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

October 4, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-04 (PDF)

L033 - Thu 4 Oct 2018 / Jeu 4 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 October 2018 Jeudi 4 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le cannabis

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

Members’ code of conduct on harassment

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

International trade

Employment standards

International trade

Hospital funding

Firearms control

International trade

Hospital funding

International trade

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

International trade

Gasoline prices

International trade

Affordable housing

Taxation

Visitor

Private members’ public business

Legislative pages

Deferred Votes

Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le cannabis

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Christine Hayes

Community safety

Mohawk College

Mental health services

Injured workers

Gun violence

Ron Moeser

Community safety

Japanese-Canadian relations

Autism

Motions

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

World Teachers’ Day

Petitions

Employment standards

Firearms control

Animal protection

Employment standards

Employment standards

Northern health services

Employment standards

Employment standards

Employment standards

Private Members’ Public Business

Health cards / Cartes Santé

Rea and Walter Act (Truss and Lightweight Construction Identification), 2018 / Loi Rea et Walter de 2018 sur l’identification des composants structuraux à ossature légère

Fighting Back Against Handguns Act (Handgun Ammunition Sales), 2018 / Loi de 2018 ripostant aux armes de poing (ventes de munitions pour armes de poing)

Health cards

Rea and Walter Act (Truss and Lightweight Construction Identification), 2018 / Loi Rea et Walter de 2018 sur l’identification des composants structuraux à ossature légère

Fighting Back Against Handguns Act (Handgun Ammunition Sales), 2018 / Loi de 2018 ripostant aux armes de poing (ventes de munitions pour armes de poing)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le cannabis

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 2, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

An Act to enact a new Act and make amendments to various other Acts respecting the use and sale of cannabis and vapour products in Ontario / Projet de loi 36, Loi édictant une nouvelle loi et modifiant diverses autres lois en ce qui concerne l’utilisation et la vente de cannabis et de produits de vapotage en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 3, 2018, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Mulroney has moved second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to enact a new Act and make amendments to various other Acts respecting the use and sale of cannabis and vapour products in Ontario.

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

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 32, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m very pleased to be able to continue my remarks from yesterday. I was glad to have about a 45-minute head start, I guess, to lead into today’s comments on Bill 32, which is the Access to Natural Gas Act. I’m going to remind folks of a few of the pieces that I brought up yesterday. Hopefully, I can encourage and inspire the government to answer some of the important questions that we have on this bill.

This is a bill that will expand access to natural gas. That is what it purports to do. That is the framework-enabling legislation that we have here. But it’s a framework long overdue. We have needed access to affordable energy across this province, especially in our rural regions, especially in our northern communities, especially in our Indigenous communities, but as we see in this bill, we’re left to assume that that is indeed the goal.

They say lots of things about assuming. I would feel better about it if, in this actual bill, it were in black and white, if it was actually in writing in this bill that the priority was expansion for our rural communities, our remote communities, our northern communities and our Indigenous communities. Hopefully this government can make that change, make that amendment in the committee time.

I’m going to go back. I’m not going to reread the letters that I’ve already put on the record from farmers, from communities, from families who through the years have tried to be a part of the natural gas world. That frame-work—it has been prohibitively expensive for them to get into that; and then, unfortunately, because they can’t buy in and they couldn’t afford the cost to have the natural gas, to tap into the existing lines, they’re left paying the higher cost of energy ongoing.

This is supposed to change all of that, but we have some concerns, not just because we’re the opposition, but because we’re looking at a landscape here of giving potentially unfettered access, to natural gas companies, to ratepayers’ pockets.

As I said yesterday—I mentioned it a couple of times—the government has sold this particular program as a no-cost solution, as a cost savings, because they have axed a $100-million grant that had been promised by the Liberal government. There were projects that were already being arranged as part of that $100-million grant, and this government said, “No, no, that’s taxpayer money. We are going to save the taxpayer. We are going to get rid of this $100-million government investment. We don’t want any skin in this game.

Instead, we are going to say that all of these projects and more projects, and then more on top of that”—which is okay, as long as there is a benefit and they’re necessary projects and there’s OEB scrutiny on those proposals, on those projects.

There is going to be a significant cost to put those lines in. There is going to be a significant cost, but this government says, “Not for the taxpayer. Don’t worry, folks. We’re saving you money. There’s no cost to the tax-payer.” But the cost, as is laid out in this legislation, is going to be shifted. There is going to be the subsidy for the new consumers, and then it’s going to be shifted to other consumers, yet to be determined in regulation by cabinet. Cross your fingers. That shifted cost responsibility will go onto, we assume, the ratepayer base, onto the existing ratepayers.

So we’re not calling them taxpayers, because that’s what this government has said: They’re not tax-payers. But they are ratepayers.

I’m going to tell you something, Speaker: It’s the same person.

I’m going to explain a little bit about the Ontario Energy Board, the OEB. They have a duty to respect the consumer. Yesterday, I briefly mentioned the core principles. They have to determine whether it’s worth it. They have to look at benefits, they have to look at the potential and they have to make sure that a project that comes to them—an energy project—is worthwhile, and they have measure-ments.

Something about natural gas that I’ve learned in preparing for this hour lead: Natural gas companies aren’t actually allowed to make money off of the commodity. They can’t make money off of natural gas. They make money off of building and managing pipes—and I understand they need to make money; this is a business. But as I hear over and over from farmers and families and businesses, they also provide access to growth and lower costs. Farmers, our agricultural communities, our industries, our families—they need that. They need lower-cost energy. They also need broadband; I’m just asking while everybody is here.

Hopefully we’ll get to that and we’ll have a really fulsome debate about broadband another day.

The OEB is the independent regulator. They scrutinize and regulate. I’m sure that natural gas companies would love to build pipes to everyone, to everywhere and increase the use of natural gas, but that doesn’t make economic sense. These projects need to make sense, be in the best interests of our communities and the best interests of our businesses and our families.

So back to the core principles for the OEB: You can’t charge different amounts to different classes. I’ll come back to that. The other one is: You can’t expand if it doesn’t benefit existing consumers. That has been a measure for new projects: Is everybody benefitting equally? No? It’s not going to go ahead. I’m oversimplifying, but this is the gist of it—and that everyone has to pay the same, because it’s not fair if someone has to pay more. Well, I think we all recognize that in some of our rural and northern and remote communities, it is going to cost more.

If they need it and they are demanding it and they are asking for it, and have been for years and years and years, and they’re willing to pay more and there’s a way to work with them, then by all means I don’t think we should hamper their growth, their development.

So that’s why in 2016 the Liberals had decided that rule number one isn’t fair. As I said, if a community or a family is willing to pay the difference, to pay more to have it, then case by case we should be able to override this principle. Okay. The bill we have here, Bill 32, overturns the OEB rules that were based on the principle that people who benefit from natural gas investments should be the ones who pay for them. This is shifting the cost to the existing ratepayer base, so that overrides rule number two.

I’m not even arguing that that’s a problem, but I’m saying that when we’re getting into territory here that is overriding the OEB and we have a bill that doesn’t explicitly state and reassure us as to what the OEB’s role is going to be with all of these new projects, we have concern. We want to know that the OEB will be able to scrutinize these decisions; that projects that are proposed and that hopefully are able to go forward do indeed meet some cost-benefit threshold. I don’t want to leave that up to cabinet, no offence; I want to leave that up to an independent body to make the decision.

Currently we have limits, and we want assurances that we still will, because despite the fact we’ve heard this is a no-cost solution, there is a cost. As the minister had said the other day, with the $100-million grant that they have cut, that $100 million was only going to cover, as he said, 12 projects. I don’t know; I don’t know what those projects are. I’m using his numbers. So as I’ll ask again: If $100 million gets you 12 projects and this government has been talking about 80 projects on the horizon, that quick math looks like about $700 million right out of the gate that we have on the table here.

What will that look like? How quickly will that happen? Are we talking about those numbers? Are they legit? During questions and comments, I would love to have clarity on what that cost will be; and borne by whom? It says “a class of consumers.” I can assume it’s the entire natural gas ratepayer base of Ontario. Those costs spread over the entire province—I don’t know what that will look like on a bill; maybe significant, maybe not, arguably not. I don’t know. But are we talking about this over the next couple of years, the next 10, the next 20? We don’t know, and we want protections for Ontarians.

So again it’s not clear whether the OEB will still have authority to review and approve natural gas expansion proposals. We want to know that. We want to strengthen rural energy infrastructure, but this bill cuts $100 million to the natural gas expansion grant—just gone. The govern-ment is not putting any money in. So they’re saying—what? What does that mean? To me, they’re saying: “We’re washing our hands of this. We’re just going to leave it up to the private sector and cross our fingers that it goes well.”

Speaker, perhaps you remember that was a great Liberal idea when it came to Hydro One, when it came to energy: Let them look after it. We’re still feeling that. So I caution the government. Do you want to take all of your responsibility out of this conversation? I don’t think so, because if this doesn’t go well, you’ll wear it regardless.

But there are other pieces that I didn’t have a chance to talk about yesterday. You might remember that Green-peace recently sued this government for failing to post Bill 4, which was the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, to the Environmental Registry. Okay, why am I mentioning that? Well, maybe they can clarify, because when I prepared these remarks last week, when I thought I’d be doing the lead, at that point this government hadn’t posted this bill to the Environmental Registry as required by law. So if that has since been done, since last week, please let me know.

But otherwise, why are we going down the same path? We do have environmental responsibilities, and laying pipe across the province falls under this.

Again, something that I have—I’d say I’ve belaboured this point, but I’m hoping that by the hundredth time I say it, one of them will hear it. There is no mention of the words “rural” or “northern,” so what is the goal? If the goal is to subsidize suburban sprawl for the benefit of developers having that discounted natural gas installation that’s funded by the ratepayer, then let’s have that conversation. We’re all for responsible development, but I don’t know that this is the way to approach that.

If this is indeed like we’re hearing in debate, for the folks who have been asking for it, for rural, remote, northern and Indigenous communities, great. Put that in the bill, please. I’d like to know who the actual beneficiaries of Bill 32 are. As I said, this can’t be a “maybe” for northern and rural.

Another assurance while we’re talking about those communities—which is nice, because often we don’t—some northern industries and municipalities have sought assurances that the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program will continue. That’s $120 million a year in funding. It was reaffirmed in the 2018-19 budget. There is always a fear it will be cut. This would be a great opportunity for government members to stand up and say: “Don’t worry, Jen. You can reassure all of those industries and municipalities that it’s still a go.” So, food for thought.

Anyway, one other thing: In the spirit of working together, I had requested a briefing on this particular bill. I haven’t had it yet, and maybe I won’t, but anyway I figured it out myself. The one thing the government did give me was a handy consolidation of acts, the Ontario Energy Board Act. This is just a fun fact as I was flipping through here—and I can’t show you because that would make it a prop—but this is where this amendment will fit in here. What we’re debating fits neatly in here. But when you flip through the act, you find grey areas—like, actually coloured grey. I’m being literal here.

These are sections of the bill that we have already debated in this House, that have passed but haven’t actually been proclaimed yet. There’s a whack of them.

The government might want to take a look at this: When it comes to stopping the distribution of gas, recovery of amounts, exceptions and there are some protections in here for natural gas consumers in the event of—well, reading into it—winter disconnections, for example; so protections for consumers that are in law but haven’t been proclaimed yet. So while you’re at it, while you’re digging in here—putting in these amendments and we’re talking about a committee—seeing as how you’re the new government, maybe go back and proclaim some of these protections just for fun and while we’re here.

The takeaway, in my last minute and a half: The government is cutting a $100-million investment, a $100-million grant. They have no skin in the game, and they’re putting all of this on private industry. Saying that, “No longer the taxpayer is on the hook for this, but the ratepayer is,” and pretending that those are different people—come on. An Ontarian is an Ontarian, and the costs will be borne by them.

So let’s do this responsibly and reassure folks that this will be something that does, ultimately, lead to the goal that you’re talking about—and it’s not in writing—that is, to have affordable energy access to our rural, remote, northern and Indigenous communities. That needs to be the priority. Please put it in writing. The potentially unfettered access to ratepayer pockets—we want to know and we want to hear from this government that the OEB will be involved and what that will look like. Can they scrutinize it? What is their place in this? Because it can’t just all be up to cabinet. Like I said, “I like you—but.” Okay? We need independent oversight on this.

We really want the government to prioritize the needs of our ag sector, of our rural communities and our northern neighbours. Prove it. Use the words. Type them; they’re not too long. Put them in the bill. We’ve seen an unpredictable and unstable way of doing business with the cancelling of contracts. We want to know that this is the right way forward, so we’re asking this government to prove that to us.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member from Oshawa for her speech. I just want to share what I am hearing and what I have been hearing in my riding. I represent the great riding of Milton, and it’s, obviously, an honour and a privilege each and every single day. It allows me to be in this House and represent the members of my community.

We have a significant portion of my riding that is rural, communities, like Campbellville, Moffatt—you name it—Brookville, Lowville, Kilbride, Nassagaweya. I run into my constituents all the time, especially lots and lots of them during the election, because this is an issue that concerns most rural residents, who are basically paying through their nose when it comes to having to heat their home and, in some cases, having to choose whether they are going to put food on their table or whether they’re going to heat their home and whatnot. These are people that are dependent on natural gas to heat their homes, or on electricity, oil and other means where they don’t have access to natural gas.

This would really help families. I can tell you, in my riding of Milton, this is an initiative that is received really, really well. I am hearing lots of positive feedback on what kind of relief it will help bring for families that are suffering, making ends meet, especially seniors in my riding.

Under the previous Liberal government, the private sector was restricted in terms of how they could play a role in eliminating this need—to bring natural gas to rural communities. This will help my communities in a big way.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Burch: I just want to thank my friend from Oshawa for a very thoughtful one-hour presentation. I admire anyone that can get up and speak for an hour on any subject—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Oh, I can speak for an hour—

Mr. Jeff Burch: She can speak for an hour.

As she pointed out, this is another example of this government bumbling along with policy, not really tying up loose ends and not really sure where they are going. Whether this side of the House decides to support this bill or not, there are obvious problems with it because of the bumbling nature of the way the government approaches legislation.

For example, as of last week, Bill 32 was not posted to the Environmental Registry as is required by law. We all know that Greenpeace sued the government for failing to abide by this law when Bill 4 was not posted. Time and time again, it’s evident that this government doesn’t have an environmental plan—I’ve raised this issue many times—and they don’t tie up loose ends when they present legislation. It’s very unfortunate.

Life is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and we want to rectify that. However, this bill, combined with the $100-million cut to the natural gas expansion grant, could be sending the natural gas sector down a similar road as the hydro scandal, and the indirect costs of this bill could be very large. Capital decisions have to be authentically in the interests of consumers, not politics or big business.

On this side of the House, we know what happens when Conservatives take government. We have the federal debt—72% of it was accumulated by Conservative governments. What they do is they get in, the deficit balloons out of control, their friends make a bundle and workers suffer. That’s our concern, Madam Speaker, with the way the government is approaching this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Billy Pang: I appreciate the member from the opposition—that we agree that living in Ontario is more challenging and more unaffordable. However, we have different approaches.

We are going to implement a proposed program that the legislation, if passed, allows more consumers access to affordable natural gas. I just got some bills from my wife that she sent to me. I can see that the bill of the natural gas is rocketing up.

We understand that for average residents, consumers, in Ontario, if they use electric for the heating, it will be way more expensive. So we are supporting them by proposing more natural gas support that results in savings between $800 and $2,500 per year. By removing the cost of the cap-and-trade carbon tax from the natural gas, we believe that residents in Ontario can live a way more affordable life. Therefore, we proposed this bill. We want to put money back into Ontarians’ pockets.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: I also want to congratulate the member for Oshawa for her presentation and the points she brought forward and how eloquently she did it.

One of the ones she hammered again and again and talked about was “no cost to taxpayers.” That’s fun to say, that taxpayers won’t pay, but at the end of the day someone has to pay. It doesn’t matter if you call them a taxpayer or a ratepayer; someone is paying at the end of the day. Rate-payers are taxpayers. You can play with vocabulary, but there isn’t a very big difference.

The other part of it is, as somebody who currently has natural gas in my house as well as other utilities, I don’t want to subsidize the expansion of a private company. I don’t think that’s fair to me to have my bills go up so I can pay for the expansion. I think the cost should be borne by the company and incentives through the government, but not specifically just because I’m already a customer. It would be like if I rented a unit and my landlord decided he would like to build a unit next door to me and my rate doubled so that I could pay for his infrastructure. That doesn’t make sense to me.

The member from Milton talked about the heightened cost of electricity. It’s going to skyrocket again once the artificial lowering of rates goes down. I agree with that.

If you go back in time, in Sudbury we had a lot of people heating by oil. It was costly, dirty and expensive. Then, electricity was the saviour. In the 1970s, all of these houses were built with electric baseboard heaters. In fact, my first house had electric baseboard heaters and one natural gas fireplace in the corner. We almost never turned on the baseboard heaters because it was so expensive. This was before it ballooned up. That’s something that we have to look at as well when we’re looking at rural communities or remote communities.

It’s important that the bill, even though it includes it in the title, should specify that this isn’t, as the core city of Sudbury expands, to bring natural gas to neighbourhoods that are nearby, but to bring it to the neighbourhoods that are outside, in Greater Sudbury and beyond, that don’t have any immediate access at all. As it expands, we have to keep in mind: Do we have these rural communities on gas as their only choice, and then that rate climbs as well, and what alternatives do they have?

It’s about giving people choice—and not just a choice, but many choices. And I agree: They need choice and they need access, because the price of electricity is very high. But we have to make sure that it’s a fair choice and one that’s going to be economical.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Back to the member for Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you very much. I appreciate the comments from the members from Milton, Niagara Centre, Markham–Unionville and Sudbury.

As the member from Milton reminds us, we hear constituent concerns on a regular basis. We do want to help families. So I want to ensure, as I said, that that is the goal of this because, as the member from Sudbury just mentioned, how does he as a ratepayer or how do rate-payers feel about the expansion of the company? If it’s expansion just for the sake of expansion versus expansion for access for our rural and northern—I’m willing to pay a bit more on my bill to make sure that our northern and our agricultural communities have access to lower-cost energy, but I also want to know that my government will invest.

I want to know that the government cares enough to put money into this, that they’re not just going to throw up their hands and say: “Do it on your own. Go ahead. Have at them.”

So the comments from the member from Niagara Centre about how this is presented, with lots of questions and loose ends, getting to be par for the course—which is annoying, because when the bill comes into force, then we do have to do the cleanup afterwards. It’s always a good idea to put the work in on this side of it. But as he said, we want assurances—we Ontarians want assurances—that this will be done authentically in the interest of consumers. So reassure us, folks. That would be great.

The member from Markham–Unionville talked about his bill going up. I’ve been seeing bills as well, but when his natural gas bill is already going up—and we’re going to spread natural gas far and wide and we’re going to use up all of these supplies that we’ve got from fracking in the US—well, then, are we going to find ourselves back in the 1970s with the electricity conversation, but now natural gas? So great point. And money back into Ontarians’ pockets—yes. But don’t just take from one to put in the other. It’s one set of pockets, ratepayer or taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further de-bate?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I rise this morning to do my inaugural address. Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be here today and to congratulate you, on behalf of the residents of St. Catharines, on your appointment as Speaker of this House. I offer my personal congratulations as well, and I look forward to working with you in the next four years.

Any speech that I have ever done, whether it be professional or personal, cannot begin without mentioning any and all of my family. I would like to thank my very supportive husband, Jim—Jim has been my silent partner throughout my whole political experience; my son, Jonathan; my daughter, Sharlotte; and their partners, Sarah and Mark. I would be remiss not to mention my two beautiful granddaughters, Josephine and Hazel Mae; my sister, Jackie; Bryan; and of course, my mother, Pat; and my late father, Fred.

Whether it has been my municipal or provincial campaigns, my family and friends—and by the way, some of the best friends a girl could ever ask for: Shelley, Peggy, Dana, Lisa and Sharon—have always been by my side, ready to knock on doors, put up signs and do whatever they could do. I would like to thank them all from the bottom of my heart.

My family is a proud military family. Both my grandfathers served in the air force. In fact, my mother and father met on an air force base in 1960, in Edmonton, Alberta. They’re known as what you call “army brats.” It was shortly after then that my father served in the Canadian navy. My cousin Joanne serves in the air force. Her husband, Denis Doucette, is a warrant officer for the Canadian military. But most of all, my proud

part in my life is my son, Jonathan. Jonathan serves in the Canadian navy.

You could say we have it all covered in Ontario and across Canada. We have the land, the air and the sea. Because of my family ties to the military, I was honoured to be named the opposition critic for veterans, legions and military affairs. Being raised by a veteran and raising one myself has instilled in me deep appreciation for the risks our men and women in the Canadian services put them-selves in every day.

It was always with mixed emotions that I would say, “Fair winds and calm seas” to my son, Jonathan, when he would leave for a tour of duty. Jonathan has served our country, Canada, in three tours of duty. ALTAIR was a counter-terrorism mission, SAIPH was a counter-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden, and Active Endeavour was about showing forces in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean during the war on terror.

The pride I felt knowing that my son was following in his grandfather’s footsteps, ready to risk everything to service this—yours—great country of ours; but also the worry, the wondering whether or not my son, Jonathan, would come home to the arms of his family. We were fortunate: Our son, Jonathan, came home, but many of his friends and comrades were not so lucky.

I would like to let you know about a young man named Dennis Brown. Dennis grew up in the riding of St. Catharines. He was a very, very good friend of mine. He perished in the line of duty on March 3, 2009. Dennis en-listed in 1988 with the Lincoln and Welland Regiment in St. Catharines and served as a warrant officer in the Canadian Armed Forces.

When I think of the sacrifices of men like Dennis, my heart aches for the loved ones, for his three young boys who been left behind: Mac, Owen and Ben. There is no question we must put our veterans and their families first in our minds and in our hearts every day. Those who have sacrificed everything for this country deserve the same from it. The least we can do as elected representatives is to do everything in our power to give our veterans and their families everything they need.

My first political endeavor was when I ran for St. Catharines city council back in 1997. It was my mother and my late father who played a role in inspiring me to run municipally. My mother herself had served as a school board trustee. She was the chairman of the Lincoln County School Board. And 43 years before I was elected to this position, my father, Fred, ran provincially for the NDP in 1975 in the riding of St. Catharines–Brock. He went on to serve on St. Catharines city council from 1981 to 1985.

I know that he cannot be here today to listen to my inaugural speech, but I know he is here looking down from above, guiding me through every step of this endeavor. And boy, oh boy, I know my father has a huge smile, and it’s a smile of pride.

Even though I ran unsuccessfully my first two tries municipally, my mother never gave up, and her support never wavered. In fact, in every election, being municipal or provincial, since then, I can say with confidence that she has knocked on more doors than anyone else in St. Catharines, and I know that for a fact. No one has supported me more in my political life than my mother. For every pair of shoes I went through, I know my mother burned out two. At every campaign event I went to, my mother stood right beside me. I would like to take this opportunity this morning to thank her; to thank her from the bottom of my heart.

So, a little about me: I was born and raised in St. Catharines in a small community called Merritton within the city of St. Catharines, and it is a place I have called home all of my life. I cannot express how humble I am that St. Catharines residents have put their trust in myself to be their representative, their voice here at Queen’s Park.

My predecessor, Mr. Jim Bradley: Jim represented the residents of my riding, St. Catharines, for the past 41 years—41 years, Madam Speaker. He did so with honesty, and he did so with integrity and a strong sense of commit-ment to provide the residents of St. Catharines the programs and the services they needed. But mostly, Mr. Bradley served the residents with a lot of hard work. I have been left with some pretty large shoes to fill.

If there is one thing of Jim’s legacy that I would like to carry on, it is his insistence that no matter what, the work-ing class of this province, they deserve to be heard, whether it be housing, in employment law or in child care.

St. Catharines, Madam Speaker, is the largest municipality in the Niagara Peninsula. It’s a city of approximately 132,000 people, the largest municipality in Niagara. It is divided by one of the busiest highways in Ontario, the Queen Elizabeth Way. As the largest municipality in Niagara, St. Catharines has a north end and it has a south end. Seeing that it is on a direct route between Toronto and the border with the United States of America, transportation is an important issue and a concern. Rapid and reliable transportation between St. Catharines and Toronto is needed.

GO Transit has been promised to the residents of St. Catharines. It needs to be delivered, and it needs to be delivered as soon as possible.

St. Catharines, like other cities, is in the midst of an opioid crisis. Last fall, Niagara Health reported a 65% increase over 2016 in the number of opioid overdoses in its emergency department. At the same time, data released by the Canadian Institute of Health Information showed that Niagara had one of the highest rates of opioid over-doses in Canada. Safe injection sites, safe consumption sites—many of them are needed, and they are needed now.

Every day, at the doorstep, I heard stories—whether it was people finding needles on their streets or in their parks or within their children’s playgrounds—their experiences, their real-life stories, of their loved ones and how they struggled with addiction.

Madam Speaker, I was elected to represent everyone in St. Catharines, and that includes our most vulnerable people. We owe it to them to let them know that we believe their lives are worth fighting for, whether it be an overdose prevention site, or whether it be providing housing or even a good paying job.

St. Catharines has one of the lowest vacancy rates for Ontario cities. The vacancy rate is well below 3%. This puts a financial strain on our regional housing services that were downloaded by the province many, many years ago. Public housing is something I will fight tooth and nail for, every step of the way, just as my constituents have asked me to do.

St. Catharines has officially declared itself a “compassionate city.” It is struggling to offer compassion to the homeless and to those seeking affordable rental accommodation when the vacancy rate is so low. Provincial policies and programs need to do more to address the urgent need in St. Catharines.

Residents of St. Catharines need better transportation in the form of GO Transit. It is needed now. Residents of St. Catharines need more affordable housing. It is needed now. Residents need safe injection sites and an end to hall-way medicine that I experienced first-hand as an employee at the Hotel Dieu Shaver rehabilitation centre. Hydro One must be put back into public hands so residents can see some relief to their electricity charges. High tuition costs for our Brock University students and our Niagara College students must be addressed so our students don’t have to choose between paying for books and paying for food.

These are only a few additional issues and concerns expressed by my residents of the riding of St. Catharines during the last provincial election campaign. There are many, many, many more, and I look forward to working with my fellow members from across the House to see these issues addressed and come to a conclusion that will benefit all of the residents in my riding as well as the ridings around St. Catharines.

As a former city councillor for the past 15 years, I, along with my fellow city councillors, have strived to make St. Catharines the vibrant, attractive and productive city it is today. But St. Catharines needs more than can be given from its municipal or regional government—a government that is willing to tackle the issues that my community faces, communities within St. Catharines, as I have already listed. There is no question that St. Catharines residents need more.

With the help of my fellow members in this House and with your assistance, Madam Speaker, it is my hope that programs and services are supported in my constituency. That is what I was elected to fight for. Residents know that I will work with anyone to get things done and that I have no problem working alongside people of every political stripe to make sure my constituents get what they asked me for during the election: better transit infrastructure, affordable housing, good-paying jobs, an end to hallway medicine, and the mental health and addiction supports that my constituents and the residents of St. Catharines desperately, desperately need.

St. Catharines cannot afford to be put on pause any longer. We need our parks needle-free. We need our playgrounds safe. The people of St. Catharines need to be heard.

If there is anything I was known for back home before my election, it was how vigorously I fought for my constituents in the ward of Merritton. Well, Madam Speaker, on election night I promised the residents of St. Catharines that they would be my new Merritton ward. My constituents can be certain that, if anything, they have elected a fighter who will never waiver in her commitment to fight for the needs of the constituents and the residents of St. Catharines.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to take this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the member from St. Catharines. You spoke quite a bit about family and the important role that they play to allow us here to serve the communities as we do. I’m seeing the adjustments that my family have had to make in allowing me to do the job that I do. But I really wanted to touch on the fact that members of your family have served in the military and how proud you must be. I certainly can imagine what it’s like waiting for your loved ones to come home when they’ve served—just to make sure that they come home safe.

I’m a member of our local Legion, and I’ve met with a lot of vets and talked to them and learned so much from them. As we come towards Remembrance Day on November 11, I think we all should reflect and make sure that we do understand and make sure that our next generations understand the sacrifices they have made for us to be as free as we are today. Here in the House I did a member’s statement on the passing of someone, Marc Diab, who served in our military and was killed in the line of duty. I met with his family and many, many friends, who do an annual bike ride for him.

Listening to all of that, I have to say, coming from a military family, that I have a lot of pride. Thank you for allowing your family to do that.

I’m really proud also of the achievements that our government is making, the things we are doing to try to make life better for people here in Ontario: scrapping the cap-and-trade carbon tax and reforming OHIP+ so every-body can have access to what they need. One thing I felt was very important was the Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry and the line-by-line audit to make sure the hard-earned dollars that we put into the system are used effectively and wisely. One thing that was very close to me was ending the York University strike. I think that was very important, to get those students back into York University.

Talking about promises made, promises kept: It’s extremely important that we do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s a treat to stand and give a few comments about my friend from St. Catharines. I say that more than just in the House; we’ve actually been friends for many years. In 2006 I was elected as a Merritton councillor and we became ward mates and worked for two terms together on St. Catharines city council. I can assure this House that, from what I’ve seen from the member from St. Catharines, she is a fighter.

It always amazed me how, while some politicians will concentrate on the big issues, she would often spend a couple of hours on a Saturday morning having tea with a senior while the tree out front was replaced, and she wouldn’t leave the house until the city came and removed the tree. That’s the kind of representation that the people of St. Catharines can expect—very different from Mr. Bradley, whom I also know quite well, but one thing they have in common is great respect for working people.

It’s going to take a lot of work to represent the people of St. Catharines because, as the member mentioned, there are some very serious problems in the city of St. Catharines and across Niagara. One of those is the opioid crisis, which has hit particularly hard in St. Catharines. We have all kinds of transportation issues and other issues as well.

I can recall the place I used to work, which was a multicultural centre. I came to work one day and found 26 needles in the playground where the newcomer children play every day. They have to work on that every morning—some real challenges, but the right person was elected in St. Catharines to meet them.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: We all heard the inaugural speech by the member from St. Catharines. One of the beautiful ways to learn about each other’s story is through the inaugural speech.

Today I learned a lot about the member’s family back-ground and the service they have served in the military. That is a story that I would relate to myself. I only came to this great country when I was 14. I landed in Toronto Pearson International Airport and one thing I will never forget is the way people welcomed us, and the way that I feel I am protected and I am growing up in a very peaceful environment. I want to thank all the brave women and men who are serving this country.

As well, Madam Speaker, I’m very pleased to share with you that our government for the people is committed to building Ontario’s first provincial memorial to honour Canadian heroes of the war in Afghanistan. The memorial to the Canadian heroes of the war in Afghanistan will be located here at Queen’s Park. This memorial will stand as a testament of the bravery of our veterans and the sacrifices made by our troops.

We have the utmost respect for our veterans, our soldiers and their families. We will ensure that their courage is honoured and we will express appreciation on behalf of all Ontarians for their services. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jamie West: I want to begin by also congratulating the member for St. Catharines for her inaugural speech. It’s one of those things I believe should be mandatory for us because we get to know each other better. As the member from Scarborough–Rouge Park had mentioned, it puts meat on the bones. We get to see more than just the political stripe; we get the background and the family history.

There was a conversation I was having with the member from Willowdale last night after hearing his inaugural speech, how you see people differently and you think differently.

One of the things I have in common with the member from St. Catharines that I wasn’t aware of before, even though we are in the same caucus and have the time to talk together, is the history with the grandparents and parents. My parents and my grandparents also were in the air force and my parents also met as air force brats. When they were dating, my dad, for some reason, jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. My mom was at secretary school. They came to the riding of Sudbury for work, but they really started in the military.

I want to emphasize that because several times members from across the aisle have said that we don’t appreciate the military in my caucus, that we’re angry at them, we don’t like them and we don’t respect them in the military and the police. That does a disservice not just to my family and families of the members of the caucus. When you talk about the member for St. Catharines’s grandparents, parents and children all serving, when you hear an insult like that come across, it cuts to the core. That’s why I talk about this core ability of recognizing people as people in here, in these inaugural speeches, and how important that is.

Personally, I feel like that damages my relationship with police chief Pedersen from the Sudbury regional police; my neighbour, an OPP officer, Sergeant Filipov; John Valtonen, from the Sudbury regional police—we volunteered for many years in Scouts together; and many members of my local, Steelworkers Local 6500, including Shane Cusack, who is the president of regional Canadian Legion Branch 179.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Back to the member from St. Catharines.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to thank the member across the way from Mississauga–Streetsville for her kind remarks about my family.

As well, I would like to mention at this time that I’m a proud member of Legion Branch 138 in Merritton, and my family are members of that legion as well. In St. Catharines, we are fortunate: We have four legions within the riding, so I’ll be a very busy girl on Remembrance Day.

Also, the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park: I’d like to thank you for your kind word and the mentioning of the Afghanistan memorial here at Queen’s Park.

My fellow member from Niagara Centre: Thank you very much for the kind words. Yes, we are very good friends, starting out our political careers as ward mates, and we have continued to be friends throughout the years. But most of all, I couldn’t have been more proud than when we were both elected to represent our residents here in Queen’s Park.

To the member for Sudbury: Thank you very much for the kind words as well.

Most of all, though, with 42 seconds to go, I would like to repeat my many thanks to my mother; my late father; my husband, who has been behind me—the residents of St. Catharines call him the “first lady of Merritton”; my son, Jonathan, and my daughter, Sharlotte, and their part-ners, Sarah and Mark. If it wasn’t for them, I don’t think I would be here today, standing and representing the residents of St. Catharines.

Most of all, Madam Speaker, the residents of St. Catharines have put me here to represent them, to be their voice. And believe me, I will be their voice and I will represent them with everything I have.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Harris: I’m very happy to be here today to be part of the debate on Bill 32. This piece of legislation is one that bodes very well for both suppliers and consumers of natural gas, protecting the interests of both these parties in my riding and across Ontario. Importantly, it does this without pulling from the government purse. It is a private sector solution that (1) puts more money back in people’s pockets and (2) makes Ontario open for business again.

Unlike the previous government’s track record on this issue, it is not a costly and bureaucratic plan that promises the world to energy consumers but fails to deliver any real, practical solutions for their pocketbooks.

I will put this into perspective for you: Over the course of two economic development projects under the previous government, natural gas expansion only reached nine—that’s nine—new communities. Keep in mind also that this limited expansion involved the use of tax dollars and government grants, hurting the pocketbooks of all Ontarians. This policy of the previous government was no plan for the people, and it was bad and poorly executed.

The people of Ontario were clear in the last election: They want a government that is committed to expanding natural gas access while reining in government spending. This is what we promised and what we will deliver to Ontario consumers and businesses. And with the introduction of Bill 32, the Access to Natural Gas Act, and a common-sense private sector solution, it delivers it in a fair way. And it’s fair to say, promise made, promise kept.

Unlike the previous government’s policy, ours actually takes significant measures to tackle the demands for natural gas expansion in rural and northern areas. Under our policy, natural gas expansion will hit as many as 78 new communities across Ontario. If you look back at what the Liberals did—nine communities. We’re hoping to hit 78 new communities across Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Harris: Yes.

This expansion is likely to translate into 63 new projects while providing natural gas services to more than 33,000 Ontario households.

Some good questions to ask are: What is the real impact on the pocketbooks of consumers? And how is this expansion saving them money? Well, Madam Speaker, the math is pretty simple on this one. Those households who choose to fulfill their energy needs with natural gas will save up to as much as $2,500 a year.

This simultaneous reduction in cost to the consumer and expansion of services across the province is no small feat. It is nothing short of innovative.

Quite frankly, the people of Ontario deserve a govern-ment that can deliver these kinds of innovative solutions to some of the most complex and significant issues faced by this province. That is what is fair: a government that is working for the people, not taking the people and their pocketbooks for granted; a government that respects the people; and a government that is committed to making Ontario open for business again.

My own riding of Kitchener–Conestoga provides some great examples of the kind of positive economic impact that this bill’s provisions will have across the province. Like many of my colleagues in government from south-western Ontario, my riding of nearly 100,000 square kilometres is dominated by prime agricultural land and beautiful rural landscapes.

Complementing the urban portion of southwest Kitchener, the rural townships of Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich are home to more than 1,191 farms which provide the backbone for the region of Waterloo economy. Waterloo region, more broadly, is home to nearly 1,300 farms, with an average size of 156 acres. The majority of agricultural land is used to grow crops, including field crops, hay, fruits, field vegetables and sod or nursery crops. In regard to the farmers themselves, the vast majority are livestock farmers, primarily on cattle and dairy farms.

All the farms in my riding generate significant revenues for our local economy. In 2015, gross farm receipts totalled $563.6 million, an increase of $90.7 million from 2010. During those five years, total expenses of farms grew by $93 million, totalling $483 million.

As a highly agricultural riding, Madam Speaker, Kitchener–Conestoga is especially well tuned—

Mr. Bill Walker: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I recognize the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice respecting the members’ code—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Returning to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Clearly, low-cost natural gas has been a long-standing demand for Kitchener–Conestoga farmers. For example, my riding has a large Mennonite population, who currently run many of their farms off generators and would really like to have access to natural gas.

To be honest, there was increasing frustration from not just farmers but also business owners and municipalities with the previous government’s restrictions which limited private sector companies from participating in natural gas expansion.

Quoting Rik Louwagie, the chief administrative officer in Wellesley township: “The lack of natural gas is one of the stumbling blocks that keeps businesses from opening in the township. Better access could help level the playing field if they had the same resources available as other centres do.”

The constituents that I spoke to throughout my campaign and beyond agree with Louwagie. Because, although those opposing Bill 32 may say that natural gas is not the best source of energy, and that its price can fluctuate in the winter months, the actual farmers on the front lines of the agricultural industry will tell you that natural gas is always the cheapest and most attractive option for their businesses.

I was just talking to some farmers at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture reception Tuesday night, here at Queen’s Park, about this very issue. They were here because it is Ontario Agriculture Week.

I’d like to have a round of applause for that. We all love our farmers here in Ontario.

Applause.

Interjection: We like to eat.

Mr. Mike Harris: Absolutely. Farmers feed cities.

Speaking to the president of the OFA, and speaking to their membership, their message was clear: Natural gas is the future for farming in Ontario. They want a government that is committed to expanding natural gas across the province, and for good reason. While Wellesley’s major settlements have access to natural gas, there are currently 800 to 900 properties, out of the 3,400, that do not have access. That is over 20%—20% of the population of Wellesley township does not have access to natural gas.

To this, I say that natural gas policy has significant ramifications relating to individual employment and the overall sustainability of the rural economy.

For the average residential customer, the switch from electric heat, propane, oil or natural gas would result in savings between $800 and $2,500 a year. Savings to the wider agricultural food, manufacturing and trades/trans-port/equipment operators in Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich townships would be just as significant, and they employ 8,820 individuals. The success of the agricultural industry is vital to the economic prosperity of my riding and this province.

As such, I was happy to hear confirmation that urban Kitchener residents of my riding will soon be getting to see their natural gas bills reduced as well, to the tune of $81 a year, because of our government’s elimination of the cap-and-trade carbon tax.

Adding to this, the introduction of Bill 32 demonstrates that we will continue to provide additional relief to families, and send a clear message that Ontario’s rural and northern heartlands are now, once again, open for business.

It is important that we are doing everything that we can, as Ontario’s governing party, to assist the agricultural industry in achieving its production objectives and bring-ing economic prosperity to our province, because the agricultural industry’s success is not only vital to the economic success of my riding but also to the success of Ontario’s economy.

What is so innovative about Bill 32 that will make business more attractive in Ontario—

Mr. Bill Walker: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Stop the clock.

Members’ code of conduct on harassment

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I recognize the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Walker: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice respecting the members’ code of conduct on harassment.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Mr. Walker is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Agreed? Agreed.

Back to Mr. Walker, the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: I move that the members’ code of conduct on harassment be amended as follows:

(1) By adding the following new subsection:

“2.2 The code shall not derogate from,

“(

a) the parliamentary privileges of the assembly and its members, and

“(

b) the authority of the presiding officers of the assembly, including its committees, under the standing orders.”

(2) By deleting subsection 18.2.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Mr. Walker has moved that the members’ code of conduct on harassment be amended as follows:

(1) By adding the following new subsection:

“2.2 The code shall not derogate from,

“(

a) the parliamentary privileges of the assembly and its members”—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Dispense? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

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

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Back to the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Let’s take a closer look at what this bill actually mandates. What our government is actually doing here is not overly complicated, but it’s forward-thinking. We are putting clear guidelines in place for Ontario’s major natural gas suppliers to be able to take the measures necessary in order to achieve ratepayer protection and natural gas expansion simultaneously.

The essence of the rules and regulations to be enacted by Bill 32 in achieving these objectives is well captured in its explanatory note:

“The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 is amended to provide rate protection for consumers or classes of consumers with respect to costs incurred by a gas distributor in making a qualifying investment for the purpose of providing access to a natural gas distribution system to those consumers. Gas distributors are entitled to be compensated for any resulting lost revenue and all consumers, or such classes of consumers as are prescribed, are required to contribute toward the compensation.”

Under the restrictive practices of the previous govern-ment, private sector companies were limited from participating in some natural gas expansion, portions of which were instead managed by a taxpayer-funded grant program. As was expressed in the bill’s explanatory note, no such policy applies here. Rather, we empower private companies to provide the increased access that they are the experts in, not the government. Taking this into account, it should be noted here that continued oversight from the OEB will ensure that the interests of ratepayers, ratepayer protection and transparency, remain paramount amidst the expansion.

One of the main things that I like about this bill is that with the OEB’s oversight, it puts faith in the market’s ability to expand natural gas services in an affordable and sustainable manner. How does it do this? It mandates the subsidization of gas line expansion not through the means of government grants, but in partnership with ratepayers themselves. To reiterate, subsection 4 of the bill stipulates, “All consumers, or such classes of consumers as are prescribed, are required, in accordance with the regulations, to contribute towards the amount of any compensation required under subsection (3).”

“Why is this so innovative?”, the opposition might say. “It’s making the ratepayer a negative for taxpayers.” To this I say no, a thousand times no. First of all, there is no tax being levied here. Second of all, the associated cost per ratepayer to achieve this is so low that it’s almost negli-gible. The cost incurred upon ratepayers in allowing for natural gas expansion across the province will amount to around a not-so-staggering $12 a year. That’s one can of pop per month, Madam Speaker, or a chocolate bar. The savings resulting from the cancellation of the previous government’s cap-and-trade scheme more than covers the $1 fee for ratepayers—as we mentioned, saving roughly $81 a year.

I have talked to the natural gas suppliers of this province, and they have told me that $1 per month is the highest amount that a ratepayer will have to pay per month during this expansion when the program is at its peak, and much of the time it will be less. Again, for the sacrifice of one can of pop per month, new natural gas consumers receive as much as $2,500 in savings. Let that sink in for a second, Madam Speaker. What could one of my constituents do with an extra $2,500 a year in their pocket?

Ontario families across this province, many of them, under the previous government, were struggling to make ends meet; $2,500, or even $800 on the low end, goes a long way, perhaps more than some of my colleagues in the opposition can fathom, in making life more affordable for the average Ontarian. With $2,500, Madam Speaker, do you know how many more trips on the GO train per year that is for a resident of Waterloo region?

Let me tell you: If a trip on the GO train to Toronto is costing Waterloo region residents $17.70 per ride, they will be able to make more than an additional 140 trips on the GO train per year. Even if their savings are $800 a year, they would be riding the train almost an additional 50 times per year. For commuters, young professionals, single parents or anyone just worried about their day-to-day expenses, what could be more beneficial than the cost-saving measures we are putting forward here?

In last night’s debate, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin said something along the lines of, “Let me remind you that 60% of voters did not vote for your party in the last election,” suggesting that our policies do not speak for the majority of Ontarians. Madam Speaker, my response to a comment like this is twofold: First off, and always, the people of Ontario spoke loud and clear in the last election. Our government entered the 42nd Parliament with a definitive majority. Second of all—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): The time on the clock being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

M me France Gélinas: I am so happy to introduce people from the MS Society who are here today, inviting everybody to join them in room 228 at noon. They are Jennifer Dutra, Fasika Jembere, Gregory Bourne, Jason Guerin, Barbara Dickson, Amy Kelly, Gaby Mammone, Nivarsha Nair, Amanda Murray, Carolyn Allman, Joanne Ticknor, Kelly McDermott, Rachel Buttigieg, Florence Roudbarani, Lynda DaSilva, Karen Scott, Juan Garrido, Kimberly McGinnis, Lisa Harris, Lisa McCoy, Abidah Shamji, Treena Gracey and Phil Dewan. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Please come to their luncheon.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I want to take this opportunity to introduce Nadin Ramadan, who is a constituent from Don Valley East. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Tyler Stone and John Hammill from Meaford in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to introduce a former member who served in this Legislature in the 39th and 40th Parliaments as the member for Thornhill: Peter Shurman is here with us today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today I would like to introduce page Meagan Sequeira’s parents, Arum Sequeira and Dimple Sequeira.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank all the students who are in the building today for coming out to question period. I’d like to give a particular shout-out to McMurrich Junior Public School and teachers Devon Marshall and Samantha Barkin, who I’m not sure I see, but I think I see St. Michael’s as well, but nonetheless—ah, here we are. I’d just like to say wel-come to all the teachers and students in question period.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’d like to welcome, first off, Justine Babin, who is our page. She was just standing there a few seconds ago, but she’s hard at work. She’s also today’s page captain and a constituent member from Pickering–Uxbridge. She’s also the one with the pink glasses.

As well, I want to welcome to the House, in the members’ gallery, Michelle Boudreau, mother of Justine. I would like to introduce her mother’s mother, Patricia Boudreau, grandmother of Justine, and finally Jake Babin, Justine’s brother. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Speaker, I’m honoured to have a very good long-time friend and supporter who happens to be from your riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, Mr. Paul Herriot.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I have the honour of introducing somebody who is known to this House, but hasn’t yet been introduced by her MPP: Our wonderful page, Victoria MacLeod, and of course her mother, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, along with many other things. Dare I say that Victoria has the best MPP?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Well, how do you top that, Speaker? I do have the best MPP, Jeremy Roberts. It’s an improvement from who I used to have, which was Bob Chiarelli.

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: We had a joke. I live in his riding; he lives in mine.

Speaker, as you know, a few weeks ago, my community was ravaged, as was the Minister of Colleges, Training and Universities’ community, from a tornado. The people who acted quickly were the Salvation Army and, today, we’re joined by those heroes who showed up and fed tens of thousands of people and provided comfort and support.

I’d like to introduce Mr. Glenn van Gulik, who’s divisional secretary for public relations for Ontario central east; Mr. Dan Millar, area director for public relations and development for Hamilton and Kitchener; Mr. Jeffrey Robertson, area director, public relations and development for the north region; and Ms. Sylvia Scott, assistant to Mr. Glenn van Gulik.

We really appreciate in the city of Ottawa you guys stepping up. Thank you.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to introduce a couple of people today. My executive assistant, Emily McCullough, is in the members’ gallery, as well as my good friend and the person I’m sponsoring to join the Kinsmen Club, Mr. Les Kariunas.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning, Speaker. I would like to introduce a good friend of mine, Maciek Fibrych, and his dad, Janusz Fibrych, who are visiting us from the land of kangaroos, Australia. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I’d like to welcome Rob Bellerose from Sioux Lookout from my riding. His son, Patrick, is a page. This is his last day here. Patrick is right there. Good morning.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I know the high school students from George S. Henry Academy are in the building today. I just want to welcome them to the Legislature. They’re one of the best high schools in this entire province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is for the Deputy Premier. No one should be stuck waiting for days in a hospital hallway when they’re dealing with serious illness. Yesterday, the Premier held a press conference where he announced a plan for temporary relief. That sounds exactly like the band-aid solutions the previous government had been announcing. Can the Deputy Premier explain if this is even a new plan or just a continuation of the old Liberal one?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, thank you very much for the question. I can tell you that this is good news for the people of Ontario, the announcement that we made yesterday. We are following up on the promises we made during the election campaign, both in terms of building more long-term-care beds and ending hallway medicine. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is 90 million new dollars on top of the $187 million that has previously been spent on this.

This is a lot of money. Is it an answer? No, because we were left with 15 years of chaos, with a lack of planning, with hospitals at over 100% in many parts of this province. But what it is going to do is help those hospitals with the highest need deal with and get through the flu season where we expect many more hospital admissions. This is going to be a huge help across the province.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Deputy Premier should know that hallways aren’t only filled during flu season, but the reality is constant overcrowding and a scramble for spaces. When is the government going to commit to permanent beds, Speaker?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are certainly very well aware that many hospitals across the province are at over 100% capacity. We are working on a long-term capacity plan. Unfortunately, it wasn’t ready for this flu season because we’ve only been here for several months. But we are working on a long-term plan that will allow for all hospitals in Ontario to operate at safe levels throughout the year and not just at flu season.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Across Ontario, we see hospitals operating at maximum capacity and beyond. In Thunder Bay, the hospital has been operating at surge capacity for years. In Windsor, the hospital campuses are operating at 99% to 106% capacity. And everywhere patients languish in hallways waiting for treatment.

Does the government have a plan? Can they tell us when they might be able to produce a plan to move beyond band-aid funding?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The issue of ending hallway health care is not one simple solution. It is a multi-faceted problem, and we are working at all facets of that problem right now.

As the member will know, part of the problem is with respect to alternate-level-of-care patients, people who don’t need to be in hospital but don’t have a place to go. We have over 30,000 seniors who are waiting for a long-term-care space. So we’re working on both easing the hospital congestion and having a place where the ALC patients can go, but we’re also building up capacity in long-term care.

Yesterday, we also announced 6,075 new beds out of the 15,000 that we promised the people of Ontario during the election. We are working on this problem from every level.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. For a patient waiting with cancer in a hallway for days while receiving treatment, the new government seems to be moving from bad to worse. In a recent speech to the Ontario Hospital Association, the Minister of Health told hospitals that they would have to prepare for lean financial times. Can the Deputy Premier explain how cuts to health funding will clear crowded hospital hallways?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would say to the leader of the official opposition that that is not the case. We are not cutting health care funding for people on the front line. We are not cutting hospital beds. We want to increase the beds that are available for people. We want to increase the services that people can receive.

There is no question that one patient being treated in a hallway is one patient too many. We can all agree on that. What we want to do is make sure that people are treated in hospital rooms, not in hallways and in storage rooms. That is what we are working hard on and we’re concentrating on: to make sure that people can get into those rooms and that those patients who are alternate level of care can either go home with proper levels of home support or they can go to a long-term-care facility. Every patient deserves to be in a place that is safe and comfortable for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For patients worried about whether a hospital bed will be there when they need it, this government’s approach to health care is concerning. Warning hospitals that lean financial times are coming is, I think, a warning that says, “Get ready for even more cuts to hospitals.” Speaker, what cost-saving measures is the government contemplating in the health care budget?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think the leader of the official opposition will know what the financial state of affairs is for Ontario right now. It has been clearly demonstrated by the Minister of Finance. There is no question that all areas of government are going to have to look at their operations and understand how they can find efficiencies. What that does not mean is making cuts on the front line; absolutely not.

What we need to do is look internally and look at our processes. How do we do things? Things have been done the same old way in health care for many years. We’ve got to look under every stone and find out where we can find those savings.

We know that hospitals are under a lot of pressure. We know that they’re in surge capacity. We want to make things easier for them, not more difficult.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, “modernization,” “transformation” and “efficiencies” are the same words that the Liberal government used to cut our hospitals and our health care system.

You know what? Unfortunately for the Premier and the Deputy Premier, people remember what happened the last time Conservatives controlled hospitals in Ontario. Some 6,000 nurses were fired and were compared to outdated hula hoops. Do you remember that, Speaker? Twenty-eight hospitals were shuttered all over the province, clos-ing 7,000 hospital beds. Many of the same players from that era have returned, and one of them is heading up the Premier’s health care task force. Does the Deputy Premier really think that that is the path forward?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are looking at the path for-ward from 2018 on. We are not looking at what happened in the past; we are looking at how we deliver health care in the 21st century. What changes do we need to make?

The leader of the official opposition may not realize it, but much health care communication is still transported via faxes. That is ridiculous in this day and age. We need to modernize our technology. We need to move forward and look at the ways that we can deliver health care more efficiently.

Telehealth care, making sure that people in remote areas can have specialist consultations without having to travel hundreds of miles in difficult weather: These are the things that we’re talking about doing that are better patient care and can be delivered at a lower cost. That’s what we’re concentrating on and that’s what we’ll continue to work on in the coming years.

Hospital funding

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is for the Minister of Health. Good morning, Minister.

Windsor Regional Hospital has struggled with over-crowding for years, and now things are getting even worse. Today, the Met campus is at 99% capacity and the Ouellette campus is at 106%. Wait times in the ER are unbearable. There’s no room, so patients are left on gurneys in the hallways. It will only get worse when the flu season gets here.

When will this government do the right thing once and for all and give Windsor hospitals the funding they need to get patients out of the hallways and into the hospital beds they deserve?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. I do know that there are many hospitals in Ontario that are over 100% capacity right now, which is making it very difficult for health care professionals to deliver the quality of care that they want to deliver; and for patients who are left in hallways, storage closets, board-rooms—every available space in a hospital.

We want to ease that situation. It has been building up over a number of years, the previous 15 years. We are trying to figure the situation out and develop a comprehensive health capacity plan, which we are working on actively right now.

But we also had to be prepared for this year’s flu season, and we had to put in this short-term funding, this $90 million, that’s going to aid those areas that were determined by the ministry to be in the greatest need. I know there’s need across Ontario, but those areas had the most urgent care needs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Windsor families deserve so much better. For years, the Liberals cut and froze hospital funding. To be fair, they gave a little bit more to prepare for the flu season last year, but that was too little and too late. Now the Conservatives are giving hospitals $10 million less than what the Liberals did. Why is this government forcing more people to wait even longer and making the overcrowding crisis even worse?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, in actual fact, what has happened is the $187 million that the Liberals were talking about was spent last year by them, but also spent by us this year. That money has flowed. The additional $90 million is new money on top of that $187 million. It absolutely is true.

That is why, because we know there are those urgent needs across the province, we are adding to that capacity. We know that the hospital emergency department ad-missions have increased this year. There’s more pressure on the system, and that’s why we want to make sure that those hospitals have the assistance they need.

But as for Windsor itself and for other hospitals across the province, we are looking at a long-term capacity plan that will be in place by this time next year so we won’t have to deal with emergency funding for flu season.

International trade

Mr. Stan Cho: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to first off wish you, and everybody in the House today, a very happy Thanksgiving. I hope everybody has just a little too much to eat this weekend.

My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade: Earlier this week, the federal government reached a last-minute trade agreement with the United States. The deal comes after months of uncertainty—uncertainty that has hurt families and businesses across Ontario and across our country.

Could the minister please outline for the House how the new Canada-US trade agreement fails Ontario workers and leaves many Ontario businesses in a state of un-certainty?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my colleague the member from Willowdale. Now that we’ve seen the details of the new NAFTA, this is what we’re facing:

Tariffs remain on steel and aluminum, with no timeline or plan for lifting them.

We now have a limit on how many cars Canada can export to the US, as well as a quota for future investment in Ontario.

Canada gave more market share to American dairy exporters, leaving less business for Ontario, with no plan to help our farmers.

The United States now has veto power over future trade deals involving Canada, which is highly unusual and a real hit on our sovereignty as a nation.

The federal government gave up a lot, with no plan to deal with the impact. Our government will continue to demand that the federal government live up to its obligations and treat the people of Ontario and our farmers and workers with respect.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you to the minister for his response. It is frankly astounding that our federal govern-ment is willing to leave Ontario workers and Ontario businesses out to dry. While they trumpet their deal, farmers in our supply-managed sectors await answers on the compensation they will receive, and tens of millions of dollars of investment is on hold. Steel and aluminum tariffs are still in place, and businesses have yet to receive the money the feds promised.

Would the minister please outline for the House what he is doing to ensure that Ontario businesses get the support they deserve from our federal government?

Hon. Jim Wilson: A very good question indeed. We continue to stand for Ontario workers and will hold the federal government accountable for the treaty that they’ve signed.

Yesterday I sent a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Freeland, demanding answers about the USMCA. Our government wants to know, and Ontario businesses and workers want to know, the plan to mitigate the impact of this deal. We’ve made it clear that the new uncertainty that has been created by the federal govern-ment is hurting Ontario families, businesses and workers.

I received a response yesterday afternoon from the minister, and I was shocked. Speaker, we got a boilerplate response with no answers to our questions for the people and workers of Ontario.

The people of Ontario and the workers of Ontario deserve to be treated better by their federal government.

Employment standards

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Every day we hear from women and men who are struggling to make ends meet on the current minimum wage. They value being able to take a sick day and emergency days, but they feel like they’re not being heard. The minister has said that she’s studying the issue, but the Premier said his mind is made up. He’s freezing their wages and taking away their sick days.

Who did the Premier consult with to make that decision?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you for the question. We have been doing round tables—my parliamentary assistant Mike Parsa, is doing small business round tables on red tape, and my parliamentary assistant Donna Skelly, on NAFTA—believe it or not, NAFTA.

We hear that, after electricity, the number one issue for our job creators, our businesses—small, large and medium—in this province is Bill 148, and the worst of Bill 148 is scheduled to come in on January 1.

So yes, we are studying, because we owe it to the people who attend these meetings, the people who write us, the people of Ontario, and we owe it to the workers of Ontario to make sure they have the dignity of a job. We’re studying every aspect of Bill 148, and we’ll have more to say in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People we’ve heard from—some would call them the little guy—are telling us that they’re falling further and further behind on the current minimum wage. They say they’re working multiple jobs. They don’t see their children because they have to go from job to job. They say tax cuts won’t make a difference, because they don’t earn enough to pay any taxes in the first place. They deserve to be heard, Speaker.

Is the government going to hear from people who have to live on their minimum wage, as they make decisions that will have a huge negative impact on people’s lives?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Well, Speaker, through you I say to the honourable member, workers did get a 20% increase this year, which is the largest in the 28 years I’ve been in this place.

We just think it’s time. We said this in the campaign and we said this when we voted against Bill 148. I know you guys supported it, propping up the Liberals as you did 97% of the time over there. But you managed to kill an awful pile of jobs and I don’t see any apologies over there for the mess you’ve made.

Bill 148 should never have seen the light of day. If I quote the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in a news release this week, it says: “Bill 148 was too much, too fast,” and has “forced our members to decrease product offerings and increase the price of products … hire fewer employees, reduce services and hours of operation, cut back on employee benefits….”

Congratulations, NDP, for helping the Liberals put us in this mess.

Interjections.

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

I would all remind all members and ask them to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock. Next question.

International trade

Ms. Jill Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The USMCA announcement this week has been concerning for our supply-managed farmers. The federal government had stated that no deal would be better than a bad deal for Canada, yet the news for our dairy farmers has summed up to be exactly that: a bad deal. The federal government had been negotiating our new trade deal for months and assured us that they would make no concessions, yet con-cerning concessions were made.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister assure us that this government will work with our farmers in reviewing the impacts of the new deal?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member from Simcoe North for being a champion for the farmers in her riding during these difficult times.

Our government is committed to standing up for our farmers, especially those affected by the results of the USMCA. During the negotiations, the Premier met with officials in Washington to ensure the concerns of our farmers stayed top of mind. I have been in constant communication with the farmers on these issues.

Unlike the federal government, we will work hard to make sure that our farmers receive the clarity they deserve on how they will be compensated. Our government is committed to doing better, standing up for our farmers. They deserve better.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the minister for his answer and for working hard to make sure that our dairy farmers are compensated accordingly.

Our supply-managed industry in Ontario ensures that we supply the amount of food needed for Ontario con-sumers, and our farmers depend on that market for stability. By opening up market access to the United States, our farmers no longer have the stability they depend upon in prices and in supply.

I know the minister and our Premier have both met with our supply-managed sectors to discuss these issues. Can the minister tell us what they are hearing from our supply managed sectors on the new USMCA?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the supplementary question. As she said, we have met with representatives from all of the supply-managed sectors to discuss the impact of the USMCA. With market access being given through the CPTPP and now more access given through the USMCA, our farmers are concerned with the profitability and sustainability of their liveli-hoods. We will continue to urge the federal government to provide full and fair compensation for our farmers.

I want to assure the member that our government is committed to making Ontario open for business, and this includes ensuring Ontario dairy farms remain open for business as well. Thank you very much for the question.

Hospital funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Health. The flu season comes every year, and yet each year Liberals and now Conservatives leave health care professionals and Windsor families guessing just how bad things will be. After years of Liberal cuts and funding freezes, our hospitals are in crisis. Rather than doing the right thing and finally giving the hospitals the funding they need to end this overcrowding crisis, the Conservatives are taking the same piecemeal approach as the last government, but this time with even less funding.

How many people in Windsor will be left languishing in emergency rooms and hospital hallways because this government continues to deny hospitals the funding they need to make things better?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I wish it were just as simple as the member suggests: Just throw money at the hospitals and the problem disappears. That is not the way it works.

Ending hallway health care is a multifaceted problem. There has to be changes made at many steps along the way. We have to make sure we don’t have as many emergency admissions. We need to work on mental health and addiction issues because we have patients cycling in and out constantly. We need to look at getting the patients who are alternate-level-of-care out of the hospital and either back home where they want to be or, if they can’t be there, into a long-term-care home.

So we are investing in long-term-care homes. We made the announcement yesterday: about 6,075 new spaces out of the 15,000 we promised the people of Ontario during the election.

The problem with overcrowding in hospitals is some-thing that has been going on for 15 years, where nothing was done. I wish I could say we can snap our fingers and make that problem disappear overnight—

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s actually called investing in every Ontarian in this province, not just Conservative insiders and friends.

Leave it to the Conservatives to re-announce temporary funding with $10 million less than last year and then tout it as progress. By cutting temporary funding that was already too low, this government is going to make things even worse and life even harder for Windsor families struggling to get appropriate space in a hospital. The bottom line is that Liberal and Conservative temporary funding photo ops won’t fix hospital overcrowding.

Speaker, will this government do the right thing and give hospitals the $300 million they need to stop the hallway crisis from getting worse? Yes or no?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think it’s important for the people who may be watching today’s proceedings to correct the statement that was made by the member with respect to funding. In fact, there was $187 million spent last year by the Liberals. There was $187 million spent this year by our government. The amount that we announced is a new announcement of $90 million more. It’s extra. It’s extra on top of that $187 million.

So this is a new announcement. This is good news for people across the province. Is it the entire answer? No, but it’s a very good step forward, and it’s going to help hospitals during flu season.

I would just like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to read a statement from Dr. Gary Newton, who is the president and CEO of the Sinai Health System: “On behalf of our patients, their families and our staff, I would like to thank Mrs. Elliott for this investment in beds at Bridgepoint Active Healthcare. Any”—

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

Firearms control

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, the quality of life that we have in Ontario is something that we should work hard as legislators to protect. Last night, I was with the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, and it was the 83rd homicide in Toronto. We witnessed families walking home from school, gripping the hands of their children, trying to keep them safe. In light of the horrific incidences of gun violence that are plaguing our streets and our communities in Ontario, does this government support the ban of handguns?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. As we have demonstrated, our government has and continues to take action to combat gun and gang violence, restore public confidence and ensure our streets and communities are safe. Unlike the last government that looked to cancel the $12 million in funding, we committed $25 million over four years.

Mr. Speaker, it’s not guns that kill people; it’s the people who have guns illegally that kill people. The in-vestment that we’re making is a vital first step in combatting gun violence, disrupting gang activity and cracking down on the trafficking of illegal guns in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Back to the Deputy Premier: I don’t disagree with the investments that you’re making, but even community members—yesterday, I spoke to a grandmother who said to me that these incidences that are occurring are putting everyone in the community at risk and, in fact, those who are involved in those criminal activities are not afraid of the police. These incidences are becoming more brazen and more prevalent in our communities.

Your investments in police services and in crown attorneys is welcome, but it’s not enough. It’s not enough, and it’s not solving the issue at hand. As a matter of fact, it’s also after the fact.

Will you stand in this House and support my Bill 30, which bans the sale of ammunition right now in municipalities that need that extra support?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: As I’ve mentioned, we have made an investment with respect to the guns and gangs in the province of Ontario, starting in Toronto. The new equipment and innovative investigative technologies will have an impact with respect to the gun violence that we’re experiencing.

Our government has been clear in our message that gun violence is a menace to Ontario communities and will not be tolerated in any form. The status quo has failed, and our party is the only party in the Legislature that’s committed to doing something about it. We have made a commitment to ensuring that our streets are safe. We will continue supporting our police services, which are doing an amazing job with the tools that they have. We will continue supporting them in all their work to ensure that our communities are safe.

International trade

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. DesRosiers Automotive Consultants have reported that new light vehicles were down by 7.4% in September compared to last year, the largest single drop since 2009. The auto industry is an integral part of Ontario’s economy and employs thousands of people. DesRosiers said Tues-day that uncertainty surrounding “North American trade deal negotiations may have contributed to the drop in sales.”

Many questions still remain regarding what supports Ontario workers and families will get from the federal government. Can the minister please inform the members about how the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA and tariffs affected Ontario workers and industries?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my colleague for the question. The federal government should have gotten a better deal under the USMCA. Ontario jobs, Ontario families and Ontario industries are paying the price, in-cluding our auto sector.

We stood shoulder to shoulder with the federal govern-ment throughout the negotiations because we knew that a deal needed to get done. However, Mr. Speaker, we were very clear that a deal needed to get done that protected the agriculture, steel and aluminum sectors of our economy. That is not the deal that we got.

The federal government must come forward and be honest with the people about how they’re going to support and fairly compensate those affected by their deal. It has to be federal money; it’s an international treaty. They need to stand by the Constitution and stand up for workers and jobs in Ontario and across the provinces and territories and fairly compensate the people they’ve hurt.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the minister for his response. Our government must stand up and protect Ontario industries, whether it’s autos or agriculture.

The Bank of Canada has stated that because of the un-certainty in tariffs, the Canadian GDP will shrink by two thirds of a per cent by 2020. The Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada has also said, “After just a couple of months, the tangible effects of the cross-border tariffs on steel, aluminum and consumer goods have already started showing up in the economic data.”

I am very concerned about the current tariffs and what our federal government is doing to mitigate the threat of future tariffs. Can the minister please inform the members what effects the continued steel and aluminum tariffs have on Ontario’s industries?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you again to the honourable member for the question. Speaker, the federal government certainly missed an opportunity to keep

section 232 tariffs on the negotiating table throughout the talks. They told us it had nothing to do with the talks, but in a technical briefing on Monday, on page 4, it says they tried to talk to the Americans; the Americans rejected them. But they didn’t bring them back. They just took the Americans’ word for it: “Fine. We’ll kill our steel and aluminum in-dustry.”

The member for Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Romano, was just telling me—in a story this morning out of Sault Ste. Marie—that it has cost Algoma $55 million in just three months of steel and aluminum tariffs; steel tariffs, in their case. Fifty-five million dollars. That will eventually hurt every Ontarian because it will be into the price of your appliances, it will be into the price of your cars, it will be into the price of your building materials, it will be into the price of the steel that we use for industry of all types. That’s going to hurt every person in the province of Ontario, so the federal government needs to get the job done.

Hospital funding

Mr. Jamie West: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In my riding of Sudbury, Health Sciences North has been underfunded for years. Under the previous Liberal government, funding was cut again and again, requiring front-line health care workers to do more and more with less and less. Despite re-election promises from the Premier that no one would be laid off, the hospital is laying off 60 nurses and cutting services. Short-term band-aid funding will not help those front-line workers and will not help solve years of neglect.

After years of waiting, Sudbury needs to know: When will this government be putting forward a long-term plan to end hallway medicine?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you for the question. We are actively working on a long-term capacity plan as we speak. That is something that we will have in place in advance of the flu season for next year.

But as far as your hospital is concerned, I would say that there have been some unfortunate problems for the last year or so. There is a significant debt there that they are working with the LHIN to try and deal with. With respect to the nurses, they are either going to be retiring or they are moving on elsewhere. No one is actually losing their job.

It’s important, though, that they continue to operate the hospital, and that is why the ministry, the LHIN and the senior executives at the hospital are working on a long-term solution.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jamie West: Back to the minister: I agree the hospital is making difficult decisions when it comes down to funding and years and years of underfunding. Hospital overcrowding is the number one issue for the people in the riding of Sudbury. It’s the number one thing I hear about. We are dealing with a hallway medicine epidemic that impacts patient care all year long, not just during flu season. It’s been going on for years and years. Our hospitals are stuck making difficult decisions.

Our front-line health care workers are doing their best with limited resources, but morale is low and many are left wondering if their jobs will be next on the chopping block. Attrition, layoffs, otherwise—we’re short-staffed.

I join you in blaming the previous government for years of underfunding, but will the minister listen to the people of Sudbury and fund our hospitals properly? That’s what we need to know.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, there certainly is some-thing that we can agree on, that this is a problem that’s been growing for many, many years—15 years, I would say, of the Liberals—and now we are left with that situation we are trying to fix. We know it’s not going to be an overnight solution. We look forward to working with you and your constituents in your riding to find solutions.

It has been suggested by a number of hospitals—I would say particularly, at this point, medium-sized hospitals—that the funding formula does not work for them. I would suggest it probably doesn’t work for many hospitals. So we are taking a look at funding formulas right now, as well, to determine the best way of compensating and providing hospitals with the funds that they need in order to operate at the capacity where they want to operate. Not at 120% capacity; at a comfortable level so the health care professionals will be able to do the great work that they’re doing in all of our communities in the way that they want to be able to do it, and that patients will receive the best—

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

International trade

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Many people in the agriculture industry in my riding are concerned about the impacts of the USMCA—farmers like Tara and Randy, processors like Mike, suppliers like Paul. Much of the discussion surrounding the USMCA has been focused on its impact on dairy farmers within the supply-managed industry.

I’m aware that the minister and the Premier met with supply-managed farming organizations to discuss the impacts of the new deal. Can the minister also let us know what the agri-food business is saying about the new trade deal?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for the question and for bringing attention to our agricultural industries impacted by the USMCA.

We all know that the USMCA negatively impacts supply-managed farmers. However, we also heard from many of our processors following the new deal. They’re concerned with the millions of dollars in investments in their businesses that are now risky due to greater market access given to the United States. In fact, Gay Lea Foods Co-operative said this week that the deal would have “destabilizing and detrimental impacts on the Canadian dairy industry….”

Our government is committed to keeping jobs in Ontario and, furthermore, to creating new jobs in Ontario to reflect that Ontario is open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you to the minister for bring-ing attention to the agricultural industries impacted by the USMCA.

I’ve heard from many of our processors following the new deal. They’re concerned with the millions of dollars in investments that their businesses are now risking due to greater market access given to the United States. In fact, Gay Lea said this week that the deal will have “destabil-izing and detrimental impacts on the Canadian dairy industry….”

Can the minister outline how Ontario will continue to be open for business in agri-food?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member again for being a champion for his farmers.

As mentioned previously, our supply management system in Ontario is designed so that our farmers produce only the amount of goods that are consumed by Ontarians. This system provides pricing and supply dependability for our farmers.

As we continue to review the impacts of the deal on our supply-managed sectors, I assure you that the impacts on chicken, turkey and egg farmers will be treated with significant importance.

I myself will be cooking two turkeys this Thanksgiving weekend in support of our turkey farmers, and I may need some relatives to help come and eat them. If he’s interested, my invitation is still open to my critic across the aisle to join us for Thanksgiving dinner.

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

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

One of the first acts of this government was to cancel regulations that would have stopped vaping companies from promoting their products to children. Then last week, the government introduced Bill 36, which comes with new regulations that allow e-cigarettes and vaping products to be promoted and marketed to children in convenience stores.

Tuesday, a coalition of health organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation called on this government to put the health of children first and to withdraw this regulation.

Will the minister listen to these health care professionals and make sure that vaping companies and e-cigarette companies cannot promote and market their harmful products to our kids?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think we can certainly agree that the health and safety of children and young people is of the utmost priority for everyone in this House. The regulations with respect to vaping were conducted, and there is some suggestion, with respect to vaping for adults, that it may lead to smoking cessation.

But as far as children are concerned, there are regulations that are already in place in stores and so on that sell vaping products to make sure that they’re not available to children, to be sold to children. Those will remain in place and those protections will stay there. That won’t be disturbed by this change.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I want to make it clear, Speaker: Most of the vaping companies are owned by big tobacco companies, which are desperate to hook the next generation to their addictive products. They want to pretend that vaping nicotine is harmless, even though studies show clearly that nicotine is just as addictive if you smoke it than if you vape it. They want to normalize vaping for kids and they want to make it look really cool. Above all, what they really want is to get kids addicted to nicotine to make them customers for life.

When will the minister withdraw this harmful regulation and make sure that kids are not exposed to vaping marketing, promotion or displays?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The regulation is as it is. People can comment. Of course, I’m willing to listen to what people have to say. I want to protect children as well. That is very important. No one wants to see a young person get started with nicotine. Who knows where it may go from there?

But it is important to note that stores have responsibility with respect to the placement of these products: not to sell them to children. We expect them to live up to what their requirements are and make sure that children are safe. We will take other steps to make sure children are safe. We want to make sure that we have a public health campaign to let people know about vaping, to let people know about cannabis, to let people know about alcohol. They may be legal but they’re not benign—

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

International trade

Mr. Stephen Lecce: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. While we remain hopeful that the USMCA will benefit our economy, I’m pleased that the minister sent a letter to the federal government demanding answers on this deal.

Let us evaluate what the Prime Minister gave up versus what we got in return. Under this deal, the Prime Minister backed down on protecting our dairy farmers. He backed down on gaining control of our auto industry. Speaker, he backed down on affordable prescription drug prices. He backed down on ending Buy American provisions. The Liberals backed down on tariff-free access for steel, aluminum and softwood lumber. And the Liberals gave a foreign government the power to override future trade deals. Speaker, through you to the honourable member: Did the federal government sign away our sovereignty in this new trade deal?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my colleague. What an important question that is, and the answer, of course, is yes, they did. Canadians should be shocked at this very fact. We’re extremely concerned that the deal forces Canada to inform the US of any intention to pursue negotiations with a non-market economy like China. This is about our sovereignty indeed, Mr. Speaker. Clause 32 gives the US sweeping powers for the first time to override Canada’s future trade deals. If we sign a deal with a country like China, the clause says we could be kicked out of NAFTA.

Speaker, because of this new NAFTA, it’s more important than ever that we have new trade deals with Japan, China, Asia, more with Europe, South America, the African continent, the rest of the world, because we need those good paying jobs. We benefitted greatly from the old NAFTA, not so much the new NAFTA, so we need—

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

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Back to the minister: I am very concerned that the federal government would brazenly sign away our sovereignty. This Legislature should speak with one voice in the defence of our industry, in the defence of our sovereignty and in the defence of our economy. We should be united in holding the Prime Minister to account and count on this minister and this Premier to deliver the message to our Prime Minister to do your job and to fight for our workers, because never has so much been given up with so little in return.

Speaker, as our government works to diversify our export markets to create good jobs in this province, can the minister inform this Legislature if the federal government has provided answers on why President Trump has a veto over future trade deals in this country?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you again to my colleague for the question. I think we’ve also been alarmed at the lack of a meaningful response from the federal govern-ment. Even a recent policy adviser to the Prime Minister said he was concerned. He said it’s “troubling to provide another country with a formal role in vetting Canadian trade negotiations.”

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada and the people of Ontario who did vote for the federal Liberal Party did not vote for that party and Prime Minister Trudeau to give away our rights to be a sovereign nation, to make trade deals, to be proud Canadians and not subject to the Americans. That is not what this country was built on. That’s not what our ancestors fought for. That’s not what our troops fought for in Afghanistan or in world wars or Vietnam. We fought to be a sovereign nation, not to give our rights to the Americans. Shame on Trudeau. Shame on the federal government—

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

Gasoline prices

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, there’s the old Jim Wilson I used to know.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you will know that we go to the pumps to fill our cars and trucks and we get gouged every time we go. If you live in southern Ontario, you pay 40 cents less for gas than you would in places like Thunder Bay. If you live in Kiiwetinoong, you’re going to probably pay an additional $1 per litre.

Your government took the first step. You supported the NDP bill on gas price regulation at second reading, but now you’ve got to take the next step. Will you allow that bill to be called in committee so that we can bring relief to people at the pumps?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, and good morning. Look, our government is committed to reducing gas prices by 10 cents a litre. We’ve already taken a step. Through the cap-and-trade system, Speaker, you will have noticed the price of gas has gone down. It’s gone down by 4.3 cents a litre. Congratulations to our Minister of the Environment. They’ve taken away the cap-and-trade tax, which not only has reduced the price of gas by 4.3 cents, but it has also put $285 back in the pockets of families.

If you’re on natural gas, Speaker, that put $80 more back into the pockets of families, with more coming yet. I congratulate this government on bringing real relief to families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, that’s laughable. Through you: We know what happened to the price of gas. It was the winter blend that came online. All across Canada the price of gas went down. It’s part of what happens every season. To stand in this House and say, “It is the Conservative government that did it”—I didn’t know you had such far-reaching power to affect Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Quebec and the rest of the country.

So I say to you again, if you really want to stand up for people at the pumps, will you allow our bill that we have in committee now to be called so we can bring relief to people at the pumps?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’ll tell you how far-reaching our power is: We lowered the price of gas by 4.3 cents. Speaker, we remain committed to our promise that we made during the campaign to make life more affordable for Ontario families and for businesses, and we intend to bring that savings, not just at 4.3 cents, but a full 10 cents a litre. We will be looking at taking off another 5.7 cents a litre.

That’s what this government is all about. It’s a govern-ment that is for the people, that is returning prosperity to Ontario, that is bringing real relief for families—not just rhetoric—but real relief for families. That’s what we’re doing and that’s what we’ll continue to do, Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

International trade

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As we approach the end of Ontario Agriculture Week, I think it’s important that we talk a little turkey before we gobble up our food this Thanksgiving weekend.

When I say “talk a little turkey,” Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about our supply-managed sectors, like dairy, eggs and poultry, that were the focus of the USMCA agreement this week. It’s important to reflect on the farmers who bring us the great food and products we consume every day through their hard work and dedication.

I know the minister met with the governor of Idaho this week. Before he passes the potatoes, can the minister let us know what he is doing to show our farming families he supports them?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for that great question. Following the USMCA announcement, the Premier and I met with our supply-managed sectors to reassure them that we will continue to press the federal government on providing full and fair compensation to those farmers experiencing losses through the new deal. I have been in constant contact with stakeholders on the best way to move forward together and to listen to their concerns during this difficult week. We will continue to review the details of the new trade agreement to fully understand how it will impact our farmers and what can be done to assist them.

Farming families are never to be used as the bargaining chip, and our government is committed to supporting our farmers this week and every week.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Will Bouma: I thank the minister for his answer. I know the minister has a long history of supporting Ontario farmers.

Mr. Speaker, back to the minister: As we approach Thanksgiving weekend, we look forward to spending time with our families and reflecting on all that we are grateful for. Reflecting on the new USMCA, the federal govern-ment has let our farmers down, more like a relative who gets stuffed before Thanksgiving dinner and then forgets to bring the pumpkin pie. Can the minister let us know what our government has cooking to ensure that the contributions of our farmers are recognized and respected?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again thank the member for the supplementary question.

In celebration of Ontario Agriculture Week, I had the opportunity to join the Farm and Food Care group at Union Station to hand out breakfast sandwiches to commuters and make their morning a little bit brighter, compliments of Ontario’s farmers.

I also talked a little turkey of my own with the Turkey Farmers of Ontario earlier this month. I will be cooking two turkeys for my family this weekend to support our farmers, and I hope the opposition critic will be able to pass the cranberry sauce without starting a food fight.

I encourage everyone to buy local Ontario produce this week and every week, and I’d like to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving.

Affordable housing

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In Ottawa, 150 families are being evicted from the Heron Gate neighbourhood by the major developer Timbercreek, a $7.5-billion company based here in Toronto. The developer is demolishing their low-income townhomes to make way for more upscale apartments, leaving residents, mostly new immigrants, scrambling to find affordable housing. Sadly, many have been unable to find affordable options in Ottawa’s real estate market.

Speaker, when will the minister take real action to address the housing crisis in this province?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member for Ottawa Centre: I want to thank you for that question. I’m certainly aware of the situation in Ottawa. As most of you know, I spent a significant amount of time in that city, given the tornado that went through several areas of the city.

While I was there, I had a number of people talk to me about supply of housing and housing affordability. I’ve had several conversations with Mayor Watson about some of the ideas and some of the innovation that the city is working on. I want to say to the member that the issue of housing supply is one that I think we all need to co-operate on, whether it’s in the government benches or in the opposition benches. We need to mobilize all of our stake-holders. We need to work together. I think housing supply is one of the things that our government is going to continue to place as a top priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Joel Harden: I thank the minister for his response and his presence in Ottawa during the recent tornado crisis, but there’s another tornado unseen that has hit our city, and its name is Timbercreek. This is one of the worst mass evictions in Ottawa’s history, and we have yet to see any action from this government to take any serious steps to ensure these families have affordable homes to move into.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to housing has called this crisis happening in my city a human rights violation. The residents of Heron Gate deserve justice, but the developer has failed them. To date, the mayor of Ottawa has also failed them. They’re counting on this minister and this government to stand up for them. Will the minister end the practice of renovictions in Heron Gate and everywhere else in this province, so something like this never happens again?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honour-able member: Again, I want to thank you for the question. I agree that supply of housing is a priority for our govern-ment.

I tend to take a different approach than the member with this question. I want to continue to work with municipalities, to work with our 47 service managers and our two Indigenous program administrators, as well as developers, as well as the real estate sector. We need to work across lines to ensure that we have an adequate supply.

Our government is committed. We’ve committed at every opportunity to talk about more housi