how accurate it was, in my opinion. She did a really good job. You could tell that she had actually had really good conversations with the farm community, and I commend the government for that. I hope that you continue to do that.

The one part that wasn’t mentioned, and I’m sure not intentionally—biosecurity is extremely important on farms. I had this discussion, after my remarks yesterday, with the minister, about how the retroactive trespassing part of this bill impacts biosecurity. He disagreed with me. He said, “Well, it does.”

Here is going to be the challenging part: If someone gets hired on a farm or in a processing plant, that plant or that farm has biosecurity protocols. So, regardless of how you got the job, to work on that farm or in that processing plant, you have to work by their biosecurity protocols. Whether you work there for six months and whether you take a picture or not, you have to work under those protocols.

If you take a picture and no longer work at that plant and then are charged with trespassing—that person can make the argument that that has nothing to do with biosecurity because they followed the biosecurity protocol under which they got hired. You need to hear that here so that you don’t hear it in court, and so that you don’t throw farmers’ reputations under the bus. They have nothing to hide, but this legislation could make it appear to be so.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’d like to thank the member from Carleton for her great speech this morning in support of Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act.

Balancing the right to protest with the health and safety of farmers is important, but this does not include creating a safety risk for farmers or interfering with livestock in transportation. Ontario is committed to the highest standards of animal safety and food safety. Farmers should feel free and safe in their homes and their barns—and safety for their employees and for their families.

Bill 156 will not impede on the people’s right to peaceful protesting and freedom of expression. That is very important because, not being a farmer myself but knowing farmers, being safe on their own farm and the safety of their animals is very important. I would not know what to do if I was a farmer and I had protesters on my farm or in my barns at night. I would not know what to do.

But there still should be freedom of protesting. We are in a democratic country, so people should be free to protest as well.

This bill covers everything in general. I’m really in support of this bill, and Bill 156 would be a great bill for us.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now I return to the member from Carleton for her final comments.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I want to thank the members from Hamilton Mountain, Ottawa West–Nepean, Timiskaming–Cochrane and Mississauga–Lakeshore for their comments.

I also want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her kind words. I was listening intently. I agree that you always want to see if there are any unintended consequences with any legislation that’s being passed. It’s great to have this kind of debate. I would encourage the member to reach out to her constituents and see if there are any comments or anything there, and share that with us and share that with the government.

Ultimately, protecting agriculture is a non-partisan issue. It’s something that we are all supportive of. We all support our farmers. We all support our agriculture industry. So, I look forward to working together with everyone on all sides of the House.

With respect to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, I wanted to thank him as well for his thoughtful and kind comments. Farming and agriculture is a very big part of my riding. Prior to being elected, I was an international trade lawyer, so I actually represented a number of farms, including some dairy farms, on a lot of trade matters. So, even though I’m not a farmer myself, it’s an industry that I have been intimately familiar with.

Actually, I used to work for someone named Peter Clark, who represents—

Mr. John Vanthof: I know Peter very well.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Yes. Peter is actually my mentor and represented—he still does, I think—Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I worked for him for six years. The first time we did a trade case, he put about 10 binders this thick in front of me and said, “Get to work.”

Having said that, agriculture is very important. I understand how important it is. I understand the risks. I look forward to continuing to work with everyone to support our farmers in the best possible way. That’s why I’m happy to support Bill 156.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Good morning to my colleagues in the House. Happy Wednesday. It’s two more days before we recess for the winter, and I’m sure we’re all anxious to go back to our communities and visit our families and celebrate the holidays. So, I’ll take the opportunity to wish you, Speaker, and my colleagues in the House a wonderful Christmas holidays and throughout into the new year.

I rise today pretty optimistic, Speaker, if you can imagine, for a guy like me, who tends to be a little bit pessimistic, I’ll admit.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I know. It comes as a shock to my colleagues.

I rise today because in reviewing the bill and in listening to my colleagues, I think there is an opportunity here to get something right. If we take our time and we follow the process set forward in the standing orders, in the processes of this House, and we do our jobs with our constituents in mind and our responsibilities in our hearts, I think we can get close to dealing with this issue.

I say that, Speaker, because clearly, this is within the purview of the provincial government. This is our responsibility. Some people may not like it. Some people may think it’s too little, too late. Some people may think it’s about time. I tend to think that it is worthy of our time in here and something that we should take a lot of time to look at and to address, to make sure that we get right.

I don’t want to cast any illusions that I have any experience in farming or agriculture, although I come from a rural riding, much as you do, Speaker, being my neighbour in Chatham-Kent. We know the importance of agriculture to our communities and to our country. The farmers have fed this country for generations, and continue to not only feed us nutritionally but economically as well. So we know the importance that farms have to our economy, and we know the responsibilities that we have, to put forward common-sense regulations and mechanisms for protection that not only protect farmers but protect consumers as well.

This bill deals with an important matter around biosecurity. What I do know about farming, Speaker, is that—first of all, I know that in this House, we should be listening to those with experience in agricultural production. That’s why I value my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane—is that right?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s only been eight years. I should know your riding.

I value his input, as do other colleagues, I believe. Speaker, I know you do as well, because he comes to this House with a tremendous amount of lived experience, and a way of explaining those experiences in relation to the legislation that we’re reviewing that really makes some sense.

I know that we should be listening to people like my colleague, but also to those outside. We’ve heard from members of the OFA, the chicken farmers, the pork farmers, all sources of agriculture, and they’re saying that this is something that is needed.

Why is it needed? What I do know about agricultural production is that, above all, what helps them in their daily business, to operate their business, is certainty, predictability, bankability. They live and die at the whim of elements that are outside of their control. They’re always trying to mitigate those elements, whether it be the environment, the economy, regional challenges or infrastructure. So many challenges are thrown at our agriculture industry, and yet they still are determined to persevere, to make a living, to provide a good-quality product for consumers. And we have to thank them and respect them for that.

What I believe is at the heart of this is to add to that predictability and bankability. I would argue that it’s never been harder for those in the agriculture industry, at least in Ontario, to make a living. The costs of inputs have gone up dramatically. The price that they are getting for their product is challenged by trade challenges and other products coming in, imports coming in. It lowers those margins razor-thin. They have to look at and protect every measure that they can.

According to a recent Stats Canada report, net farm income in Ontario decreased by an astonishing 75% in 2018 compared to 2017. Speaker, that was largely due to an increase in expenses, interest charges and machinery fuel, which vastly outpaced farm revenue. Meanwhile, provincial funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, which provides support for farmers, has been frozen or cut for several years, including a 25% cut in 2019-20 alone. So it keeps getting harder for farmers to make a living.

What that does for us as consumers is make us more vulnerable. If we are more reliant on importing our food as a sovereign nation and less reliant on the domestic production of agriculture and food sourced in this country, I have said it before and I will say it again: Our sovereignty as a nation is at risk. So it’s incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to protect that source and to understand the challenges that agricultural producers have.

This has some mechanisms built within the bill that we believe can help. The vast majority of producers out there, as my colleague stated in his one-hour lead yesterday, are thoughtful, concerned, considerate producers. They understand—and I don’t know if I’ll quote him verbatim—that a comfortable cow is a producing cow.

Is that what you said?

Mr. John Vanthof: Close.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Something like that.

What we know is that the better maintained the facility, the better the quality of care that they provide livestock, the better the animal husbandry—which is a term that’s kind of interesting—

Mr. John Vanthof: When you think about it, it’s kind of weird.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s kind of interesting, but it is a term that we often use—the better the product will be. So we have to trust that that has been embedded.

But a lot of that has come through partnership and collaboration with various levels of government, to ensure that there are rules that protect and set forward how livestock is treated, how the processing process is unravelled and how that food eventually ends up on our plate—and it protects consumers as well.

This bill certainly addresses the importance of biosecurity, but there’s an educational component of this bill that I don’t really see, but I think it should be added. I think there should be a really large push to inform citizens. I know the agricultural community will be following this quite closely, but if we don’t reach out to the broader sectors of our province, those urban areas, to let them know how important protecting biosecurity is within the food chain and the supply chain, then I think we are missing an opportunity to really impact this bill.

The penalty side, the stick side, certainly will be known. I believe there are fines up to $25,000—$15,000 for a first offence, and $25,000 for trespassing and for interaction under the bill. Certainly people will know of that. Will it be enough of a deterrent? We’re not quite certain. But I think the knowledge and getting that education, that component out there, will be something that is really important and that we need to look at.

My colleague talked about some of his concerns. We think that in order to get this right, it will have to require the government to really take it seriously and to decide whether this is something that they want to challenge. We can see quite clearly, because there is precedent, that there will a path under the provisions for what my colleague calls “retroactive trespassing,” where someone can be charged with trespassing two years after they actually were on the premises and took some sort of illegal action under the provisions of the bill.

We clearly see that because of precedent in other areas, other jurisdictions—the United States and, I believe, in Canada—where that just hasn’t been upheld. So you’ll have to decide.

This is our responsibility as opposition members, to caution you that that is something that you’re going to be heading towards. But it’s something that we can avoid at committee. We look forward, through the process, to hearing from legal experts and hearing from the farming community as to where maybe a possible cut-off can be, somewhere where we can compromise on that, because we understand that there has to be the stick approach, the carrot and the stick. That provision may be void and null, and you’ll have to go back to it at some point anyhow.

Speaker, as I said, I am not a farmer. In Essex county—I don’t know about Chatham-Kent, but in Essex county—the livestock producers aren’t as vast as they used to be. I’m going around my map of Essex county, and I know that the Jobin dairy farm—a wonderful family; a generational dairy farm—suffered a catastrophic loss to their farm a couple of years ago. Their barn burned down. The community rallied, and they built one of the most beautiful facilities, a world-class facility. The engineering, the mechanics—it’s incredible. They are proud, and we are proud to have them in our community.

The Fuerths own Ewe Dell farms in Woodslee—a great producer of lamb, and a great, long-standing family.

Dan Diemer’s farm: Dan’s farm was generational.

Mr. John Vanthof: I know Dan.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You know Dan, of course. His farm was sold. There’s a new gentleman who owns it. He is from Ireland. He came in and upgraded that facility. It operates. It’s incredible.

Wagner’s orchards: I know they have some beef cattle too, as well. But there aren’t too many in Essex county. Of course, you would know that most of our farms are cash crop farms. That’s just—

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, because it’s too expensive.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s great land.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s great land. It’s too expensive to get in. So we have to understand the challenges that those who remain are under.

But, Speaker, I am no expert. What I do in my off time—as many of you know, I am an avid outdoorsman. Yes, I fish and I hunt. I enjoy it and it’s a part of—

Mr. John Vanthof: We’re shocked.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Whatever. Look, it’s a part of my history. It’s a part of my family history. Some of the memories that have been created in hunting with my family are a special thing.

What I see are some parallels between this legislation and what we currently have in Ontario as standing legislation that addresses anti-hunter harassment.

What that means is, as a legal hunter—I have all of my certifications. All of my firearms are stored safely. I’ve taken every course you can take. I have permission from landowners when I go and hunt. I follow all the rules, because it’s easy to follow the rules and I want to follow the rules. I want to make sure that I’m acting within the rules and conserving the wildlife that we have out there.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Semi-pro hunter.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My colleague calls me a semi-pro hunter, and he’s right. I am a semi-pro compared to him. But I try, Speaker, because I love it. Sometimes it’s not about actually hunting; it’s about just being there, in nature.

I haven’t experienced it personally, but I know people who have followed all the rules and been harassed for hunting, something that is a part of our heritage in Ontario. The rules that were set forward for hunting don’t permit the hunter to arrest a harasser. I think that when they devised the legislation, they gave it some serious thought. That conflict, that confrontation that could happen in the middle of a bush with someone who is an anti-hunting activist, who has all the right in the world to protest hunting—and we certainly want to protect everyone’s right to protest. We understand that is a part of civil society in a democratic society.

But for a person to come into a bush that is private property, that the hunter has permission to hunt in, that is well within the boundaries of the law—the government of the day still found it fit to simply require the hunter to acknowledge that they’re being harassed, to document that they’re being harassed in whatever way they can, whether it be contemporaneous notes—now everybody has got a cellphone. Again, the thing is that we don’t want to have those conflicts ensue anywhere in Ontario.

I am concerned that by giving farmers not only the ability, but telling them that they can do this, that this is a part of their right, we may be putting them in jeopardy. I believe that that onus should be on the province, on the government, to ensure that enforcement is there in a timely way. Even the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, when they reviewed the anti-hunter-harassment legislation—they give hunters some counsel in that they tell hunters to immediately call the MNR, call the OPP, if they feel they are being harassed. They don’t say, “Take matters into your own hands,” because you’ve got firearms and you’ve got conflict.

I want to make sure that we’re not putting farmers in that position. I know that there are some provisions within the bill that exclude farmers from liability should that conflict arise. I don’t know if that will withstand a Supreme Court test or a constitutional test either. It’s going to be a really, really scary area. And I think we can do better.

I think we can give farmers the confidence that we believe so heavily in their industry that we’re going to ramp up enforcement, ramp up the support mechanisms that would allow them, should they feel threatened, should people breach these animal protection zones—that someone will be there to deal with it. We can do that. There’s no reason why we can’t in rural Ontario.

I want to talk about the whistle-blower provisions. There are some areas in civil society where whistle-blowers have played a really critical role, some more recently. The Boeing 737 MAX: That was a whistle-blower. That person was ignored by the CEO of Boeing. He was ignored by the FAA. He was ignored by the NTSB. And what happened? Two of those brand new planes went down. Had the system worked and had that whistle-blower been ensured the protection, potentially, lives could have been saved.

Speaker, there was a video the other day that I saw of a scuba diver who was underwater at a pipe that was releasing bloody effluent into a river just off of Vancouver Island. That effluent was coming from a salmon processing farm. They were processing wild salmon and farmed salmon. That effluent was tested, and it was found to contain some harmful things that could affect the natural stock of salmon within the Fraser River. Had that person not gone down to review what was coming out of that pipe, we wouldn’t know about it.

And here’s the catch, Speaker: It’s not illegal for that farm to release that bloody effluent. It isn’t. It’s well within the rules. The point here is that the province of British Columbia has a lot more work to do to protect natural stock. Had they not known that this was being released, and had the broader public not been aware of it and raised some concerns, potentially, it could have gone unknown and we could decimate a really critical part of our ecosystem.

Talking about biodiversity, talking about food security—we as New Democrats certainly believe that the bill has merit. It is timely, and it’s one that has some of the right stuff. The process here is that it passes second reading and goes to committee. New Democrats very much look forward to that process. We hope that it’s taken seriously in that the government recognizes that we can get this right.

I have heard that it shouldn’t be a partisan issue—we truly believe that it shouldn’t—and that may be the recipe for getting this bill right the first time so that we don’t have to turn back, and so that farmers are protected, so that consumers have the support and understand that this government is doing everything they can to protect civil society, the right to protest and the right to farm in peace and safety.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Vincent Ke: I’m proud to stand in favour of Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act.

Our hard-working farmers deserve to be protected and safe. They’re working really hard to produce food for us and our families to enjoy.

Three weeks ago I met with the Ontario Pork association. The chair, Eric Schwindt, is really worried about the illegal activities from some of the protesters now. He said: “Over the past year, we have seen protesters move beyond peaceful protest to illegal activity. Recent actions including trespassing onto our farms—our homes—and stealing animals have created not only a food safety issue but also that of human safety. Farmers need the support of government through the creation of new legislation to protect farm families and our food supply.”

So I’m very happy to see that our government brings this bill and, if passed, I’m sure it will protect the farmers and their safety.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Miss Monique Taylor: Once again, I feel privileged to be part of this debate and to actually work for the betterment of our agri-community and our farmers in Ontario. I truly believe that this is something that we all agree is an issue that needs to be dealt with. We need to ensure that we have food security, that there is biosecurity, that people trust the food they are being given by our agricultural community, that our farmers are safe in their own homes, on their own farms, and that people still have the right to protest.

We’re in agreement on many things, but there are a few things that we’re hoping the government will listen to New Democrats on. And truly, we believe it’s for the best interests of the farmers as well as protesters. Ensuring that we get this legislation right, I believe, is a step in the right direction to truly ensuring that the farmers are getting what they’re looking for under this legislation.

We’ve stated some things that could be unintended consequences. We want to make sure that doesn’t happen. For someone to be able to do an arrest and to be able to use force as long as they think it’s not unreasonable force—what is the definition of “unreasonable force”? I think that we can find somebody in trouble where it shouldn’t happen. If we have the proper enforcement in place, as the member from Essex said—like the MNR making sure that the government takes responsibility against trespassers and not putting it into the hands of a farmer who just wants to protect their land and their livestock. I think there is work to do, but we’re going in the right direction.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: It is my honour to rise today and speak in favour of Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced this legislation because we believe that farmers should feel safe in their homes and their barns. As a government, it is our responsibility to protect farmers, agri-food businesses, farm animals and our food supply from the risk of trespass activities. This is part of our commitment to protecting the health and safety of our agri-food sector, farm animal welfare and food safety.

Our proposed new legislation, if passed, would support Ontario’s agri-food sector by recognizing the unique risk of trespass on farms and agri-food processing facilities, and interfering with livestock transport.

Our government is being proactive with this legislation to avoid issues we have seen worldwide with trespass. This proposed legislation is fair, and balances the safety and security of farmers, their families and our food supply, while protecting the right for people to participate in legal protests.

Not only will this help farmers, but other stakeholders as well, Mr. Speaker. The proposed legislation would address the unique risks and challenges associated with the agri-food industries that are not contemplated in existing legislation, including the federal Criminal Code and the provincial Trespass to Property Act. These include the risks trespassing poses to the safety of those involved in the sector, spreading disease and causing stress to farm animals, and contaminating our food supply. The health and safety of individuals and farm animals are at the heart of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if passed—

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you, sir.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): We appreciate it. Further questions and comments?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, I’m happy to speak on Bill 156 and comment on the comments made by the member for Essex. He made some comments regarding the ability, under this act, for a farmer or a processing plant operator to make a private arrest until police come.

I spoke to that in my comments as well. The Minister of Agriculture—I spoke to him after—said, “Well, that exists under the old trespass act, too.” That is pulled word for word. But the difference here is that—we’re having this discussion, which I appreciate, but we’re telegraphing to farmers, everyone is telegraphing, “This is giving you a lot more power.” Unless the government does something to educate farmers on what a proper citizen’s arrest is, we are running into some possible big-time troubles.

For example, we have security in this building, and they are very unobtrusive and they are very well trained. They know exactly how to lower a situation and when to act and when not to act. But I have been a farmer my whole life. I don’t know how to de-escalate a situation. Actually, I’m pretty good at escalating them.

Also, there’s one more thing: Even if a citizen’s arrest is made successfully and you have to wait for the police, one of the problems on farms is that it takes a long time for the police to come, because there are only so many resources—in many cases, paid for by the municipality. I asked the minister, “So who’s going to pay for those extra costs?” He believes that there are going to be less costs with this bill. I believe there are going to be more costs, and we have to discuss who’s going to pay for that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Now I return to the member from Essex for his final comments.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thanks to my colleagues from Don Valley North, Hamilton Mountain, Brampton West and Timiskaming–Cochrane.

As I listened to my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane, who has years of experience as a dairy farmer, who brings a lot of that lived experience in his speeches in this House—I look at his hands and his lack of a right thumb and I wonder, “How is John Vanthof going to make a citizen’s arrest on the farm?” and I get this image of him running around the farm with a set of handcuffs jingling all over. I don’t want him to have to do that, Speaker. I don’t want to have to put him in jeopardy. He’s got arthritis everywhere. He’s got a bum knee. It is the case within many of our—

Laughter.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: And it sounds funny, Speaker, but our farmers are getting older. It is not their responsibility to have to put themselves in harm’s way. It is our responsibility here. We have the jurisdiction of the provincial police, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture. There are enforcement officers that have the training, the use-of-force continuum. That’s stuff that is necessary if you’re going to give that ability to someone to enforce the law, I would like to see some overture from the government to actually address that. It’s the real way you would handle that.

I’m not discounting the need to detain someone who is causing chaos or wreaking havoc or disrupting the food supply. I’m not saying that isn’t important. In fact, it might be essential. I just don’t think that the onus should be on the farmer.

We can do this in here, and I hope it’s addressed at committee. I thank the members for their attention this morning, and I appreciate the time.

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s close to 10:15. This House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Susan Swift

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask for the House’s attention. After 32 years with the Legislative Assembly, Susan Swift, the director of the legislative library and research service, will be retiring at the end of January.

A lawyer by training, Susan was assigned to a number of committees focusing on justice policy and was a researcher on the committee on alternate dispute resolution.

In 2003 Susan became the director of the legislative research service, and in 2012 she became the director of the combined legislative library and research service.

She has been very proud to share her experience on the delivery of research services with developing Parliaments in South Africa, Myanmar and the Shan State.

Joining Susan in the gallery this morning are Sue Johnston, Sarah Davies, Catherine Swift, Susan Viets and Eileen Lewis.

Please join me in thanking Susan for her years of service and in wishing her all the very best in her retirement. Thank you.

Applause.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I don’t want to introduce a visitor, but on behalf of all the members here, I want to thank you and your people for the years of service and the great support that you give members. We’re going to miss you. You’re quite, quite good. Thank you.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce members of the Canadian Nuclear Association, as well as Lisa McBride, president of Women in Nuclear, and to remind everyone of the nuclear reception in room 230 this evening. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to welcome Tim Heney, the amazing CEO of the Thunder Bay Port Authority, to this House this morning.

Hon. Kinga Surma: It is my honour to welcome three constituents of Etobicoke Centre, Linda Babcock, Clayton Babcock and Kris Jones, who are sitting in the gallery on this side, and to commend them for the courage and thoughtfulness they have demonstrated through their own tragic experience.

I look forward to hearing the Attorney General and the Minister of Government and Consumer Services speak about how the Babcocks’ courage has helped spare other families from unnecessary grief and suffering.

Thank you so much for being here with us today.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce Cole Rundle, a resident of University–Rosedale and a volunteer in our constituency office. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Cole.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: It’s a great privilege to introduce a number of guests from the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network, headquartered in my riding: Alexander Wyatt, Jackie Manthorne, Owen Brady, Jennifer Hazel, Palmerino Leone and Julianna Leone. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome guests here today: Khalil Ahmed, Amin Mohamed and Inrtesar Alavi—and he’s visiting Canada from India. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: It’s my pleasure to introduce leaders from the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum: Ian Hamilton, Steve Salmons, Tim Heney, Bruce Hodgson, Guillaum Dubreuil, Marc Gagnon, Wayne Smith and Michael Riehl.

I know my parliamentary assistant had the chance to meet with them this morning and had an informative discussion.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m pleased to welcome members from the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum visiting Queen’s Park today—in particular, Ian Hamilton, the president and CEO of the Hamilton Oshawa Port Authority, and Tony Valeri, former member of Parliament and vice-president of corporate affairs at ArcelorMittal, as well as a number of others from the Hamilton area—and the Oshawa area, of course, as they’ve joined forces—folks like, for example, Jim Howlett; Keanin Loomis, who’s also the director of our chamber of commerce in Hamilton; David Bradley, who I’m sure everybody in this chamber would know; Jeremy Dunn; Janet Knight; Bill Fitzgerald; Emily Graham; and Larissa Fenn.

Then others from ArcelorMittal Dofasco—Tony Robinson and Danielle Lewis; and then, of course, others from Stelco in Hamilton—Sujit Sanyal, Lloyd Estrabillo and Trevor Harris; as well as Lydia Mary Cartlidge from the Hamilton Oshawa Port Authority.

It’s going to be an excellent reception this afternoon, and I look forward to chatting with folks.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’m pleased to welcome the Lung Association to Queen’s Park today. George Habib, Peter Glazier, Monica Kocsmaros and Jessica Sopher are in the gallery. I appreciate their advocacy on so many issues that are important to Ontarians. We are going to continue to make lung health a priority.

Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome two guests from London West who are here today: Andrew Thorne, who is a keen political observer—he usually watches question period on TV; it is his first time watching it live today—and also my husband, Neil Bradford. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Aris Babikian: It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. George Vincent, orthopaedic surgeon and associate professor of surgery at the University of Toronto. Dr. Vincent is an orthopaedic surgeon in the St. Joseph’s Health Centre. Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s my daily introduction of autism advocates. Today with us in the gallery we have Michau van Speyk. Welcome back to Queen’s Park, Michau.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m very happy to welcome future leaders. They are grade 10 students from my riding’s Whitefield Christian Collegiate. The names are: Reegas Alfred, Demiana Armanios, Myla Atkins, Jethro Baarbe, Madison Brown, Jamie Chareunsouk, Elsa Cheung, Areum Du, Joshua Fisher, Immanual Gnanaseelan, Adam Hudson, Samuel McAnally, Ryan Sewram, Alisha Smith, David Solc, Samuel Springer, Prashan Thavarajah, Mark Wang, and their teacher, Ms. Dorcas Jew.

I also have Mr. Michael Malcolm, student achievement officer, from the Ministry of Education.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: On behalf of my colleague from Spadina–Fort York, I’d like to welcome Bruce and Ian McRae to Queen’s Park.

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today a good friend, Sean Graham, who is with us from Cobourg. Welcome to the people’s House.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’d like to welcome to the House a representative from the Ontario Marine Transportation Forum, and one of my constituents, Peter Curtis. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to welcome my friend and neighbour, Steve Salmons, who is the CEO of the Windsor Port Authority; also, from PortsToronto, Alan Paul; the director of government affairs and sustainability at Fednav, Marc Gagnon; and Bruce Hodgson, who is the director of marketing development for the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’ll be meeting with you later.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour dispute

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Today, students, teachers and families across the province are taking to the streets to protest the Premier’s attacks on education and his cuts to the classroom. The Premier successfully created a crisis in education with these reckless cuts, and now he sits silently while schools across Ontario are closed.

Will the Premier break his silence today and tell parents and students what he is prepared to do to end the strike?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I’m very proud to confirm and announce in this Legislature that our government and the trustees’ association reached another agreement with the Education Workers’ Alliance of Ontario, which provides predictability to every parent in this province, which they deserve. We worked hard. We were constructive. We made students the centre of our focus, and we got a voluntary settlement, which is good for all the parties.

Speaker, how we got there is by remaining focused on students, not on ourselves, by remaining mission-critical and by negotiating in good faith. We hope to do that with OSSTF over the coming days. We’ve offered dates through the media; we hope they will accept them. We also hope they will accept private mediation without precondition, because our students should not be in the middle of this debate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Across Ontario, parents and students are seeing the damage of the Ford government cuts. Here in Toronto, the government’s heartless cuts slashed $106 million in operating funding from the Toronto District School Board, directly caused the cancellation of over 300 classes this year, and could lead to the eventual loss of over 1,100 teachers.

The education minister wants people to be reasonable. The Premier promised that not a single teacher would lose their job. Does he think it was reasonable to turn around and fire 10,000 teachers?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is unreasonable for OSSTF to say to parents that they will continue striking unless they get an additional 750 million of tax dollars in this province.

Just to contextualize what our government could do, what the people of this province could do, with $750 million: We could help hire 7,500 mental health workers; we could help build 64 new elementary schools or 28 new secondary schools in this province.

Speaker, the priority of this government is to invest in our students. The teachers’ union, and OSSTF specifically, has a $1.5-billion demand of the government, and if we don’t meet that increase in compensation for workers, who we value—the second-highest-paid in the nation; $92,000 paid, on average, in this province—they’re going to continue to strike.

I think that’s unacceptable. We’re going to remain focused on investing in our kids.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: How about protecting our public education system and not going so low as to pit one segment of Ontario against another, in their drive to cut public services? That is disgraceful.

In Brant Haldimand Norfolk, Conservative cuts could mean at least 56 fewer teachers in the classroom. Over 40 classes have already been cut this year alone. That doesn’t sound reasonable to the kids who have been kicked out of their classrooms, and it sure isn’t reasonable to the teachers that have been kicked to the curb.

Why does the Premier think it’s reasonable to force students to accept these cuts? And why does he think it’s reasonable for his Minister of Education to pit one Ontarian against another in their cruel race to the bottom?

Interjections.

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

The Minister to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The focus of this government is to keep kids in class. We just negotiated another agreement with the EWAO, which demonstrates that we can get deals with labour in this province. We’re really proud of the work that they did as well, to get it done.

In the context of our teachers, I want to be clear: These are our friends and family, and our caucus members. We value their contribution.

I believe we should be paying and spending a significant amount in the context of ensuring that we get good teachers in the front of class. However, what is unfair to the taxpayers is for them to say that they will continue to escalate, continue to strike and keep kids out of class if they do not get an additional $750 million.

Since 2003-04, we have 12% more teachers. Since that period, we have less than 1% more students. Just to contextualize, in 2018-19, the number of teachers in the system increased by 2,140, a 1.6% increase, the largest year-over-year increase in the number of teachers in over a decade.

We’re going to continue to invest in our educators but, most importantly, in our students.

Teachers’ labour dispute

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. But before I deliver it, I do want to also personally, and on behalf of my caucus, as the leader of the official opposition, thank Susan Swift for her excellent tenure here at the Legislature and all of the great work she has done for all of us.

Speaker, no one believes the Ford government when they say that they’re standing up for education. Parents told this government during the consultation that they didn’t want these cuts. Teachers told them at the bargaining table that the cuts would hurt our kids. Students marched out in the thousands to tell them that they didn’t want these cuts.

The Premier owes them an answer today, Speaker. Why did he ignore them all?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

The contrast is that there are those in this House—and certainly, those at the table—who insist on increasing spending for compensation, for pay and benefits,

whereas the priority of this government is to be fair, is to increase compensation by $750 million. It is reasonable. However, some would prefer us to double that number.

My point, Speaker, is that it is fair for taxpayers to offer $750 million, but it’s also important and fair to the future of this country that we invest in our students, in mental health, in math supports, in STEM, giving them every tool to achieve their potential in this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I’d like to go back to the Premier, and hopefully I’ll get a response, because his government’s education cuts are hitting communities across Ontario. Families from the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board are fighting back against Conservative cuts that could lead to at least 73 fewer teachers in their classrooms. In Grand Erie, Conservative cuts have led to the loss of 98 classes this year, a number that could grow to over 900 fewer classes in a few years’ time.

How can this Premier and this government look these families in the eye when they go home over the holidays and tell them that this attack on their children’s future is reasonable?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: This Progressive Conservative government is investing more in public education than any government in the history of this province. We are investing an additional $1.2 billion in the public accounts—more this year than last year. We are investing $24 billion in school boards across our province. We have doubled the mental health funding. We are spending over $3 billion in special ed, because we value the dignity of every child, including those with exceptionalities in school. We’re providing more supports for math: a $2-million, four-year math strategy to lift math scores after 10 years of consecutive declines under the former Liberal government.

The contrast could not be more clear: The priority of our members is to invest in students, not in compensation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The problem is that virtually nobody involved in the education system—from the students to the parents to the educators and educational workers—believes a single word that this minister is saying, nor do they agree with his characterization of what this government is doing to our education system.

The government has been clear: It’s not about kids in the classroom. If it was, the Premier wouldn’t be kicking them out of the classroom and forcing them into the online learning courses that will not work for many of them.

This government has been laser-focused on one thing, and that is making classroom cuts and blaming anybody but themselves for the fallout. Teachers, students and parents have all been clear: Cancel the cuts, stop hurting everyday families and let teachers and students get back to work in the classroom. Will the Premier of this province do that?

Interjections.

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

To the minister to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you, Speaker. My message to OSSTF is to cancel the strike that is needlessly hurting students in the classes of this province. This government is investing more in public education than any government in our history.

Just yesterday, I was proud to announce, as a proof point that we are working in good faith to get deals to keep kids in class, that we got another deal with the Educational Workers’ Alliance of Ontario, following the deal with CUPE. This is progress for families. Families should not be in the middle of this debate.

I appreciate that there are principled positions on all sides, but the kids shouldn’t pay the price for the difference at the table. A $750-million demand in compensation is unreasonable, it is unfair and we will fight hard every day to invest more in children, not in compensation.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Monsieur le Président, bonjour. Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Le nombre d’élèves inscrits dans les écoles francophones en Ontario est en croissance. Avec la réduction du nombre d’enseignants dans les écoles, nous savons qu’il y aura de moins en moins d’adultes disponibles pour aider nos enfants à réussir. On manque déjà d’enseignants. On manque de suppléants et d’éducateurs. Et votre gouvernement veut encore couper des centaines de postes dans les écoles. On sait aussi que cette pénurie aura un effet papillon dans le système d’éducation francophone.

Les francophones ont reçu déjà plusieurs attaques de votre gouvernement. Alors pourquoi vous acharnez-vous à attaquer notre éducation?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that our government is investing more in French-language education than any government in history—an additional $16 million, as reported in the budget, in the public accounts. It is a commitment that we have to linguistic duality in this province. We are proud, and I am proud, to work in partnership with the Minister of Francophone Affairs as we work to ensure that French-language educators are able to be retained in this province. We’re working with our stakeholders within this sector to ensure we have access to high-talent French-language educators.

Nous allons continuer notre travail avec nos partenaires francophones en Ontario.

We believe in this partnership; we believe in our students. We have a plan to help ensure we have French-language educators in the front of class. I’m going to continue to work by investing more in French language than any government in the history of this province.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ce n’est pas une coupure dans notre système, d’avoir de moins en moins de professeurs quand on a des écoles qui grandissent?

Encore au premier ministre : hier, le ministre de l’Éducation a dit que votre gouvernement est tout à fait « raisonnable » lors des négociations. Pourtant, il y a seulement quelques jours, nous avons appris que les parents rejettent massivement la hausse du nombre d’élèves par classe. Alors, le ministre n’a pas écouté les parents, n’écoute pas les élèves et n’est certainement pas à l’écoute des enseignants.

Si le ministre est si « raisonnable », alors pourquoi des milliers de parents et d’enseignants sont dehors aujourd’hui pour défendre l’éducation publique en Ontario?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, this government is investing more in French-language education.

To the point on the shortage of French-language teachers: We appreciate that full well. It’s an issue, a phenomenon, that existed before our government. We are working with the Ontario College of Teachers, we’re working with faculties of education and we’re working with the Minister of Colleges and Universities to incent future teachers entering the trade, entering this sector, and ultimately working in the front of class.

International trade

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: My question is to the Premier. Premier, we know that Ontario’s strong relationship with our neighbour to the south cannot be understated. If Ontario were a country, we would be the US’s third-largest trading partner. Two-way trade between Ontario and the US amounted to US$301 billion last year. We are the number one customer to 19 US states and second to nine others.

Under your leadership, our province is turning around economically. Our government has a plan that is working. We are showing the world that Ontario is open for business once again.

Premier, can you tell the Legislature more about the important economic role Ontario has in North America, and your recent visit to Maryland?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge Park. He does an incredible job. I saw that he was at the annual Christmas carol sing over at St. Dunstan of Canterbury church recently. I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas over there.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 16 months, I’ve talked to over 26 governors in person—meeting all the governors, building a relationship—and I can tell you that the message is very clear that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs. We’re the envy of North America. When I sit down with these governors, we’re leading the economic growth in jobs anywhere in North America.

Before we got elected, Mr. Speaker, we lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs because of the NDP and the Liberals. Now, since we’ve been elected, there are 271,400 more people working, 271,000 families that can pay their bills.

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

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Thank you, Premier, for that answer and for your continued strong leadership on this front.

In light of all the great news and statistics associated with our close economic partnership with the US, Buy American provisions are still of great concern. I know our government has made it a priority, in close partnership with the federal government, to advocate for an exemption for Ontario businesses and workers on this front.

As the Prime Minister noted during your recent meeting, Ontario continues to play an important role in promoting Canada’s trade interests and strengthening the historic ties with US partners for the benefit of the people of our province and all Canadians.

Premier, can you speak further about strengthening partnerships with our province and our US counterparts under your leadership?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the MPP for that question. I had an opportunity to go to Maryland and Washington last week and had an opportunity to sit down with the chair of the governors’ association, Governor Hogan. He’s an absolute champion. They call him Likeable Larry; I know the reason why they call him Likeable Larry now.

For the very first time, Mr. Speaker, the governors of the United States of America are coming to Ontario. Why are they coming to Ontario? Because, as my member mentioned, we’re the number one trading partner to 19 states and number two to nine other states. We do $391 billion a year in two-way trade. We’re responsible, both countries, for millions and millions of jobs on both sides of the border. We have a strong relationship and the largest unprotected border in the world. We have to make sure that we nurture these relationships and continue growing in our relationship. That’s why I look forward to having the governors up here in February.

Government appointments

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Throughout the week, the Premier has refused to answer my questions about lucrative agent general patronage posts that he single-handedly created in Dallas and Chicago. Yesterday we learned that the two remaining appointees to Dallas and Chicago haven’t even set up their offices after six months on the job.

Ever since the Premier created these patronage posts, there have been questions about how much Ontario families are paying to give the Premier’s friends these lucrative jobs, and whether they’ll actually do any work. The key question is: Why is the Premier refusing to talk about his buddies who he supposedly sent to Dallas and Chicago?

Hon. Doug Ford: Economic development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we’ve talked about our agents general in Dallas and Chicago. They’ve been working through a very thorough and mandatory security process because their offices are located with the federal government in the consul general’s office. This is exactly the process that has been required of all agents general throughout the world.

These agents general are bringing a message all across the United States that Ontario is open for business, open for trade, and that we’ve taken $5 billion out of the cost of doing business in Ontario. This is the message they’re delivering: that we have reduced WSIB premiums by more than $2 billion, that we did not go ahead with the Liberal tax of $308 million. Those things that we have done to reduce the cost of doing business by $5 billion have created 271,600 jobs in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Conspicuous in his silence, the Premier clearly would rather not talk about the jobs that he’s handing to friends, insiders and relatives. In fact, when we checked the June 20 government announcement of their appointments, we learned that the Premier had retroactively edited the news releases to remove all references to the relatives of the lacrosse-playing friends of Dean French who were so unqualified that the Premier had to turf them only days after their appointments.

Speaker, the question is: Why did he have his office quietly change the original news releases?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Our agents general are very hard at work both in market and still here in Ontario while they work through this necessary and very thorough process. They’ll be permanently in market in the very near future, at which time they’re going to continue with the message of being open for business, open for jobs and, indeed, open for trade.

A couple of new things happened yesterday, and bills got passed to give them even more tools that they can talk about. For instance, businesses locating in northern Ontario no longer pay the aviation fuel tax of 6.7 cents. It’s been reduced to 2.7 cents, particularly helping our northern and First Nations communities. The small business tax credit is reduced by 8.7%.

By the way, Speaker, these are all things that the NDP voted against, but that should come as no surprise. They voted against a $90-million payment for providing free dental service to our low-income seniors. Who does that, Speaker?

Hydro One

Mr. Randy Hillier: To the Minister of Energy: During the 2018 election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives and I campaigned on a promise to reduce electricity by 12%. In November, the Ontario Energy Board approved a time-of-use increase for Hydro One. This increase conflicts with and contradicts the mandate given to this government by the people of Ontario. Once again, my office is being contacted by residents and small businesses that are concerned and worried that this increase will affect their standard of living and their bottom line.

Speaker, to the minister: As the largest shareholder of Hydro One networks, why are you allowing Hydro One to act in a manner that both frustrates and obstructs your mandate and makes a mockery of your commitment?

Hon. Greg Rickford: There is no question that we inherited a mess, and the steps that we’ve taken over the past year and a half are a testament to our resolve to reduce costs system-wide, to work more effectively, and to renew the corporate culture of public utilities and publicly traded utilities that Ontario ratepayers and Ontario taxpayers have a significant investment in.

Moving forward, Mr. Speaker, we will have the kinds of partnerships with Hydro One, OPG and our local distribution companies that are focused on reducing costs in the system, so that we can provide relief for ratepayers after more than a decade and a half of building up one of the most complex and expensive systems known the continent over.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Minister of Energy: The government also made a commitment to improve and expand broadband rural Internet services. We all know that the greatest obstacle to this expansion is the uncertain, convoluted, costly and lengthy approval process of attaching fibre optic cables to Hydro One’s poles.

In September, I met with Hydro One executives and provided options for this process and received a commitment to reform their approval process and actually become partners in facilitating rural broadband expansion. But Hydro One’s commitments appear to be empty as well.

For more than a year, Hydro One and the OEB have been frustrating and obstructing the government’s mandate.

Speaker, my question to the minister: When will the minister direct Hydro One to cut their red tape and facilitate broadband expansion in rural Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: It’s not that long ago, Mr. Speaker, that that member was voting for all of the important steps that we’ve taken.

On this particular matter, discussions have taken place with Hydro One. We’re making historic investments in broadband here in this province, across rural and northern Ontario in particular, so that people can have the kind of service that they should expect and that other people in other parts of the province do.

In moving forward, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that those decisions of the past—the Ontario Energy Board is going to be renewed, our governance restructured, so these kinds of decisions that are affecting our ability to move broadband forward will be removed.

Death registration

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

I want to begin by thanking the Babcock family for being here today. I would like to express our government’s deepest sympathies and condolences for your loss. We recognize that what was already a very difficult time in your lives was made more difficult by a lengthy and exhausting legal process.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House about the Babcock family’s courage in raising their issue with our government?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I thank the member from York Centre for this very sensitive and important question. I’d also like to express my heartfelt appreciation to the Babcock family for their advocacy in particular on this very sensitive and important issue.

When a family is grieving, there should never be a situation when government bureaucracy stands in the way. In most cases, to register a death, a certificate is completed by a physician, nurse practitioner or coroner. Sadly, in Laura’s case, this was not possible.

The Babcock family bravely and selflessly raised this issue with our government. That’s why my ministry, along with the Attorney General and the Premier, explored changes to make death registration less burdensome to the victim’s family in cases like the Babcocks’.

We have a duty, all of us in this House, to hear the concerns of Ontarians and get things right. I am pleased to say that the Premier and the MPP from Etobicoke Centre visited with Laura’s family last month and delivered Laura’s death certificate.

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

Mr. Roman Baber: The situation that the Babcock family went through is heartbreaking, and the legal process made it that much more difficult. Can the minister tell us about the steps our government took to ensure that no other family will have to endure a lengthy legal process, so that they are able to put paperwork behind them and focus on family?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I, too, want to extend my deepest gratitude to the Babcock family for raising this issue with our government and for being here with us today.

Earlier this week, we announced changes to the Vital Statistics Act that would amend the death registration process to ease the burden for families faced with registering the death of a loved one in the absence of their remains. Laura’s Law, as we have named it, in honour of Laura Babcock, would provide a simpler method for families to obtain a death certificate in these tragic circumstances. This change will provide tools to the courts to facilitate the registration of death in these cases and ensure that families have the necessary support.

Laura’s Law will ensure that, in the future, the death registration process is less burdensome for families who experience a similar unthinkable tragedy.

I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke Centre for her assistance, and the Premier, of course, and my colleague the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Youth suicide

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Premier. On November 27, Kerri-Lynn Bunting died by suicide in the community of Constance Lake First Nation. She was 13 years old. On November 28, Rydell Mekenak died by suicide in the community of Webequie First Nation. He was 12 years old.

Premier, these young people died, and why? Because they lost hope. They lost hope in us responding to the needs of their communities. I speak about lack of clean drinking water, lack of safe housing in our communities, infrastructure and safe schools. Premier, I ask you, what are you prepared to do to give hope to these young people?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the honourable member for his question with respect to the unfortunate passing of these two young people.

The Indigenous Healing and Wellness Strategy unit has advanced a significant resource for NAN to improve their capacity to respond to these particular situations, Mr. Speaker. We’ll continue to mobilize resources and support Nishnawbe Aski Nation in their request to help in these particular matters.

While our thoughts and prayers are with this community, I can assure the honourable member that, moving forward, we will continue—redouble our efforts—to ensure that young people in these Indigenous communities have hope, have an opportunity to think about economic prosperity, for corridors that will open their communities to new jobs and the economic, social and health benefits that come with these kinds of significant investments in their communities and to their communities.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: We need more than thoughts and prayers from this place. The issue of youth suicide in our communities is a long-term problem. Colonization and its ongoing effects contribute to the crisis of youth suicide. The continued neglect by colonial governments such as this place means young people fall through the cracks, like Rydell, Kerri-Lynn, and Devon Freeman, who died by suicide while in the child welfare system but was not found for seven months. The crisis of First Nations youth suicide and the approaches used to address it are not sufficient and do not reflect their unique needs.

Premier, there needs to be dedicated resources and a specialized strategy to address suicide among First Nations youth. Will Ontario make this commitment today?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Again, I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to assure him that much of that work is under way. We have benchmarks for success in terms of reducing the frequency in communities by having hub services, wraparound services, for teens in crisis, in the school facility in their community.

For example, I’m thinking of Pikangikum, where we’ve made significant progress coordinating across different ministries to ensure that we are present in those communities, offering services and programs that can help to prevent, and treat teenagers, in particular, who are experiencing some form of crisis.

Moving forward, we need to talk more seriously about the economic opportunities of these communities, opening up these communities so that people have a chance for a good job and the hope of the kind of economic prosperity that most communities in other parts of the province have a good shot at.

Job creation

Mr. David Piccini: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Minister, earlier this week, you rose in the House to talk about Ontario’s growth in job numbers in the month of November. In fact, since June 2018, 271,600 new jobs have been created in the province of Ontario, due in part to the swift action our government has taken to restore Ontario’s competitiveness and ensure that this province is open for business and open for jobs.

We know that in a highly competitive global environment, unlocking the economic potential of trade will be critical to Ontario’s success. Growing trade and foreign direct investment will help create jobs and economic prosperity for all Ontarians.

Can the minister provide the House with an update on what actions our government is taking to restore Ontario’s competitiveness and reduce the cost of doing business in this great province?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Speaker, and to the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Our government is absolutely committed to creating and protecting good jobs for the people of Ontario. As I said earlier, we have taken $5 billion out of the cost of doing business. We were told a couple of years ago that the former government made Ontario the most expensive jurisdiction in all of North America in which to do business. The Premier made a commitment right away to reduce the cost of doing business.

We reduced the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board premiums first by 30% last year, and by 17% this year. That’s $2.2 billion that will be reduced. We have introduced a corporate income tax cut of $3.8 billion through the Ontario Job Creation Investment Incentive. We did not proceed with the previous government’s tax of $308 million, and we’re going to be reducing the cost of red tape by $400 million.

That’s how you create 271,600 jobs.

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

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you, Minister. It’s great to hear that our plan to restore Ontario’s competitiveness is working, and job creators are once again looking to Ontario to invest and grow their business.

My question is back to the minister. Regional economic development is important in growing local economies and strengthening the small business community. It’s critical to rural communities like mine that were ignored by the previous government. As a member in a northern riding, I’m sure you no doubt have heard the same concerns from constituents of yours.

Minister, could you please explain how our government is taking action to support regional economic development in the north and in other rural communities like mine?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We know that in rural and northern Ontario, there are unique challenges, and that’s why we’ve come up with unique solutions as well. The small business tax credit will reduce the cost of doing business in Ontario. That’s a reduction of 8.7%. The northern Ontario aviation tax credit reduces the cost of aviation fuel in the north from 6.7 cents to 2.7 cents. Those are big numbers, Speaker, when you add them all up.

When I think of the red tape reductions, I think of Debbie, who cuts my hair every second Friday back in North Bay. There are red tape reductions for Debbie’s shop. When I think of our red tape reduction bill, I think of Kayvan Rouhani, who owns Happy Jack’s dry cleaners. There are provisions in this to help Happy Jack’s reduce costs.

Speaker, there are reductions in red tape costs for truckers, and mining and forestry companies—all of which, by the way, the NDP voted against. They voted against the small business tax credit. They voted against the northern Ontario aviation fuel tax credit. They voted against all of those savings for our small businesses.

Anti-racism activities

Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d like to thank our member from Kiiwetinoong for his question and concerns regarding youth suicide in his community.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Community members in Peel are worried that this government just doesn’t understand what’s necessary to address anti-Black racism in our schools. They have criticized the minister for not hiring Black reviewers, because they know you need to have people with the expertise and lived experience at the table. Now we’re hearing that the two people hired to do outreach for the review are not Black either. According to the Toronto Star, community leaders and experts in anti-Black racism are “aghast at the reviewing team’s wholly inadequate outreach efforts.”

My question to the minister is, can he explain why he thinks it’s unnecessary to have Black staff conduct the much-needed outreach into Black communities for this review of anti-Black racism?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I reached out to each of the members opposite from Peel region, as well as members of our government, in the days leading up to my decision to appoint reviewers. We moved very quickly, perhaps with the quickest decision points made in the context of sending in reviewers to a board that had made some requests—both complaints from parents and families. Any form of discrimination and prejudice is unacceptable in our schools. It’s why we moved quickly.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, Patrick Case, the assistant deputy minister in the supporting student potential secretariat from my ministry, is the lead of this review. Mr. Case is not only a leader within the Black community, a human rights lawyer and a person of impeccable integrity, but someone who is involved in every single review. This individual brings his own lived experience as someone who fights strongly for equity and equality within our schools. We have confidence in him to lead the process, to ensure we actually come forth with recommendations that can change the culture within the schools of Peel.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question? Member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Speaker, may I just say that Patrick Case is a phenomenal leader. He is a community leader in the Black community, but he is not an independent reviewer. You’re not listening to the community.

In order for a review of anti-Black racism in our schools to have any credibility—the question goes to the Minister of Education—the minister needs to get the fundamentals right. Black reviewers need to be at the table. Black community outreach staff need to be in place to connect with said Black community. The review needs to be accessible to students and parents who have experienced anti-Black racism. They need to know where to sign up. Black community members shouldn’t be confused about where to sign up, Speaker. All communication must be transparent. It is currently opaque, especially with these rushed timelines.

Speaker, how are we supposed to trust that the Minister of Education’s review will accurately reflect what Black students, parents and staff have been experiencing at the Peel District School Board when he cannot get these basic, fundamental components right?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Obviously, it is the aim of the government to ensure inclusivity and respect for every student in Ontario. In Peel region, when the allegations from students and parents, administrators, the chair and vice-chair and trustees, among others, emerged to my desk, we took immediate action to call in reviewers. One of the reviewers is involved in the York Region District School Board on another issue of anti-Black racism.

The point is, I have asked my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Patrick Case—who will be a reviewer, who will be present in those meetings, in every single one of them without exception—to ensure that there is lived experience at the table and to ensure that he, who is leading this process in conjunction with the other two reviewers, delivers results and recommendations that fundamentally transform the culture of governance and decision-making in Peel, so that we can ensure that there’s no child who feels so isolated and discriminated against again.

Mental health and addiction services

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question this morning is to the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Mr. Speaker, we’re all looking forward to what our government’s next steps will be to address the long-standing gaps that have prevented so many Ontarians from receiving the necessary services and supports they require to overcome their mental health and addiction challenges. I know that the minister is working every day, alongside the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health, so that Ontarians can be fully supported on their journey toward mental wellness.

Could the minister please provide an update to the members of this Legislature on what Ontarians can expect to see when our mental health and addictions strategy has been established?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to thank the member from Thornhill for that excellent question. As the member stated, our government is working tirelessly to ensure that we create a connected and integrated mental health and addictions system that works for all Ontarians, no matter where in the province they reside. Whether someone is living in remote communities in northern Ontario or one of the Indigenous communities, or is one of our brave first responders, we will ensure that all Ontarians will be able to get the help they require when and where they need it.

Our strategy will ensure that Ontarians, across their entire lifespan, will be able to find the help they need for their unique challenges.

We realize there is no one-size-fits-all solution to mental health and addictions in the province. That’s why we are working collaboratively across government to ensure we get this right.

I look forward to continuing to work alongside my colleagues from partner ministries to ensure that nobody in Ontario is left behind.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to thank the minister for his response. I’m proud to see that our government is making mental health and addictions a priority.

We all share the responsibility to ensure that Ontarians receive the services and supports they require to overcome their mental health and addictions challenges. Previous governments failed to address the numerous gaps in our mental health and addictions system, so it’s reassuring to hear that we are creating a strategy that will allow people across the province, no matter where they live, to locate and receive the services and supports for their unique mental health and addictions needs.

Mr. Speaker, we must all work together to create a connected and integrated mental health and addictions system. Could the minister please inform the members of this Legislature what our government’s next steps will be to address mental health and addictions in Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I thank the member again for that important question.

First and foremost, I cannot stress enough the importance of Bill 116. Bill 116, if passed, would see the creation of a dedicated Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence. If passed, Bill 116 would also enable the implementation of our mental health and addictions strategy.

Bill 116 also proposes to give us the tools we require to hold opioid manufacturers and wholesalers accountable for their role in the ongoing opioid crisis. It would also help us recover health care costs paid by the province due to opioid-related disease, injury or illness. Should Bill 116 pass, our government intends to invest any award from litigation against the manufacturers and wholesalers of opioids directly into front-line mental health and addictions services.

For too long, previous governments failed to take meaningful action to address mental health and addictions in Ontario. We’re committed to doing something about it.

Public health

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. On January 1, this government’s cuts to public health will come into effect. Despite the Premier hiring an adviser with a six-figure salary to hold consultations on the future of public health in Ontario, can the Premier tell us why the government is still going ahead with cuts to public health, even as they hold consultations on the future of public health?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is going to be responded to by the Minister of Health, the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. In fact, we are undertaking a full consultation on both public health and emergency medicine with Mr. Jim Pine, who is travelling to communities across Ontario to understand what their needs are, recognizing that there are different geographic needs in different parts of the province, of course.

We have spoken with a number of public health units. They are very pleased with the way things are moving forward. They understand, particularly in the case of the Ottawa Public Health officer, that they’re able to make those changes that we have suggested without any impact on front-line care, that no patient will not be receiving assistance. They will still be able to do their work in public health and do so under the different circumstances coming forward next year.

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

M me France Gélinas: When will this government learn that the cut-first-consult-later approach is not working? It didn’t work in long-term care, it didn’t work in education, it didn’t work for children with autism and it is not working for public health and the municipalities that are trying to deliver these critical services.

In fact, because of the Conservative government’s cuts to public health, municipalities are now facing really tough decisions. Last week, Chatham-Kent municipal council said that the Premier’s cuts to public health and other municipal services will cost them $2.3 million, forcing them to consider raising property taxes. And yesterday, Barrie’s city council approved increased property taxes because of the provincial cuts.

Why is the Premier downloading their irresponsible public health cuts to municipalities?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really important to note that there are no cuts to public health. We are modernizing our public health services, which has been recommended for several years by the Auditor General of Ontario, who has recognized that there is often an overlap in services, there is not great coordination of services among public health units and there are situations where it’s very difficult to find a public health officer. So what we’re doing is modernizing the system, with the assistance of Mr. Pine.

As you’ve raised in example, Ottawa Public Health was able to find efficiencies in next year’s budget by eliminating vacant positions and reducing advertising expenses and internal administration.

What we need to focus on is: What are the particular issues in public health in each geographic area of Ontario? That is what we’re focusing on.

We recognize that the provincial government also has a role to play. That is why we brought forward the dental program for low-income seniors, a $90-million-a-year program that’s going to benefit low-income seniors across the province—

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

The next question.

Nuclear energy

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Recently, our Premier signed a memorandum of understanding with Premier Higgs and Premier Moe to work together on developing small modular reactor technology right here in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the environmental and economic benefits that developing nuclear technology brings to Ontario. In addition, the nuclear power industry is responsible for creating 60,000 direct and indirect jobs in this province. Thousands of these jobs are in full-time positions in the Oakville corridor.

Will the minister please tell us why it is so important that we continue to support the nuclear power industry in Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the all-star member from Oakville, who’s absolutely right. His constituency is the epicentre of small modular reactor technology.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunities are limitless. The on-grid power generation potential market value exceeds $100 billion a year and, importantly, would replace fossil fuel plants in our system here in Ontario. Off-grid, it’s more than $30 billion of potential market value, with applications across northern communities and isolated and remote mining and forestry opportunities.

Then, of course, there’s the export potential. This is the key: Ontario has chosen, under this Premier, to lead small modular reactor technology. By moving ahead with the memorandum of understanding with our provincial partners, we’re certain we have the potential to exceed more than $150 billion in export market potential with made-in-Ontario small modular—

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My supplementary question is to the Associate Minister of Energy.

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that nuclear energy is an important part of Ontario’s economy and energy supply mix. Investing in small modular reactor technology is a critical next step to becoming an international leader in non-emitting power for off-grid communities. Furthermore, SMRs are a promising potential source of safe and reliable power for our entire country, and will help us achieve Canada’s climate targets.

Will the minister please tell us more about the potential of SMRs and the multitude of ways in which they can be used?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Associate Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bill Walker: I’d like to thank the honourable and hard-working member from Oakville for his question. I’m happy to shed some light on just how important the nuclear industry is for the people of Ontario.

The nuclear industry has become a strategic asset for Canada at home and on the international stage. In my area alone, Bruce Power’s eight units provide over 4,000 full-time, high-paying jobs to highly skilled women and men. The important work that these hard-working Ontarians do day in and day out adds billions of dollars into Ontario’s economy annually. All the while, Bruce Power produces safe and reliable energy for our province that produces zero carbon emissions and life-saving isotopes.

Now there’s an opportunity for small modular reactors. This is why our government continues to stand up for our nuclear industry as they continue to innovate and lead on the world stage.

Highway tolls

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, there’s big news in Durham region. Highway 418 is finished, and folks will be able to connect from the 401 to the 407 and 115. It will, like the 412, be a toll road.

Back in the day when PC candidates were campaigning in the election, they promised to make taking the tolls off the 412 and 418 their first order of business if elected. Well, Speaker, spoiler alert: They became the government and the tolls are still there.

Will the Premier commit, as the Durham candidates did on the campaign trail when they needed the votes, to removing the tolls from the 412 and the 418?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, our government campaigned on a promise to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario and for the people of Durham region. The MPPs from the Durham region—or as we call them in our caucus, the Durham four, which includes the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, the chief government whip and the member for Durham—have been advocating very much to ensure that we are taking steps to make sure that residents of Durham have the opportunity to be heard on the issue of tolls.

That is why our government is undertaking a study to assess the economic impact of tolls in the region of Durham and on motorists’ behaviour in the area. We look forward to receiving the outcome of this study, and it will inform our next steps on this matter.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Back to the Premier: Since the election, students, commuters, boards of trade, community groups, chambers of commerce, municipalities and I have all made the case for the removal of tolls from the 412 and 418. Now the government wants us to applaud a shiny new study to see there if there’s a case for the removal of the tolls from the 412 and the 418.

I don’t think this government has any intention of removing the tolls or doing right by the folks in Durham. I think this is about kicking the can down that wide open, underutilized road, once again backpedalling on commitments made to the folks across Durham region.

When I got elected, I tabled Bill 43 to do what I promised: to remove the tolls from the 412 and 418. Now the 418 is opened, and just as the Liberals promised and just as the Liberals planned, it will unfairly cost the folks of Durham.

Durham region deserves transportation and transit that will keep up with our growth and potential. Will you commit to removing the tolls from the 412 and the 418, yes or no?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Once again, the members from the Durham region are excellent advocates for their constituents on this issue as well as others, and I want the people of Durham to know that I am listening to the MPPs from the Durham region.

Toll increases were cemented into the Liberal plan to build these highways, and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the Minister of Transportation for interrupting. The House must come to order so I can hear the Minister of Transportation respond to the question.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Toll increases were cemented into the Liberal plan to build these highways, and they were part of their plan to toll them for the