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

September 20, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Sept-20 (PDF)

L025 - Thu 20 Sep 2018 / Jeu 20 sep 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 20 September 2018 Jeudi 20 septembre 2018

Orders of the Day

Standing orders

Introduction of Visitors

Notice of reasoned amendment

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Government’s record

Court ruling

International trade

Curriculum

Public transit

Health care funding

Government fiscal policies

Snowmobiling

Addiction services

Taxation

Indigenous mental health services

Taxation

Government’s agenda

Economic development

Karlena Kamenawatamin

Peter Adams

Introduction of Visitors

Private members’ public business

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Joe Drumm

Curriculum

Events in Richmond Hill

Jaswant Singh Khalra

Sistema Toronto

Marc Diab

Indigenous mental health services

Don Valley North community barbeque

Markham Fair

Introduction of Bills

Green Energy Repeal Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 abrogeant la

Loi sur l’énergie verte

Motions

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Petitions

Curriculum

Public transit

Gasoline prices

Curriculum

Animal protection

Indigenous affairs

Alzheimer’s disease

Pharmacare

Municipal elections

Affordable housing

Indigenous affairs

Employment standards

Mental health services

Private Members’ Public Business

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act (In Memory of Gord Downie), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario (à la mémoire de Gord Downie)

Organ donation

Social assistance

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act (In Memory of Gord Downie), 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario (à la mémoire de Gord Downie)

Organ donation

Social assistance

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Standing orders

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 19, 2018, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. We certainly need more voices and more democracy at Queen’s Park. That is exactly what the people of Guelph voted for and I think that’s what all voters voted for, and so I was so happy to hear members opposite yesterday talk about the importance of working co-operatively across the aisle to put the people of Ontario first. I think that’s exactly what the first amendment to this motion does: creating a select committee of all four parties working together to revise the standing orders in a way that reflects the unique character of the 42nd Parliament.

I also appreciate the passionate arguments of the members opposite that independent MPPs should participate more in the debates and proceedings of the House. I certainly agree, and that is exactly what the amendment to the amendment from the MPP from Ottawa–Vanier accomplishes: providing independent members with more time to participate in the debates and the proceedings of the House.

This amendment accomplishes that based on past precedent in 2003 when the NDP did not achieve official party status and, through unanimous consent, 16 days into the sitting of the 38th Parliament, the standing orders were changed to allow those independent members more opportunity to participate in the debates and the proceedings of the House.

We are now 27 days into the sitting of the 42nd Parliament, and I think the same privileges should be granted to the independent members of the Liberal and Green parties in proportion to the votes that we received. For this reason, I am quite confident that all members in the House will support these amendments. The eight independent members currently sitting in the House represent 25% of the votes that were cast on June 7.

Although the composition of the House doesn’t necessarily reflect the democratic will of the people, due to the distortions of our first-past-the-post electoral system, I certainly believe that it’s in the best interests of this House that the debates and the proceedings reflect in a proportional way the composition of the House. That is exactly what this amendment achieves.

The government received 40% of the vote and a majority. They certainly have the power to proceed with their agenda. But the voters of Ontario deserve all voices to be heard in proportion to the votes received, so I’m confident that all members will support this amendment.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: I got into politics—actually, I’m relatively new to it. I have to say that it was actually the Liberal Party of Ontario that inspired me to get into politics. We couldn’t continue operating the way that we were operating. It was just ridiculous, the entitlement that they seemed to believe was theirs when they were here in government.

It inspired me to enter politics, because we needed to make a change, and the people of Ontario agreed that we needed to make a change. They agreed to the point that 76 Progressive Conservatives were elected to this House. How many Liberals were elected? Not enough to form an actual official party. So it’s really rich when I’m looking at the amendments that the Liberal independent put forward. It seems like they just haven’t learned that they are not entitled to this. They’re not.

Let’s take a look at one in particular. They look at this and they say that independent members should have 20% of the available time. But they make up less than 10% of this House. “Give us twice as much as we should have, because we’re Liberals. We deserve it. We’re entitled to it. Because we’re Liberals, we should have that extra.” It’s unbelievable, the arrogance that we’re seeing from them even after they have been wiped out as a party in this province. It’s completely irresponsible of them to come forward this way.

Suddenly, after they are wiped out and they have nothing, they are here and they care about independent members, when the reality is they gave them no rights when they were in power.

Let’s talk about the opposition party. Back in 2003, when they sat here with seven members as well, they were trying to get their jobs done, and they were out there working hard. I’m going to give them some praise for that, because they were. They were working hard. And what did the Liberals do? Absolutely nothing. “No, we’re not going to give them party status.” Now the Liberals are in that same position, sitting here with seven members. What they’re saying is, “We have to have all of these things. Give us everything that we want, because we’re Liberals and we’re entitled to it. We are entitled.”

We saw 15 years of their entitlement here in Ontario, and the voters in Ontario said, “Enough is enough. We’re not going to stand for this anymore. We’re tired of that.” They sent a clear message to the Liberal Party of Ontario that, no, they are not going to have that.

How do you go from being the governing party to non-party status? You go there by being arrogant. You go there by being entitled. You go there by believing that everything should be handed to you. Luckily, the voters in Ontario said, “Enough is enough. No more Liberal entitlement.”

Let’s take a look at some of the things that the Liberals did during the 41st Parliament. They put forward an astounding 40 time allocation motions during the 41st Parliament. Madam Speaker, it’s interesting to see that, because that’s eight times as many OPP investigations as they had. They had five OPP investigations. Why did they have five OPP investigations? Because they believed that they were entitled. They believed that things really didn’t apply to them. They could do whatever they wanted, and to heck with what the province actually wants.

They had almost six times as many time allocation motions as their current group of independent members: seven—seven independent members. The reason they have seven is that the province was tired of them. They believed they had this innate right to rule in Ontario, that no one cared whether they did something right or wrong. They were just always in the right, so they could stand up and do whatever they wanted.

The seven Liberal independent members in this House represent a total of 121,000 votes. My riding has almost 154,000 people, so they’re representing less people than I actually have in my riding. So it’s really rich that they would come forward with this type of stuff.

Let’s take a look at the change that they want to have for 24(b). I’ll paraphrase a couple of things here and come down to the last quote. Basically, the standing order is that the government will do its thing, will have 60 minutes, and then a Liberal independent member could speak for up to 60 minutes. “But we’ll only give the Green member five, because we really care about independents.”

They don’t care about independents. They care about themselves. That’s evident perfectly in this. They believe they’re entitled to far more than they should have, simply because they’re Liberals. Thirty minutes—

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: A point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I recognize the member for Ottawa–Vanier on a point of order.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Yes, attributing motive.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I’m just going to remind the member to stick to the amendment on the amendment, and be very careful with your language. Make sure you’re not imputing motive. Thank you.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Speaker.

Instead of showing remorse, then, for the way that they acted in government, we see a number of things coming forward this way. What they’re asking for us to do is, they’re asking for us to make exceptions. They’re asking for us to give them more than what they are actually entitled to. They make up less than 10% of this House—less than 10%—but they’d like to have 20% of the available time. We have 76 members here in this House. We make up about 74%, but we’re not asking for 74% of the time. It is completely inappropriate.

Now, there was some conversation, there were some points made by the Green member, that we have to look at proportional representation when we’re in here. Okay, let’s talk about that: 121,000 votes is what the seven Liberals represent—121,000. Well, we have 76 members, and we represent far more than that.

When we talk about what happens in the election, it is first past the post. What we’re trying to do in Ontario is, we’re trying to have representation based on the ridings themselves.

When we come into the House and we’re actually speaking in here, when we’re debating something, we’re debating based on our ridings. It is that type of representation. We have 124 ridings in Ontario. Each of us should have a very similar amount of time to speak, and yet, what the Liberals are asking for is 20% of the time. They are looking for their seven ridings to be more important than all of the other ridings in Ontario.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: That’s not correct.

Mr. Dave Smith: It is absolutely correct. When you want 20% of the available time for seven, that leaves 80% of the available time for 117. The math just doesn’t work out. We can’t have Liberal independents believing that they have more rights than everyone else. That just cannot happen.

So when we look at the rotation, when we look at how we allocate the time in here, we have to allocate the time in an appropriate manner. Giving one group significantly more than any other group is not effective representation in this House. Ontario elected 76 Progressive Conservatives. They even elected 40 NDP members—far more than the independent Liberals. But the independent Liberals want to be treated as a party. They want to be treated as if they were just as powerful as 76, or just as powerful as the 116 that are made up by the other two official parties—because there are only two official parties.

The voters in Ontario made a very, very clear statement—to quote my friend the Minister of Transportation, a “crystal clear” statement in Ontario. They rejected the Liberals. They rejected the Liberal Party. They told the Liberal Party that Ontario was finished with their entitlement, that Ontario wanted nothing more to do with how they governed this province, and they sent them packing, to the point of only having seven members.

The former Liberal Party is entitled to nothing. That’s what the voters of Ontario have said. The former Liberal Party is entitled to nothing, and yet they come forward with these changes and they’re making amendments to a motion to try and give themselves far more power, to prop them up and to put them in a position that far exceeds everyone else here. That simply is not fair and reasonable. We cannot allow this to happen. We’re here to represent all of our ridings; we’re not here to put extra representation on seven members. I can’t say that enough—seven members.

That’s all Ontario wanted in here from the Liberal Party. Seven. Seven. You can’t say it enough. They were absolutely devastated in the election because Ontario was tired of the way they had run things.

Giving them the extras that they’re asking for does not do Ontario a service. In fact, it does a disservice to all of Ontario. I keep coming back to it because we can’t emphasize it enough. They’re looking for another day, they’re looking for 20% of the available speaking time. They’re looking to change a lot of the language. They’re looking to say, “The official parties—and the Liberals.” They want our language changed so that we treat them as if they were an official party. But the voters of Ontario said that they are not an official party—

Mr. John Fraser: Are you talking about 1.4 million voters?

Mr. Dave Smith: They are not an official party—I’m talking about the 121,000 voters who said, “Let’s put a Liberal here.” That’s all they represent: 121,000 people. As I said earlier, in my riding there are about 154,000, give or take a couple.

It would be irresponsible of us to allow them to have these amendments that they have put forward. It doesn’t represent good governance.

We decided to make some changes to it because we want to get back to work. Ontario has put us in this position where we have a very strong mandate. The reason that we have a very strong mandate is that the people of Ontario know that the Progressive Conservative Party wants to do the job. We’re looking to extend the hours of debate. We’re going to put 40 more hours of debate time in here. We want—we welcome—all of that discussion, and we should have all that discussion. It should be equal amongst all of us.

We all have the opportunity to stand up and represent our ridings, but if we go ahead with the amendments that the Liberals are suggesting, there are 117 ridings that are not represented quite the same way as the Liberals would be. The Liberals are asking for more time, they’re asking for more privileges and they’re asking for things they shouldn’t have. They still believe that they’re entitled. They’re entitled to their entitlements.

It’s a terrible thing that we’re seeing today. This is something that—myself, in good conscience, if I were one of the independent Liberals, I couldn’t look myself in the mirror after putting this forward. I looked at this and I thought: All they’re saying is, let’s ignore what the province of Ontario said to them back on June 7. Let’s ignore all 117 other ridings. Let’s ignore the fact that they went from the governing party to non-party status.

That can’t be emphasized enough: They went from the top party to nothing. The reason they went to nothing is that Ontario was sick and tired of their inaction, and where they did have action, it was action that caused damage to this province. Giving them what they’re asking for here simply perpetuates that. It gives them the ability, then, to cause more damage to this province. It’s going to take us years to fix the mistakes that they made. They should remain as independents in perpetuity. There’s no way that anyone in Ontario would accept this, other than other Liberals. It’s completely wrong.

They talk about being fair to the independents. Let’s look at what’s fair to the independents: Let’s give 30 minutes to the independent Liberals; five minutes to the other independent—five. If they wanted to truly be fair and reasonable, then they would have looked at this and said, “We are independent, period, and all independents should be treated the same way. All independents should be able to speak at the same proportional rate as everyone else in this House.” But that’s not what they’re asking for. What they’re asking for is, “Treat us as special. We deserve more because we’re Liberal.” And that’s just wrong. It’s just wrong.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): The member from Ottawa–Vanier on a point of order.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s imputing motiving again.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): I would just caution the member to be careful with the words that he chooses.

Back to the member for Peterborough.

Mr. Dave Smith: A hundred and twenty-four members, 60 minutes’ worth of debate, and they want to have 30 minutes for seven. If that sounds like motive to you, I’m sorry. Seven members should not get an additional period of time. Seven members should not have more time than everyone else in this House.

Mr. John Fraser: What did Mike Harris do in 1999? Oops, actually, he changed the standing orders.

Mr. Dave Smith: And we’re looking to change the standing orders. We’re trying to get it so that we’re back to work, so that we’re doing more for this province.

Yes, it’s legitimate to change the standing orders once in a while. Sometimes you do need to make adjustments to it, but you need to make adjustments to it that serve the people of Ontario. The changes that we’re proposing serve the people of Ontario. We’re asking for 40 more hours of debate. We’re going to give the Liberals more time, because we’re asking for 40 more hours of debate. That’s something that they haven’t asked for.

They’ve just said, “Give us more time,” not “Give everyone more time.” We’re looking at changing the standing orders so that on Thursdays, where we had that 31-minute period that is dead time that we’re not sitting here—we’re in Toronto; we’re here at Queen’s Park. Let’s get to work. Let’s get in here and do more.

We’re offering it to everyone because it’s fair and it’s reasonable. What’s being offered back, or what’s being proposed by the Liberals, is not fair and reasonable. It’s about self-serving. Asking for more time than everyone else gets is not serving the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario made a very, very clear message that they did not want what the Liberals were offering. The Liberals would be wise to listen to the people of Ontario, something that they did not do the last session of this government. They did not sit through it.

They did not listen to the people of Ontario, and that’s why they’re sitting with seven members—not even an official party—because they didn’t listen to the people of Ontario. They’re great at talking. They’re great at saying what they think. But they’re not very good at listening to what the people of Ontario are asking for. They’re not very good at interpreting the will of the people of Ontario, and this is evident in what they have proposed here. Seven members—I can’t say it enough—and they want more than everyone else is getting. It’s ridiculous that they’re even contemplating this.

The people of Ontario were very, very clear. They don’t want the Liberal Party. They only brought seven of them back—not enough for an official party—for a reason.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to be able to weigh in on this discussion. We are discussing a substantive motion that the government put forward to make changes to the standing orders, which is essentially our playbook here in the Legislature, and a few amendments that have been put forward—one by the independent Liberals, and one very thoughtful amendment put forward by the NDP caucus.

I’ve got about 20 minutes to break it down for the folks at home. This might be a bit of an interesting one because—well, it’s always an interesting one here in this Legislature. When we’re talking about the standing orders, it can seem a bit cumbersome, even for me. I’m not quite a rookie anymore, but I still consider myself a fairly new member, having only served for four years. There are a lot of things about this Legislature and about the standing orders that I am still learning, as I’m sure we all are, so any chance we have to talk about the rules and the specifics and the details is a chance for all of us to learn.

When the government put forward this substantive motion to make significant changes to the standing orders, that is the government putting forward ideas about how the game should be played here in the Legislature. There have been changes made through the years, as we’ve heard from government members who remember—from our own House leader, who so eloquently took us back in time through the years.

It was sort of storytime in the Legislature the other day as he was reminding us about different changes to different standing orders through time, which I find fascinating because I only know the rules of the game since I arrived four years ago, and now I’m going to know even fewer of those rules—well, not fewer; we’re going to have some changes.

We have had the opportunity in this House to debate a number of significant issues, from climate change to charter rights and a few things in between, and I have been getting a lot of letters and a lot of input from folks in my riding, as I know we all have. It was interesting when folks in the riding said, “Jen, you guys need to filibuster.” I said, “Well, that’s not a thing that we can do anymore. We are not allowed to filibuster.” You’ll have to forgive me my lack of dates and historical knowledge—I don’t remember when that was changed, exactly.

But folks remember, with the amalgamation of Toronto, the conversations and the filibustering and the approach the opposition took at that time. They were digging in their heels and doing their darnedest, with the standing orders, to give that conversation a whole whack of time—including to filibuster. Then, probably on the heels of that, the change came to limit all members with the clock. There was no more opportunity to give a long, movie-style filibuster speech anymore.

We now have an hour for the lead speech on any new bill introduction for each party, and then after that it’s 20 minutes, and then it gets dropped down to 10 minutes, and then, generally speaking, the government of the day, as I have seen, brings in a motion that says, “We’ve talked enough. Let’s go.” They don’t let debate just collapse on its own anymore. They end it with a time allocation motion.

So that is life under the clock here in the Legislature. But that’s a change. It used to be that you could speak, really, ad nauseam, but that the debate could continue until it ran its course. Regardless of which party we’re talking about, it gave the members in opposition a particular tool, that they could stretch it out so that the folks at home had time to not just clue in to what was going on but to follow along and to organize, to get involved and maybe be able to work with this House, whether it was at committee or protests or rallies or to call their MPP. But there is a reason to not always be in such a darned hurry.

I’ll get into the bits and pieces of this specifically, but I’m going to also take us back into a little more recent memory, since I’ve been here. It has been my esteemed privilege to sit in this House on behalf of the fine people of Oshawa, but it has now twice been sitting across from—and now across from and beside—majority governments.

I’m going to skip to the end. I’m going to ruin—spoiler alert, Speaker: Their bills are going to pass. They have a majority, as the Liberals did before them. When the government brings forward a bill, they get to decide what happens with the bill. It’s going to pass. They can say, “Now, if this bill passes,” because that’s how we should speak about it. We should assume that there is process and involvement with the broader community that might make them change course, but I’ve never seen it. It’s kind of like a unicorn. Maybe that’s a thing.

The bills get to go through. They have a majority government. We can vote against it, we can bang our desks, we can do all sorts of things. Well, we used to be able to, up until this. But we could do all sorts of things to try to make the government maybe reverse course as needed, to take information in, maybe make some changes, to slow it down, to do some consulting.

As I said, I was going to take us back to when the Liberal government was sitting across from us. The Conservative members and the NDP would stand in our places and we would give them heck about not consulting enough, that the people of Ontario were not invited to participate in fulsome committee hearings, that with the time allocation motion that would lay out just how quickly that darn bill was going to fly through this establishment—we, as, I would say, at those times, a unified opposition, would rail against the government, to say, “Let them speak. Let them be involved in the process. Let the outside in.” It was so frustrating.

I’ve stood in this House and I’ve said this before: Committee, and committee process, in my mind, should be one of the best things we do here, because that is where the government has put forward legislation, we’ve debated it—hopefully, it’s thoughtful legislation—and then it’s supposed to go to committee, where we hear from sometimes the community, experts, people who are mad about something in the bill, people who support it. What is supposed to happen in committee is that those experts or individuals sit before all of the committee and say, “Hold on. Give this some thought.

Hey, just a second—we caught a mistake. Hey, by the way, don’t do this, because here’s an unforeseen consequence.” Or they’ll say, “You are spot-on with this. May I make a suggestion?”

It’s supposed to be input for sober second thought, to flesh out a bill so that then they don’t have to make changes after it’s already been made law, so that it doesn’t have negative ramifications in our broader community. That’s what committee, in my mind, was supposed to be for. I never saw that happen, because of course, when you have a majority on committee, you can’t hash it out. The opposition could weigh in and debate some of the amendments, but we didn’t see that the majority ever—or often—listened. That was something that was frustrating.

The other thing that we would give them heck about—we being the opposition benches, whether they were Conservative members or New Democrat members—we would give the last government a hard time about the fact that all of the committee hearings, save maybe when travelling the budget, were hosted here in Toronto. Well, that was not fair, as we heard over and over, for folks across the province who have challenges travelling all the way to Toronto. We have a lot of members in this House that know how challenging it is to travel from the north to anywhere, let alone to Toronto for these tiny little windows for a committee hearing.

Why am I bringing this up, Madam Speaker? I am bringing this up because, as opposition members, the Conservatives were very vocal—as they needed to be; as we needed to be—about having an open Legislature and an open process for feedback on the committee process. Fun fact: We have had a few bills go through since those Conservatives have now gone from opposition to forming the government. We’ve had bills go through, and do you know we haven’t had committee yet?

We used to give the Liberals a hard time about not travelling committee and not going to the people, and here we have a government where I have not yet seen any committee. We have not had any committee hearings for any of the bills thus far. So I can’t tell you whether this government is going to travel any bills. I can’t tell you if they’re going to invite or allow public participation, because they don’t actually have to. I’m sure in the standing orders there should be something about—well, there’s lots about committee, but if there’s a “have to,” I haven’t seen it.

But what I’m seeing here with debating this substantive motion is that the government has figured out that there are a few things in those standing orders that aren’t working for them, that aren’t working for their agenda or their goals, their plan—things that get in the way. So I’m going to do my best to put this into people-speak. That’s not to condescend. That is so I understand it, because the standing orders can be, well—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Legal.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes. They’re very technical.

One of the changes that the government has put forward—I’m going to read it as it stands and then I’ll explain it: “That standing order 6(

b) be amended by deleting the word ‘eight’ and replacing it with the word ‘twelve.’” Well, that doesn’t tell me very much, Madam Speaker, does it? It basically says that they can have the ability to extend, instead of two weeks, to three weeks that the House can sit until midnight the last three weeks of a session. It’s always been two weeks before the end of a session, before a winter break or before a summer break. If there’s a whole bunch that we need to get through, it gives us as members more time to debate. So they’ve added a week for that. They’ve added more debate time. The government will celebrate debate time, but I’m going to come back to that.

Another change that they have made deals with opposition day motions. Madam Speaker, as I’m sure you know, an opposition day motion—I think we have five, is it, that we get in a session, that opposition gets where they put forward an initiative or a bill. The opposition puts forward a bill that reflects their priorities, that if the roles were reversed and they were in government, this is something that they believe in and that they feel is in the best interests of the province.

We still have those opportunities as oppositions to bring forward those bills, but the government has gotten tricky with the standing orders and now has said, “Well, okay, the day you’re supposed to have it”—normally when we use one of our opposition days, we dominate the day. We opposition have that day to put forward our priorities, to debate it, to vote on it. I’m going to tell you that it probably won’t pass; again, back to the majority—skipping ahead, sorry. But it’s still opposition day.

The government has figured out a way to say, “No, no, no. Let it be opposition afternoon but still leave time at the end so that the government can bring in some stuff and we can address our priorities so they can’t actually have the whole day.” So who cares, right? Who cares if we get a day or we don’t get a day? Well, it’s a tool, Madam Speaker, as it turns out, not just to share the opposition vision with the province, but also to push their agenda back a day. Again, a little bit of breathing room for sober second thought never hurt anyone. But it sure ticks them off. They don’t like it if there’s anything that can slow them down.

We’re not actually saying, “Hey, look, we’ve got a tripwire. Ha ha.” We’re saying, “We’re going to take an afternoon from you.” And they said, “No, no.” Here it is with standing order 43(a)(v). “We’ve now found a way that we can get those few hours back and take away that day of delay.” It is what it is. It’s inside baseball. But it just sort of speaks to that they’re pushing their agenda through, and, “Ain’t nobody going to get in the way,” Madam Speaker.

The other thing is that this government has made a bit of a change in response to something that happened a few weeks ago. I had the opportunity to be in the chair, and it was a Thursday afternoon. The wheels didn’t quite come off, but it was quite a Thursday afternoon, Madam Speaker. Both sides were flexing their standing order muscles to do their best to delay different parts of the process. It was a very interesting day to be in the chair presiding over debate because I just knew that there were rules that were going to be followed—and we did, and the outcome was the outcome.

But those rules that were followed on that day now are going to be a little bit different. So that’s what we find frustrating: to have this motion that is going through the standing orders and being very clever—very, very clever. Good for the government for finding any little loophole that might slow them down and taking it away from the opposition, but I remind them that they were opposition—I know it well; I’m learning it well—and there may come a time when they are back in opposition. These tools, not just for sober second thought but to hold the government to account, are necessary. They are.

The folks across the province understand that opposition plays a vital role, and that is not just to slow down the government; it is to hold them to account, to ensure that what they’re doing isn’t going to have negative consequence. It is to ensure that we have a fulsome committee process, that we invite the folks from across the province to be involved in this House, because this House is the people’s House—the government notwithstanding, ha ha. As we just recently had all the conversations about our rights, a lot of Canadians have been engaging. They’ve come to the House.

We’ve seen that they haven’t been able to get in, for various reasons that we can discuss. But this is, ultimately, the House that is to serve the broader public.

Our legislation needs to be the best version of itself that it can be. I believe that it’s not just about more time on the clock for debate. This government loves to stand up and say, “Yes, but we’re adding 40 hours of debate. Debate is good.” Okay, except that you rush each debate for each bill. So that additional debate time isn’t going to be 40 thoughtful hours that we add to debate to really flesh out an issue and make sure that we’re doing the best we can in terms of legislation. No, it’s that they’re going to ram through that many more bills that, I would argue, will be that much more damaging because they are so rushed.

Like I said, I challenge this government to prove me wrong. Prove that we will indeed involve the community and the public in our process. Have committee once—twice—for every bill. That would be great.

I have a couple of minutes left. I said at the beginning that we’re debating their motion—yes, but we there are also some amendments. The Conservative member who spoke before me spoke at length about the independent Liberal amendments, so I won’t go there. I will focus on what the NDP had put forward.

We put forward that the motion be amended by adding this section:

“a Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders be appointed to consider and report to the House its observations and recommendations with respect to proposed changes to the standing orders that would better serve the democratic interests of the people of Ontario;”

We also said, “That ... the committee shall focus on the following:

“—measures that reflect the government’s right to carry out its agenda and opposition parties’ responsibility to hold the government to account.

“That the committee shall have the authority to call for persons, papers and things, and generally shall have such duties and powers as are required to carry out its mandate;”

We’re not saying that the government can’t be the government or shouldn’t be the government. We want them to be a thoughtful government, and we want this legislation—any legislation—to serve people in the best way it can. We’re not going to agree, perhaps, on many of the priorities, but the way that legislation comes forward—there shouldn’t be mistakes in it that could have been caught during a committee process.

This committee on modernizing the standing orders: We’ve laid out very thoughtfully what the makeup of that should be so that it’s balanced for members of this House, because the standing orders shouldn’t be partisan. The standing orders are meant to reflect the non-partisan, public nature of this House. They are the rules of this House by which we all conduct ourselves.

Each time—and I took us back in history a little bit—that a new government comes in, they make changes to the rules that sort of fit their purposes and their plans. But you’re going to have to live with them one day when you’re not sitting in that seat. We all need to be thoughtful about that.

This amendment is entirely that—it is thoughtful—and it says, if we’re going to make changes to the standing orders, let’s put together a select committee that does the math on that, that makes changes.

You know, there are changes. We only have two parties now recognized in the House. There is a weird gap of empty airtime that the government is seeking to change. Well, that was an unanticipated problem before the last election. That’s how they’ve chosen to address it. That select committee would be non-partisan and would address anything else coming forward.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: We’re speaking today not just about changing the standing orders. Also, the NDP has put forward an amendment to the changes we want to make to the standing orders. For everybody who is perhaps watching at home while they’re having breakfast—I just ran over here from a meeting and did not have the time for breakfast today, so I’ll get to that, hopefully, at some point—we’re talking about the NDP’s suggestion, through an amendment, to create a Select Committee on Modernizing the Standing Orders.

Basically, what they want to do is be involved in the discussion—that’s what I’m hearing—on how we change the standing orders. I think we always welcome input. I don’t know that this is a feasible thing to do. It sort of smells a little bit like the usual delay tactics—we normally call them “reasoned amendments”—to a piece of legislation.

We just heard from the member for Oshawa, a member of the NDP. She spoke about the obligation of opposition “to hold the government to account.” Certainly, as somebody who was in opposition for four and a half years, I totally understand that, I get that, and I think that’s why we have debates in the Legislature. We don’t just go ahead and propose bills and then vote on them. We have debates and second reading, then we go to committee, often, and then we come, hopefully, for third reading, if it makes it through committee.

We all know the process, and we all know that sometimes it doesn’t go to committee and sometimes it doesn’t come for third reading. That’s why we hear so many private members’ bills, especially, coming back time and again and again.

She also mentioned recognizing the “non-partisan ... nature of this House.” Ideally, I guess, once we’re in the Legislature, we’re all a team. Certainly, I see it on committee. When I’m in committee, I feel that we do work as a team, and it’s a little bit less partisan. Question period, obviously, is very partisan sometimes. But during the debates, I think that it is thoughtful. I think people are representing their own opinions and their party’s consensus of opinion, as well as the ridings that they represent. It’s tricky to balance all of that. It’s easy to criticize. But I think we all recognize that we’re here to do a job.

I think that on the changes to the standing orders that were put forward by our House leader last week—we heard debate from the NDP House leader, the member from Timmins. There was a lot of thoughtful comment about why we’re trying to make the changes, and I know that the NDP agreed with some of the changes.

First off, I’m going to mention that on Thursdays, we—

Interjection.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Sorry. It was a Liberal amendment? There’s a Liberal amendment—I’m getting a note—to the NDP amendment that I wasn’t aware of.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It’s an amendment on the amendment.

Mrs. Gila Martow: It’s an amendment on the amendment. Oh, my goodness.

Actually, I’m just going to talk about that. The first time I heard the term “reasoned amendment”—now, I don’t come from a law background, so some of the terminology in here was a little overwhelming, the first week or two I was here. I was in optometry, and I can tell you all the different parts of the eyes and all the diagnoses and tests on eyes. But some of the legal terms—and it’s not just terms; it’s a way of speaking. It’s almost like a different language, sometimes.

So “standing orders,” of course, for people who are watching, refers to the rules and regulations of how the Legislature operates. We cannot just get up and speak whenever we want, although we might like to. We cannot just debate. It’s not even up to the government. We can’t just say, “You know what? We’re cancelling question period and we’re debating.” It’s all very strictly regulated. We have Clerks here, we have staff here and they all ensure, through the Speaker, that we are following all the rules. The rules are called, basically, the standing orders. What we’re trying to do is make a few changes to the standing orders.

One of them is pretty obvious, and I believe the independents and the NDP agree with it. We’re down to only two official parties. The way the standing orders were set up for private members’ business on Thursday afternoons is that we have a rotation system that goes through three parties, and each party gets their allotted amount of time. Because we’re down to two parties, that extra time doesn’t go to those two parties, and we’re sometimes left with a situation where we have 31 minutes of downtime on a Thursday afternoon.

I want everybody to understand that a lot of our members live far away, and many have to fly home. Friday is a constituency day, so we end here officially at 6 o’clock, usually, unless there is some kind of end-of-session late-night sitting. Usually we’re out of here by 6 o’clock on a Thursday. To have a half-hour break, as it were, at around 4 o’clock in the afternoon, or 3:30, is a little disheartening for a lot of the members who are anxious to get home, and even the ones who live in the GTA, who wouldn’t mind getting home that half an hour earlier.

To have that half-hour break—obviously we spend the time wisely, but it’s difficult to know that we have a half-hour break instead of just maybe using the time wisely to debate, or perhaps finishing half an hour earlier.

One of the amendments that we’ve put forward to the standing orders is to use that half-hour as debate time if necessary. I think that’s pretty obvious. If anybody in the opposition or the independents wants to argue that, I would say that that’s obstruction instead of opposition. Obviously, we know that it’s the opposition’s job to raise issues, as I said, of importance to themselves, to their party, to their constituents, but when it comes to having 30 minutes of downtime on a Thursday afternoon, if they’re going to be somehow speaking against changing that, I would call that obstruction.

We want to have flexibility. I think that’s the key word here. We want to have some flexibility as the government, and we want to be able to use our time wisely in the House.

What hasn’t been really brought up so far is that we have a

schedule here when the House is in session. We all have offices in our constituencies, and I know that sometimes people are walking into my constituency office and saying, “Why isn’t she here?” or “Where is she?” or “Why can’t I have a meeting on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday this week?” It’s basically two jobs. I have my job in Thornhill, which I represent, and then I feel that I have a job here, and then I have, I guess, a bit of a part-time job as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, which is the office further down the road. I just came, a little breathless, from a meeting, representing the Minister of Labour.

So we have a lot of different parts to our job, and I think people don’t always appreciate that it’s after all those jobs that we then go to your events. We’re happy to go to your events, but you have to be a little understanding of what else we have on our plate. We might be speaking the next day, and we need to go home and write some notes. If you tell us the speeches are at 7, and we tell you we’ll be there at 7, you can’t really tell us, “No, we’ve changed the speeches to 8:30.” That doesn’t really jibe very well with our scheduling.

We want to also, in terms of flexibility, expand the opportunity—it doesn’t mean we’ll necessarily do it, because I know that we kept being warned of late-night sittings until midnight for the last four and a half years. It doesn’t happen very often. The idea is to have the flexibility for each session. Each session, obviously, is a group of months that the Legislature sits fairly regularly, in consecutive order, and then there’s a winter break and a summer break.

Obviously, if there is a break of a couple of months where we’re focusing more on constituency work, the idea is to wrap up what we’ve been working on. I think the people at home and the people who are interested in whatever bill we’re working on are very anxious to see it wrapped up. They understand that sometimes there are delays, whether it’s intentional, by opposition members—or it could even be snowstorms. We know that the climate here can get difficult sometimes. We had a day where we were shut down most of the day because there was a gun scene at U of T on the campus near here.

There are times when we’re losing time in debate and we’re looking for ways that we could have the flexibility to make it up and to be more efficient.

It’s pretty difficult, I know, even when you’re gone for a week from this place, to come back and pick up on the debate that you were working on. Sometimes it’s months until a bill makes it to committee, and it’s always like you have to go back and read your notes. Even if you spoke on that bill, sometimes you have to go back and read your notes and remind yourself, “Oh yeah, we’re going to put forward an amendment on this,” or which party put forward that amendment. You have to wrap your head around it.

Obviously, the House has to have the ability to do its work. We want to be able to do our work. I know that not just the people who vote us here, but all the business leaders from inside the country and outside the country who want to invest in Ontario want to see an efficient, flexible government in Ontario before they invest their profits, their investors’ money, and create good jobs in Ontario. Everything is connected to everything else.

We also want to look at the fact that on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the House, according to the standing orders, does not resume sitting until 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Again, a lot of times there isn’t—sometimes there are caucus meetings for different members. Obviously, people have meetings and things like that. But in the afternoon sessions, it’s not usually obvious that all of us are in the building because we usually have duty days and we don’t have to be here in the afternoon or early morning, all of us, all the time.

So people can, on their non-duty days, have meetings with stakeholders and things like that. The fact is, oftentimes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 1 o’clock until 3 o’clock, people are sitting and twiddling their thumbs, as it were, and saying, “Gee, I wish I could do my time in debate now instead of on Thursday afternoon at 5 o’clock. That would be much more efficient for me, personally,” and the government is thinking, “Let’s get this show on the road and let’s get to work while we’re all here and we’re all in the building, because who knows?

There could be a snowstorm next week and we won’t be able to be here. Let’s get to work; let’s get our jobs done.”

We recognize that the opposition members want to sometimes have their delay tactics, and they need time to do that. So maybe we need that extra time just so that we can allow for some of the delay tactics that we’ve seen in the House.

Again, to have the flexibility doesn’t mean that the House is going to be changing the standing orders to be at 1 o’clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. It’s going to stay at 3 o’clock, but to have the flexibility to move it to 1 o’clock should the need be there.

In terms of delay tactics, we mentioned before reasoned amendments. It’s “reasoned” with an O-N. The first time I heard it, I heard “recent” amendments. I said, “Recent amendments? What were the old amendments if we’re having recent amendments?”

That’s sort of what I’m talking about, the legalese, as it were, that certain terms—we’re all sometimes pulling out our phones and trying to catch a word that somebody uses here that isn’t in our normal, day-to-day language. We hear politicians often say that things are egregious. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody, in a regular conversation—maybe my friends are peculiar or something, but they’ve never used the word “egregious” with me. It’s one of those words that you read in newspaper columns all the time. It’s an emotional word; I think it is an emotional—

Interjection.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m hearing from the NDP. It’s an emotionally charged word here sometimes when people feel very strongly about something.

It is important for us to recognize that there are parliamentary protocols, there’s parliamentary language. I know that sometimes people have a way to wiggle around it, saying things like “horse feathers” and things like that in the House until it gets obvious that they’re using it in an unparliamentary way. Recently we had to add some new words or terms to our list of unparliamentary language because the debate was so heated in the House. People are looking for colourful terms, colourful words.

I think sometimes people are looking for a way to grab everybody else’s attention, to stand out in the crowd, as it were. It’s not easy when you’re my height to stand out in the crowd, but I do try, Madam Speaker, to be noticed sometimes and to be recognized.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: You’re larger than life.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I was just told I’m larger than life, so I really appreciate that.

We’ve heard a lot about time allocation as well in terms of discussing the standing orders. Time allocation—again, the first time I heard about it, the first week or two I was here, I had to think about what it meant, and it became obvious to me that basically the time allotted to speak on a bill is set up. We have first reading, which is that we table a bill and we don’t actually debate it.

A lot of times, people are very excited in my constituency when they hear that it passed first reading, and I say, “Basically, everybody passes first reading because we’re not voting on it and we’re not debating it,” but they’re quite excited. I’m happy they’re excited, but really it’s not as exciting as it might sound to pass first reading. The fact is, second reading is when we debate a bill. First reading is when we table a bill, which means we bring it to the table where the Clerks are.

Oftentimes if the government is anxious and there are reasons why we don’t want a delay, it’s not just because we want to move on to something else; a lot of times there’s something hinging on what we’re working on.

I think a perfect example is the York University strike. The students were locked out for almost five months and the school year was about to begin. I think that certainly the people I heard from in Thornhill and in the GTA, where I consulted with so many people since I’m with the Ministry of Labour—people felt very strongly that enough is enough and that the students had to be able to go back to class.

The only way to be able to do that efficiently and quickly, unfortunately, because nobody likes to have to legislate back to work—it’s not something I look forward to doing, but I recognize that sometimes it’s necessary. It was necessary, I believe. The striking teaching assistants and library researchers, I believe, were legislated back to work. The professors actually were part of that initial one of the three striking units—there were three different striking units of CUPE.

The professors, the initial one, settled rather quickly, so it was the other two that were still not at the bargaining table, and they were legislated back to work.

In order to legislate them back to work, we have to table the bill at first reading, second reading debate, possibly go to committee, and possibly come back for third reading. So the idea of time allocation is to negate the necessity of having committee and having third reading—my understanding again, because I’m still learning every day in this place. If I’m getting anything wrong ever, I would appreciate the more experienced members—I appreciate even—the Clerks are very supportive.

The fact is that sometimes you use time allocation to move things along quicker, but we also recognize that time allocation itself is something that we’re debating on. Certainly it’s almost like third reading. In my opinion, when we have time allocation, really all we’re skipping over often is committee.

It’s tricky. I think it’s hard for people sometimes to wrap their heads around. I know that when I speak to my constituents who are lawyers, they have a much better grasp of what we’re doing here. I appreciate the time that I’m spending here, and I wish I would have been more involved. I think that’s something you really hear from people who start to work in politics or volunteer in politics or manage to get themselves elected.

Some of the few privileged people in our province who do that—they never say, “Oh, I’m sorry for whatever I learned about how the Legislature works.” The answer is always, “Gee, I wish I would have learned more. I wish I would have come to the galleries and watched or watched on TV.” To tell you the truth, until just before I was elected, I didn’t know it was televised. I had no idea at all that this was televised. Maybe it’s something that we have to do more public service announcements on and let people know what station in their area it’s on because I’m letting people know now who actually watch.

Certainly when we were here over the night this past early Monday morning, starting at a minute after midnight, I was getting messages on my phone, on my mobile. We’re allowed to have our mobiles in here. The galleries are not, of course, but I was getting messages from people watching at home at 4 o’clock in the morning. At 4 o’clock in the morning, I got a message from Carrie Liddy, who’s running for local council in Vaughan. She messaged me and said, “I can’t sleep. This is too interesting. Let Premier Ford know that I support him 100%.”

So quite a few people were watching through the night. I believe the Star said that it was one of their most-read articles. That’s how you get people engaged. If one positive thing came out of that early-morning all-night sitting—because the purpose of it obviously was negated yesterday with the stay, the judicial judgment that stayed the previous judge’s ruling. But if one thing came out of that all-night sitting, I would say it’s that people got engaged in the last couple of weeks.

Boy, oh boy, if Premier Ford is doing one thing right with this team, it’s that we’re getting the province of Ontario engaged. Through the leadership race, through this past election cycle, through our proposed changes, our quick changes, our fulfilling of our campaign promises so quickly and, I think, so efficiently, and not without a lot of media attention and sometimes controversy—but then again, controversy helps people get engaged, so maybe that’s a good thing sometimes.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak, Madam Speaker, and maybe I’m going to go have a coffee.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Good morning to everyone in the Legislature. It’s always a pleasure to stand and debate all items that come forward, be it legislation or standing orders or motions. It’s very important.

One of the things that the standing orders guide us on is that they guide us as to the rules of this Legislature. The book that we have—everyone has one in their desk. It also has the Legislative Assembly Act in here as well. It’s very interesting, if you actually take the time to read it. I, myself, do pick it up in the evening and I read a couple of pages, and then I’ll have to go back and read it again, because there is a lot of “clause (a), subject to clause (b)” and “subsection this.” It’s like a path, right? You have to follow that path.

It’s a bit of a patchwork and a puzzle, and you link those things together, and then it makes up the rules that really govern us here in the Legislature.

They are subject to change obviously, but I think the approach that this government has taken to change the standing orders is really wrong-headed. We need to have discussions about what rules, guidelines, expectations and boundaries we work under and how they fit into what we do. The government has a role in this Legislature, and we understand that. They want to pass legislation. We have a role—we’re the official opposition—but they’re not understanding that very well. They’re not paying attention to how to develop a working relationship with people in this House. They really just want to push their dominance, I’m going to say, on the official opposition by way of the standing orders.

It’s very clear, when you look at what they proposed, how they want to exert their power and dominance over the official opposition, to kind of limit what we can do so that we can exercise some discretion around their legislation. That’s the thing: We’re not going to stop every piece of legislation by way of ringing bells or asking for further debate on things. There are times we’re actually going to agree with the government that things should be time-allocated because it’s a really good bill—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Maybe not time-allocated.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Well, yes, that’s true. We’re not going to necessarily—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Stop debate.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: You’re right. We’re not going to stop debate but we can agree that we can move forward on bills when they are good legislation and allow each member to have an opportunity to talk.

I’ve said this before: This government likes to use a sledgehammer. What’s wrong with having a conversation with your colleagues? What’s wrong with that? Because what happens is that when you come to the table and you actually get to know someone, you understand them better, and all the thoughts and presumptions you made about what they’re trying to do or what we’re trying to do or what the independents are trying to do—they actually come down to reality and you realize that you have common ground. If we can find that common ground, we can create standing orders that work for everyone.

I have to tell you that when we go to the House leaders meetings—and this is another piece of the way this government is conducting themselves, like a domineering effect—they don’t even let us know ahead of time what’s coming up, which is, again, very wrong in a working relationship.

Today, we have a House sheet, but we have yet to confirm—and I haven’t checked my BlackBerry, but as of about 9:30, the government has yet to confirm what business they’ll be bringing forward after private members’ bills. In one of their standing orders, they’re talking about how Thursdays need to be productive, because the independents don’t have the time and, therefore, there’s a gap between the voting period and when we bring business forward. Yet they haven’t told us what that business is.

They profess to say, “We need to work here, and nobody else has a work ethic like we do.” I call that horse feathers, as the member mentioned earlier. I call that horse feathers, Speaker, because I think we all have the work ethic that we bring to this House to do the best by the people we represent. If that means working later, I think all of us here want to do that.

The common goal that we bring to this Legislature is to make a change for the better, to make a difference to people’s lives. Yes, this government thinks it’s making a difference to people’s lives when they’ve the passed the most recent bills that they had, their agenda. But remember, you’re also being challenged in court on each one of those bills.

The other piece—you have to reflect. You say, “We don’t believe in the cap-and-trade.” They call it a carbon tax, the federal government’s carbon tax, and they’re taking them to court. Yet they don’t see that reflection back in Bill 31 and understand that what they’re doing—that people don’t agree with it and they’re taking them to the court. They actually act like they’re offended or hurt that someone would challenge their authority in legislation—

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It’s egregious.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Exactly. So I smile when the member from Caledon—is that still your—

Interjection: Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —Dufferin–Caledon does a little heckling, or another member does a little heckling on this side of House. Sometimes, it’s the interaction of the job. Now, when you get way offside and way off-colour, that’s rude, and you do have to stand up and withdraw. Absolutely, Speaker.

I remember when the Conservatives were the official opposition, and one member in particular from Ottawa, who is now the community and social services minister, would always say things that she would have to withdraw. I bet you that she’s having withdrawals from withdrawing, because she was always asked to withdraw—always.

We’re running out of time, unfortunately. I wanted to put that introduction first of how I wanted to talk about the bill, and how what the standing orders allow us to do is actually form a working relationship with the government. It’s a tool that we have. The book is a tool that we use to build those relationships with each other in this Legislature. Unfortunately, we’re hacking away at them. When I get back to debating, in the next 13 minutes of my speech, on another day, I’ll be able to address that.

I listened also to the member from Thornhill, as well as the member for Peterborough–Kawartha earlier—and how passionate he was and how vocal and strong he was in his opinion about the independents.

You know, Speaker, when you have—how many seats?

Interjection: A bajillion.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Too many.

Mr. Dave Smith: Seventy-six.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: That’s a majority, right? It’s a majority. When you have that majority, you don’t need to—you can be humble. You can be humble when you’re winning, right? You can be humble.

I can tell you that I did not agree with many of the things that the Liberals presented in this Legislature. As a government, they were completely entitled; I agree with that. But this is a new makeup in this Legislature.

I’m going to leave it at that right now, because I know you’re probably going to call the House to adjourn for question period. Thank you, Speaker.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ross Romano: I wanted to welcome a number of my staff from my constituency office here to Queen’s Park today. They’re all here for training this morning: Colleen Bishop, Jason Naccarato, Christina Speers and Natasha Zore. One of my newly hired people in my office here is my legislative assistant, Anisha Vohora. Welcome.

Mr. Doug Downey: I have two guests that I would like to introduce. First is my chief of staff for the constituency, Kathryn Abel, who’s in the members’ gallery. The other is Melissa Varsava, who is the chief of staff for my colleague Andrea Khanjin in her constituency.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce three members of my constituency staff who are here today for training. They all live and work in Carleton. I have Barbara Shantz, who is my executive assistant; Hina Patel, my constituency administrator; and John Buchan, who is my clerk/typist. I just wanted to welcome them to Toronto and to Queen’s Park.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Could I have the House’s attention? I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the member for Ottawa–Vanier has notified the Clerk of her intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The order for second reading of Bill 32 may therefore not be called today.

Oral Questions

Municipal elections

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. A few short weeks ago, the Premier decided that the top priority of his new government was not hospital wait times, the state of our schools or the 80,000 jobs that were lost in the province last month. His top priority was throwing a municipal election into chaos, an issue that he didn’t mention even once during the election campaign. Now, Toronto has been forced into an election that many doubt can be conducted freely or fairly and may yet to be found to violate the charter.

Can the Premier tell us what the plan is if the original ruling around Bill 5 is upheld on appeal?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We had a great day yesterday on all fronts. We had a great day with Bill 5. We had a great day down in Washington with Minister Wilson, making sure that we’re protecting jobs in Ontario, we’re protecting the steel and aluminium sector, we’re protecting the agriculture sector and we’re protecting the automotive sector.

My friends, we’re there to put money back into the taxpayer’s pocket, not back into the government’s pocket. I can read off some of our accomplishments over just a short period of time of a few months: We announced the end of cap-and-trade; we saved 7,500 jobs in Pickering that would have been shut down by the Leader of the Opposition; we committed to building a memorial for the most important people around, our veterans of the Afghanistan war—

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Looks like most of the money is going into lawyers’ pockets here in Ontario, Speaker.

The fact is that all of the Premier’s actions, from his late-night lockdown of the chamber to his plan to trample charter rights, were done to achieve one thing and one thing only: forcing a single municipality to have elections that many doubt will be free or fair, and may still be proven to violate the Charter of Rights.

Does the Premier really consider that a success?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We can see that the Leader of the Opposition is still trying to protect her downtown NDP friends, but we’re focused on important things that matter to everyone in Ontario.

We ended up reforming OHIP to support the people in greatest need.

We ended up, as we promised, getting rid of the CEO of Hydro One and the board of directors, to lower hydro rates by 12%—again, putting money back into people’s pockets.

We:

—cancelled wasteful, wasteful energy contracts that were implemented by the Liberal government;

—launched an Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry—and you will hear from the finance minister how the Liberals destroyed this province financially;

—launched a line-item-by-line-item audit of government spending. I can’t wait until you hear the line-item-by-line-item audit, to see who’s been wasting the taxpayers’ money;

—attended the Council of the Federation meeting in New Brunswick—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. On Monday of this week, I reminded the House that we were going to be cracking down on the imputing of motive. I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier never campaigned on doing this. From what we can see, he didn’t even tell his Minister of Municipal Affairs about his plan before the drafted bill was dropped on his desk. This Premier loves to get his way, but he’s not very good at proving that he deserves it.

From Ottawa to Niagara, municipalities across Ontario are looking on and wondering whether they’re going to get the short end of the stick the next time the Premier wakes up on the wrong side of the bed.

What protection can the Premier offer to those municipalities?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection: He doesn’t sleep.

Hon. Doug Ford: You’re right: I don’t sleep, because I’m up protecting the taxpayers all day and all night.

Our PC team has accomplished more for this province than any government in recent memory.

When the students up at York were struggling, we ended the York University strike.

We announced the Better Local Government Act to make things run more efficiently; committed to fixing social assistance by increasing rates by 1.5%; and launched a constitutional challenge against the federal carbon tax, the single worst tax there is. We returned buck-a-beer to the people of Ontario.

Government’s record

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier.

The Premier stated he “won’t be shy” about overriding the charter in the future, so can the Premier tell us which charter rights he plans to override next?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: We have such a long list of accomplishments, it’s just amazing.

When people in the north were struggling with the fires, we made sure we committed an additional $100 million to fight forest fires across this province.

We invested $25 million to combat gangs and guns, which is a serious problem in some large cities.

We announced the cannabis retail model.

We announced the Hydro One board of directors, proclaimed the Hydro One Accountability Act, reduced natural gas prices by up to $80 per year per family, expanding natural gas—that was a great, great announcement the other day at the plowing match, when we went up there for the farmers, that we’re actually putting money back into the farmers’ pockets—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We recall that the Premier attacked the judge who ruled against him, but the fact is that judges uphold the law of the land. That includes the Charter of Rights and the Human Rights Code. Sadly, the Premier made it clear that he thinks that the law of the land shouldn’t apply to him when he wants to get his way. That leaves Ontario and Ontarians wondering what’s next.

Can the Premier tell us whether he’s ready to use the “notwithstanding” clause to override, for example, collective bargaining rights or to keep updated sex health education out of our schools, or is there a line that this Premier won’t cross?

Interjection: Tell us more.

Hon. Doug Ford: I’ll tell you more.

We brought accountability to Toronto’s city council, as well as a number of two-tier municipalities.

We reduced the costs associated with licence renewals. As the Liberals want to continue jacking it up, we froze it.

Interjection: Bringing relief for families.

Hon. Doug Ford: We’re giving relief to families. We’re giving relief to businesses by lowering taxes. We’re giving relief to families earning up to $80,000, reducing their taxes by 20%.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: This is about respecting the taxpayers. It’s about putting money back into their pocket. It’s making sure that we have an accountable, transparent government that we haven’t seen down here in 15 years. We will bring integrity back to the taxpayers of this great province. We will be the engine of Canada once again.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is the government of backroom deals. We haven’t had a single committee meeting happen in this chamber since this government got elected.

Here’s what Ontarians see: In the few months that he’s been on the job, the Premier has managed to find himself in court almost on a weekly basis. People are taking this government on because they worry that the Premier just does not respect their rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created to provide basic legal protection to all Canadians from arrogant governments that think a majority government gives them licence to do whatever they want.

The Premier said he “won’t be shy” about trampling those rights over and over again, so my simple question is: What rights will the Premier override next?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I find it pretty rich that the Leader of the Opposition is talking backroom deals when the NDP propped up the Liberal government 97% of the time. I’d like to know how many backroom deals they had with the Liberal government to destroy this province, to make us the most indebted region anywhere in the world, the largest subnational debt in the world.

Well, I can tell the people of Ontario that we’re going to turn that around. We’re going to start reducing the debt, putting money back in their pockets. We’re going to create jobs. If it was up to the Leader of the Opposition, there would be 7,500 people unemployed right now in Pickering, with no solution.

Again, we are going to lower the hydro rates, lower taxes, stimulate the economy like this province has never seen before, because we’re going to create an environment to create good-paying jobs.

Court ruling

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Attorney General, but I have to say that 80,000 job losses is not a stimulated economy for our province, Speaker.

In their ruling on Bill 5, the appellate court felt compelled to note that their decision was not informed by the government lawyer’s arguments that Bill 31 and the charter override would not proceed if they granted a stay.

The Attorney General will know that attempts to politically persuade the courts are exactly the sort of thing that our province’s top lawyer is supposed to guard against. So can the Attorney General confirm that this direction did not come from her or senior officials in her office?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: We provided that evidence in response to the city clerk’s evidence regarding uncertainty about the upcoming election on October 22, because, as we’ve been saying all along, we want to provide certainty to the voters of Toronto regarding their election process. We provided that information in direct response to her concerns about uncertainty. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, because I’m sure she read the decision, the court said that it had no bearing on their decision.

I can say that now the voters in Toronto have the certainty that they’ve needed regarding their election, and we are hopeful we’ll be able to proceed on October—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: One media report suggested that the political direction to government lawyers came directly from the Premier’s office, which looks like a transparent attempt to politically manipulate the courts and the office of the Attorney General. It’s one thing to disrespect the Minister of Municipal Affairs and usurp his role, but the Attorney General has a legal responsibility.

Can the Attorney General promise that political interference with crown lawyers arguing on behalf of Ontario will not happen again?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the Leader of the Opposition to the decision that the Ontario Court of Appeal issued yesterday for the answer to her question, and let you know that we are able, finally, to provide certainty. We campaigned on a promise of smaller, more efficient government, and that’s what we have delivered. So I direct her to the decision for further questions, not to media reports.

International trade

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

The United States is Ontario’s number one trading partner. Some 920,000 Ontario jobs depend on free and fair trade between our two economies. Jobs in my own constituency and across this great province depend on getting NAFTA right and making our industry more competitive.

Automobiles are a great and important example of how connected our economies really are. The parts on an average car cross the Canada, US and Mexico borders seven times before being installed on the production line.

Can the minister please inform the Legislature about what our government is doing to stand up for Ontario workers?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to my honourable colleague from Brampton South, who is joining all PC caucus members in standing up for Ontario workers and making sure that Ontario is open for business.

In July, Mr. Speaker, the House will know that I first travelled to Washington to testify at the US Department of Commerce’s public hearing on

section 232, which was a US threat to put tariffs on autos and auto parts. We successfully, to date, argued that. I stressed the importance of the Ontario-US trade relationship. This marked the first time in history that a subnational government was invited to give testimony.

The Premier has been burning up the phone lines speaking to numerous US governors, legislators and stakeholders, and what we’re hearing is that a NAFTA deal must get done.

Yesterday, Premier Ford and I travelled to Washington to meet face to face with members of the Canadian negotiating team, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian and American ambassadors. We were formally briefed on the latest developments—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the Premier and minister for working to keep markets open for Ontario workers and businesses.

The US and Ontario really do share a unique economic relationship grounded in free and fair trade, integrated supply chains and complementary markets. Everyone we speak to emphasizes how important it is that we reach a deal and end this ongoing uncertainty. NAFTA has served all three parties well for 24 years. But people expect and deserve a government that will stand up for their economic interests and the prosperity of our province.

Can the minister please inform the Legislature what message he delivered to our federal counterparts in Washington?

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to the honourable member. Our government knows that, in order to create and protect jobs in Ontario, Ontario must be open for business. This is dependent upon a fair and open trade agreement with our largest partner, the United States.

The message yesterday to the federal government and our negotiators was that the Premier and this government stand shoulder to shoulder with the federal government. It’s “team Canada” when it comes to NAFTA. We stressed the importance of the agricultural sector in Ontario, of our automotive sector, and steel and aluminum. Every province has sectors they want to stand up for. Those are the sectors that we emphasized, that affect just about every job in the province of Ontario.

The Premier did an excellent job—I was so proud of him—in talking to the negotiators directly. This is a man and this is a Premier that really, really cares about your job, about putting food on the table for families, and he showed that in the US. I think they were extremely impressed and the message got through.

Curriculum

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Minister of Education. Today and tomorrow, students across our province are staging walkouts to protest the chaos brought on by this government’s rollback of sex education and the cancellation of the Indigenous curriculum writing sessions. While students are forced to fight for a curriculum that prepares them for today’s world, their parents and educators are left in the dark about the promised consultations.

Will the Minister of Education tell the House how long Ontario’s youth will be forced to learn from a 20-year-old health curriculum while the government delays its work on the curriculum consultations?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I am very much looking forward to the rolling out of this consultation across the province. It’s going to be comprehensive. It’s something that parents have never seen before, because, first and foremost, we as a government are standing up for parents and respecting their right to exercise their voice. I’m very much looking forward to hearing from students and every person who wants to exercise their voice in sharing how we should be shaping our curriculum going forward.

The fact of the matter is, it’s the PC government of Ontario that actually is going to get it right. We care about the path of success our students are walking on. We look forward to the information and the consultation responses that we are going to foster. We are going to be embarking on a unique situation whereby we will be utilizing telephone town halls and online responses, in terms of a survey that will be released at the end of this month, and we will be entertaining written submissions as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, while this government has dragged their heels on this so-called consultation for months—months—students in 2018 will be learning from a health curriculum written in 1998—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: They know it’s true.

When will the minister turn off the time machine and ensure Ontario’s students have the information they need to feel safe, empowered and ready for the challenges of today? Students are telling you today and tomorrow that they’ve had enough. They want answers. They want to see what this consultation involves, and they want you to roll back this decision and move Ontario forward in the sex ed curriculum, not backward.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: We are moving Ontario forward because we’re actually listening to parents, students and communities throughout this province once and for all. That’s what I call forward-moving.

You know what? I absolutely respect anyone who wants to stand up. Students, if you want to have your voice heard, I say sincerely to them, Speaker: Please contribute; participate in our consultation. It’s going to be very unique because we’re going to be focusing on improving their math scores, we’re going to be focusing on mental health supports and we’re going to be focusing on how we can best prepare our students for the realities of today. Most importantly, Speaker, we’re standing up with our administrators and encouraging students to respect the code of conduct, which I hope the member opposite is encouraging students to do as well.

Public transit

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister and Premier Ford have said that our government for the people will be known as the government that brought transit to Ontario.

During the election, I heard at every door, “We need more transit.” Constituents in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore commute to and from work every day using the GO train, so I was pleased to join the minister this morning, along with my colleague from Durham, at an announcement to increase service along both lines of Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West. An increase in service will give my constituents a more convenient commute, allowing them the opportunity to spend more time with their number one priority, their families.

Would the minister please inform the House on how today’s announcement will increase the service and benefit commuters?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore and also the member from Durham for joining us this morning.

Yes, that was an exciting announcement. It builds upon the commitment that Premier Ford made in the campaign and we have lived up to. We are going to increase transit opportunities and ridership in this province and expand the GO network and expand transit throughout the GTHA.

Today, we announced that, effective September 24—next Monday—an additional 220 trains per week will service the GO Lakeshore line. That is going to be such a benefit to the people who ride transit in this province and in the GTHA. It’s hard not to get excited about it, and I’m sure the people on the other side are as excited as I am about this.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. That’s the minute.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’ll do more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, I know. Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Minister, for that exciting answer. I know the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore will be extremely thrilled to hear this news. It’s something we campaigned on, it’s something that we promised, and it’s something that we’re delivering on.

This is an exciting time for all transit users in Ontario. I know that this is just a start, and I’m certainly looking for future announcements that this government will have that will take place in the near future. The people of Ontario finally have a government that listens, and I applaud the continued efforts of Premier Ford and our Minister of Transportation to bring efficient transit to the people of Ontario.

Can the minister also speak to how this service increase fits with the rest of our plan that the government has for the people of Ontario?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member again for her question—and I’m watching the clock.

Two hundred and twenty trains per week, 27 trains per day on the Lakeshore East GO line, 17 trains per day on the Lakeshore West line—that’s 408,000 additional seats per week available on the GO Lakeshore corridor. The change that this makes to people’s lives—everyone can understand that. People want to be able to move more efficiently and effectively through the GTA.

Time and time again, the Premier has said that better transit is an absolutely vital economic development tool, and we’re going to use it to make Ontario better. We are committed to building transit, and this is just the first step.

Health care funding

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Hallway medicine at Thunder Bay regional hospital has reached a crisis. Recently, I brought a friend to the emergency room and saw overwhelmed hospital staff doing their best, with stretchers lined up the halls.

One of the reasons for overcrowding at the hospital is the lack of a regional mental health crisis centre. Over 6,300 people visited the emergency room in 2017 with mental health and substance abuse issues. When will these much-needed mental health services be funded?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. There are two issues here that we are immediately addressing and that we spoke about during the election campaign. One is to end hallway medicine. We are working on that with the creation of more long-term-care beds to end the number of alternate-level-of-care people who end up staying in the hospital because there’s nowhere else for them to go. We’re working on that directly right now; we are creating 15,000 spaces within five years.

The other issue is to deal with mental health and addictions issues, which are also using hospital resources in the emergency department. We need to end that. There are some short-term solutions that we are going to be putting forward for this year that deal with some of the more urgent issues.

We are looking at the overall picture. We know that we don’t have a comprehensive system right now, but we have committed a large amount of money, as you know—$3.8 billion over 10 years—in order to be able to deal with that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: The government can help hallway medicine by making important investments in emergency and mental health treatment. We need this at Thunder Bay regional hospital and in our community, desperately. But so far, this government seems more interested in making cuts than making investments. The government has put all new investments on hold and under review.

We can’t wait any longer. We need mental health crisis services in Thunder Bay and for Thunder Bay regional hospital. When will the minister provide the necessary funding and get this opened?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are doing a line-by-line review of all programs and services in Ontario because we know that after 15 years of Liberal government, spending is out of control. So we need to make sure that whatever investments we do make are going to be of benefit to the people of Ontario.

We do know that one of the biggest areas for that is with mental health and addictions. We know that, despite some efforts that have been made, it has been more of a scattered approach. What we need is a comprehensive, holistic view of what people need. That covers things like mental health and addictions treatment and also housing, employment, social and recreational opportunities—the list goes on and on.

We have about 12 ministries on this side of the House that are working on that, because it’s not just one simple solution; it’s going to require the work of everyone to put that system together. We have a lot of money we’re going to put into that; $3.8 billion is a lot of money. We’re going to make—

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

Next question.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. The Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario reports that the province’s credit rating remain strong, but warns that your government’s planned actions could damage Ontario’s financial standing.

The FAO further states that under the previous Liberal governments—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood has the right to ask a question. She’s a long way from the chair. I have to be able to hear her. I would ask the government benches to come to order and let her put her question.

Start the clock. I’ll give the member more time.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: The FAO further states that under the previous Liberal governments, there has been constrained spending on programs for the last number of years.

Through you, Speaker: Premier, you’ve promised things to Ontarians. How can you pay for those without cuts? You promised to build more subways in Scarborough, while at the same time you’re going to reduce revenues. During the campaign, you said that no one will be laid off. Premier, will you come clean and tell the people of Ontario what programs you plan to cut?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, that’s so shameful I’ve got to give it to the finance minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You can refer a question, but we don’t need to hear a political statement during the referral.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much, Premier.

We’re going to have to tell the lob question that was coming to me on this later to move on to something else because you’ve already done it for us. What the FAO actually noted was the history of waste, mismanagement and scandals from the previous government.

Interjections.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the waste, mismanagement and scandal of the previous government that was propped up by the NDP was the actual cause of the significant deterioration in Ontario’s credit rating since—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Actually, page 4 of the FAO report states that there has been “restrained growth in program spending over the last number of years.” It’s right there.

So my question, again, to the Premier: Our Liberal record has propelled Ontario, having the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years, the highest foreign direct investment record over the last five years in North America, leading the growth amongst the G7—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Will the Premier listen to the FAO report and continue the Liberal record of balanced investments and investing in critical programs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: —like education, health care and infrastructure that has led Ontario to have a driving economy? Will the Premier continue this balance of investment and growth to sustain Ontario’s economy?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, quite frankly, I’m still shocked at the question. We’ve been clear from the start that only this government is committed to enhancing financial accountability and transparency. The FAO’s report was a scathing indictment on the past Liberal government—again, propped up by the NDP, who supported them on 97% of their votes. It was a smouldering indictment of your activities, your scandals, your abuse—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: —your mismanagement of the budget. Speaker, to my finance critic: I have been a finance critic for five years. I’ve written five books on the Liberal government misuse. I will ask a page to take Focus on Finance 5 over to the finance critic, and she can see the scandals in her own government.

Snowmobiling

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: As an outdoor enthusiast, I was pleased to read of the recent announcement by the Minister of Transportation. So my question is to the Minister of Transportation on his recent announcement to increase the access to safety training and licensing for snowmobilers. This was a direct response to long-standing requests from the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs and from many Ontarians.

Our government is committed to making life easier for the people of Ontario, and I thank the minister for highlighting the fact that online learning will allow for better access to safety training for those who live in rural and remote communities. With more trails and more riders, we must continue to make sure that our riders are safe and up to date on the latest safety measures.

Could the minister please inform the House as to how these changes will make it easier for Ontarians to safely enjoy our great outdoors during the winter months?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to thank the member for Barrie–Innisfil for her question, and her advocacy as well.

We all want people to get out and enjoy the great outdoors in Ontario, and snowmobiling is one of those great sports. We have been pleased to partner with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs in bringing forth an online safety training course for people to have more access to safety training and get out on to those trails and enjoy them.

This is something that the OFSC has been asking for for some time, and the previous Liberal government seemed to refuse to want to co-operate with them. The OFSC is a great organization across this province, and we were more than happy to join with them in bringing forth these kinds of changes.

Let me point out, Speaker, that any time we make regulatory changes in the Ministry of Transportation, safety is always top of mind, and it is no different in this case.

We have listened to the people. There will be more access to training, particularly for those who drive a long distance—

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for his practical approach to improving access to safety training and for listening to Ontarians.

Snowmobiling is a popular winter pastime for many of my constituents and people all around Ontario. Ensuring that our young riders, who are the future of snowmobiling in Ontario, have access to online safety training will be to their benefit and to all trail users’. I believe all members of this House believe it is very important to have up-to-date training and safety for our young generation so more Ontarians can get outside and we can attract more tourism in our province. This is a very positive development.

Can the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport update the House on how our government for the people is working with our partners to promote tourism and advance the priorities of snowmobilers in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplemental question went to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thanks for sharing. Thank you to my colleague from Barrie–Innisfil. Not only is snowmobiling a fun and great recreation; it’s also an enormous economic benefit to our communities. Each winter, an estimated 200,000 snowmobilers hit the trails and inject $1.7 billion into Ontario’s economy.

Our government for the people is proud to partner with the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. Dozens of clubs and over 7,000 volunteers maintain 32,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails connecting communities throughout Ontario. These trails are not only used by Ontarians but are a very popular destination for our out-of-province visitors.

I’m happy to share a quote from the executive director of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs on the government of Ontario’s recent announcement: “On behalf of snowmobilers across the province of Ontario, the OFSC welcomes this announcement and applauds ... the government of Ontario for their support of our sector.”

Addiction services

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario is facing an unprecedented public health crisis. Between January and March of this year, opioids have claimed over 1,000 Canadian lives, but the minister has refused to declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency, which would quickly send resources and funding to where they are desperately needed, and has called into question the future of Ontario’s overdose prevention sites. More and more lives are in jeopardy with every minute the minister delays action.

Will the minister finally take action and declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. It is an issue that we take very seriously. We are losing far too many people to opioid use and misuse because it’s often being mixed with other things like fentanyl; people aren’t consuming what they think they’re consuming.

We are taking it seriously. The Premier is taking it seriously. That’s why he asked me to conduct an evidence-based review to determine whether we should continue with supervised consumption sites and overdose prevention sites.

I have taken that seriously. I’ve met with four tables of people, including people who are in favour of it, people who have some concerns about it, law enforcement officers, community representatives and people with lived experience. I’ve visited several supervised consumption sites myself. I’ve gone on a walkabout with the Toronto business improvement area. I have taken it seriously, and I am preparing a report for the Premier because, as you know, September 30 is the deadline when the federal exemption expires.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the minister: As part of budget 2018, the federal government has allocated $150 million in emergency funding for provinces and territories to combat the opioid crisis that is devastating families across the country. It was recently confirmed that British Columbia will receive $70 million to fight the opioid crisis and save lives. New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec have all taken the federal government up on their funding offer.

Minister, why is Ontario leaving money on the table when so many Ontarians’ lives are at stake?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, we are taking the federal government up on the money that is available. It was because of the election being at the time that it was that several other provinces have moved ahead of us, but we are working on finalizing that agreement so that we can have access to those monies. That is important, but of course, our own monies are going to be put into this system as well in various ways.

We are looking at a comprehensive, complete mental health and addictions system. The issue with respect to opioids is one aspect of it, but any solution that is arrived at, we’re going to have to figure out how that is going to slot into the overall picture. So we need to take both short-term action, as well as longer-term action. We are working directly on that right now. It is a priority for my ministry, and I am preparing to make recommendations to the Premier for his decision about whether to continue or not before September 30. This is time-limited. It is something that we are dealing with straightaway and we will be making recommendations—

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

Next question?

Taxation

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment revealed to this Legislature that refineries had reduced their prices on gas by 4.6 cents a litre. This was in response to the government’s cancellation of the expensive and ineffective cap-and-trade program of the previous Liberal government.

This reduction has resulted in direct savings on the cost of fuel, providing some much-needed relief for the people of Ontario, relief which our government promised we would deliver. The people of Ontario can’t afford a carbon tax. Times are tight, and the Premier promised that relief is on the way.

Will the Minister of the Environment explain to this House how our changes are reducing the cost of fuel and making life more affordable for families in Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Thank you to the member from Perth–Wellington for his question and for his advocacy for his constituents.

It is great to see gas prices starting to come down. It is great to see relief for families. There is a straight line between this and the mandate on which we were elected to fight carbon taxes at the provincial and at the federal level.

This started with the introduction of Bill 4, which is currently before the Legislature, and that is part of our commitment, which will reduce gasoline prices by 10 cents a litre when the entire commitment is fulfilled, both Bill 4 and the following commitments.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve also announced our next steps in terms of challenging the federal government with their regressive, job-killing carbon tax—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I want to thank the minister for standing up for the people of this province.

Again to the Minister of the Environment: I can’t express how important this commitment was to me and to my constituents. When I knocked on doors in my riding of Perth–Wellington, the issue of affordability was number one. Parents would tell me how they struggled to fill their tanks up in order to bring their kids to hockey and how they would fill up for $5 at a time, hoping for prices to come down just a little bit. That’s because every little bit helps, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I received messages of support expressing their thanks not only for the savings, but more than that. It was from people who said they continue to be impressed by a government that delivers on what they promised. How refreshing after 15 years of broken promises.

Will the Minister of the Environment tell this House how he plans to continue to deliver on these commitments?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, the member is so right: This is about families. Every bit helps. The NDP scoff at something like $260 a family per year. That’s real money, and that’s money that the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act will help deliver to families that need that support.

This isn’t about not being focused on the environment. We will have an approach to the environment that respects our need to reduce greenhouse gases, but will respect the taxpayers and, as the member referenced, respect the needs of families for those dollars in their pockets.

Indigenous mental health services

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Karlena Kamenawatamin was a 13-year-old girl from Bearskin Lake, a remote fly-in community in my riding. Karlena took her own life early yesterday morning. Now the chief and the community are concerned that there will be more tragedies like Karlena’s. This concern is well founded. In 2015, a 10-year-old girl took her life. This was also in Bearskin Lake.

What is the Premier prepared to do to ensure that these pandemics of our young Indigenous people killing themselves stop once and for all?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is to the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. It is something that we take very seriously on this side of the House, as well. I know that in many Indigenous communities there are no adequate supports for young people for physical or mental health, and mental health is health. That is something that we are going to seriously address as we are filing and completing our system on mental health and addictions.

We know that there are far too many young people who are committing suicide who should have a chance at life. They need a lot of supports. It’s not just health counselling; it’s so much more than that. It’s education; it’s housing; it’s communications with others. There’s lots of work that we need to do.

But I look forward to working with you, to visiting your communities and to understanding from people directly what supports they need. Then we will do our best to make sure that we can provide those supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Back to the Premier: Two years ago, the suicide rate for children under the age of 15 in First Nations I represent was 50 times higher than the national average. But what has changed since these children took their own lives? This is a health crisis. This is a mental health crisis. This is an intergenerational trauma crisis. This is a housing crisis.

Karlena, the girl who took her own life yesterday morning, lived in a rundown home, a house without electricity. What is the Premier prepared to do today, long-term, to ensure that the community of Bearskin Lake and other remote communities in Ontario have the resources they need to prevent more deaths of our young people?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much for your emotional question. I remember sitting in opposition myself, asking questions about suicide prevention.

Yesterday I met with the independent child advocate regarding this specific issue, and last week with the coroner regarding this same issue. This government is committed to working with you and our First Nations in order to put the proper supports in place so that these tragedies don’t continue.

I know when someone loses their life by suicide, when they make that decision, it rocks an entire community. I can understand, just standing here with you, how emotional this is. I’d like to speak with you after question period so that we can make sure that we have a plan in place that fully supports you and helps your community get through this.

Taxation

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for the great news today on the GO train line. As a commuter, that’s fantastic news for commuters all across the GTA.

My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

Ontario recognizes the importance of a clean environment and preserving that for generations to come, and we recognize the very real challenges that climate change presents to that. Ontario has done more than our

part in Confederation to make significant progress toward reducing emissions.

These results have also come at a great cost to the people of Ontario. We have some of the highest energy bills in North America, and these costs have left people fuming at the pumps when they can’t afford to fill their tanks. I have heard from constituents who say that they want to do their part but they simply can’t afford to pay anymore.

Can the Minister of the Environment advise this Legislature on how we plan to balance affordability with long-term progress?

Hon. Rod Phillips: The member is right: This is about balance. He’s also right that Ontario has made significant progress and is a leader in Confederation. While Canada’s emissions declined by just 1.5% since 2000, Ontario’s emissions dropped by more than 20%, and compared with an average decrease of 4.7% across the OECD. On a per capita basis, as I mentioned to the Legislature yesterday, Ontario has reduced its carbon footprint by 34% since 1990.

So yes, Ontario will do more, but the people of Ontario have paid a great deal for the contributions that they’ve made. That’s one of the reasons we eliminated the previous government’s cap-and-trade carbon tax. That’s one of the reasons we’re seeing the 4.6-cent reduction that refiners have now made. And that is why that gas price reduction is now working its way through to families.

As the member rightly said, this is about balance. It is about balancing the needs of families with the legitimate and important priorities we have around the environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer.

I’m glad to hear that the minister recognizes the importance of a balanced approach. For too long, the people of Ontario have been saddled with the cost of unfair and regressive carbon taxes. Our government made a promise to make life more affordable for Ontarians. Our government has a clear mandate to get rid of the cap-and-trade carbon tax. We promised that help was finally on the way. It is such a relief, after months of gas prices upwards of $1.35 and $1.40, to finally see them come down to more reasonable levels.

Speaker, my constituents think that they should keep more money in their pockets. Can the minister advise this House as to what he is doing to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Our work in terms of repealing cap-and-trade is part of our broader agenda, whether it’s reducing hydro rates or the other initiatives that we’re taking under the leadership of our Premier to make life more affordable for Ontario families. Every cent that was spent on cap-and-trade, an ineffective approach to reducing greenhouse gases, was money taken out of Ontarians’ pockets. We’ll be putting $260 back in Ontarians’ pockets. That’s money for families; that’s money not for luxuries, but for the basic necessities they need.

We will be coming forward with a made-in-Ontario approach that balances the needs of the economy, the important priorities of reducing greenhouse gas, cleaner air, cleaner water, but also the pocketbooks of Ontarians.

Our priority is a plan that works for Ontarians and that works for the environment at the same time.

Government’s agenda

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, this government issued a memo indicating that there were some drastic changes to the ministerial priorities. Among the ministries and offices being scrapped by the Premier was the Anti-Racism Directorate. This was shocking, since the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, answering a previous question, said, “We will continue to work, as a ministry and through the directorate, to ensure that racism is not something that continues in the province....”

Can the Premier tell us how dismantling the Anti-Racism Directorate will allow it to continue its work of combatting systemic racism?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, there is no place in Ontario for racism, and our province is an all-inclusive province. We will continue our work on a whole-of-government basis with respect to ensuring that there is no racism. We will continue our work.

I’m not sure where that notice came from for you, but we will continue our work in that area.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: I’m just a little bit concerned because oftentimes when I ask questions, it begins with a discussion about corrections, which is part of why this is an issue.

In addition to the Anti-Racism Directorate, we’re now finding out that we’re scrapping the Ministry of International Trade in the midst of a trade crisis. The Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science is being collapsed despite the future of our economy being founded on research, innovation and science. And the Poverty Reduction Strategy office is gone, at a time when the government cancelled the Basic Income Pilot project and cut planned social assistance increases.

Premier, why are ensuring a good trading environment, building up our economy, ending racism and reducing poverty not a priority for this government?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’ll speak to this. As far as this government is concerned, we are committed to ensuring that we look after the needs of the people in the province.

The Anti-Racism Directorate continues under the mandate of this ministry, and the work that I do particularly in this ministry deals with policing, enforcement, corrections and we’re looking, together with the other ministries, at an integrated approach to dealing with a lot of the issues that have been plaguing this province for at least 15 years without any kind of solution.

We are going to work together between the different ministries and ensure that we look after the issues that are being discussed: education, youth, community, suicide, Indigenous people. We are working on an integrated basis between the different ministries to provide the service—

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

Economic development

Mrs. Nina Tangri: My question is for the Minister of Finance. One of the core commitments of our government is to create and protect good jobs here in Ontario. However, the previous Liberal government pursued policies that made life harder and less affordable for Ontario families and businesses. Our government is committed to sending a message to the world that Ontario is open for business.

Could the minister please inform the House of his recent efforts to strengthen competitiveness and protect jobs for businesses and workers in Ontario and Canada?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for the question. Last week, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and, yes, Trade and I wrote to the federal government. We asked them to take bold action in their fall economic statement to support businesses in Ontario and across Canada.

We would like to explore discussions with the federal government on several initiatives, including 100% in-year accelerated capital cost depreciation. We look forward to working with the federal government alongside our provincial and territorial partners to strengthen Ontario’s competitiveness in the global economy. Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario reclaims its place as the economic engine of Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister for standing up for our jobs and our future prosperity. It is reassuring to hear that our government stands firm on our commitment to lowering tax to support employers so that they can invest, grow and create jobs in Ontario. The time for bold action is now.

Recent US tax reform and policy decisions provide the US with a competitive advantage over Ontario and Canada. Additionally, uncertainty around trade issues continues to pose a challenge. Last week, the CEO of CIBC said that it is vital for us to create a better environment for businesses and growth.

Could the minister further explain the importance of strengthening Ontario’s competitiveness and ensuring the world knows that Ontario is open for business?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: Thank you to the member. The member is absolutely correct that the time for bold action is now. The risks of inaction are simply too great to stand by idly; we hear it all the time.

My parliamentary assistant Mr. Parsa is holding red tape round tables. Another parliamentary assistant, Ms. Skelly, is holding round tables on NAFTA—because we are the trade ministry, as you might want to know over there—and the differential between tax rates in the United States on a number of fronts where President Trump has dramatically lowered and unlevelled the playing field.

I know that our fantastic Minister of Finance is perfectly aware of that and he’s working really hard to live up to the Premier’s commitment to lower taxes for middle-class families, to lower taxes for corporations and to create good jobs in the province of Ontario, because Ontario is open for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time we have available for question period.

Karlena Kamenawatamin

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Two members have informed me that they would like to do a point of order. I’ll first recognize the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek unanimous consent for a moment of silence to honour the life of Karlena Kamenawatamin, the young girl from Bearskin Lake who tragically died by suicide yesterday morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Peter Adams

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha on a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’ve been informed this morning that former member Peter Adams, who served in the 34th Legislature, has entered the final stages of palliative care. I would request that all members offer their support and prayers for the Adams family.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have two friends who are guests this afternoon here in the west gallery: Shafiq Beig, as you know, is the tailor for the presiding officers, but he’s also a poet, and he’s here to support my private member’s bill this afternoon; and my new legislative assistant, Mike Gibbons, is here as well. Welcome both to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome a friend and volunteer, Caroline Law, who is in the members’ gallery with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to