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

July 24, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Jul-24 (PDF)

L008 - Tue 24 Jul 2018 / Mar 24 jui 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 July 2018 Mardi 24 juillet 2018

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Annual Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Executive compensation

Hydro rates

Community safety

Curriculum

Rural infrastructure

Climate change

Public transit

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Community safety

Trucking safety

Land use planning

Government spending and accounting practices

Labour dispute

First responders

Addiction services

Government spending and accounting practices

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Members’ Statements

Riding of York South–Weston

Visitor

Human trafficking

Private member’s bills

Grand River Champion of Champions Powwow

Tenant protection

Hydro rates

Addiction services

Madonna robotics team

Events in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry

Petitions

Indigenous affairs

Health care funding

Employment standards

Curriculum

Curriculum

Employment standards

Employment standards

Employment standards

Employment standards

Orders of the Day

Government policies

Private members’public business

Government policies

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Todd Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 2,

An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903, when Bill 2 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill, without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour and seven minutes shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, with 30 minutes apportioned to each of the recognized parties, five minutes apportioned to one Liberal Party independent member and two minutes apportioned to the Green Party independent member. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

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

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes, except that the division bell for the vote on the motion for third reading shall be 15 minutes.

That is the motion, Mr. Speaker, and these are the urgent priorities of the new government of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The government House leader has moved government notice of motion number 2.

The government House leader—would you like to say anything else to that?

Hon. Todd Smith: Nothing further, Speaker, except that you look fantastic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Well, thank you, sir.

We’ll have further debate.

The House leader from the official opposition.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your ascendancy to the chair? I must say that you are looking rather dapper there, even though they don’t have the uniform on there yet.

And just so you know, Speaker, in friendly jest: If you would have had to reread that motion, we would have let do you it in its entirety.

Interjection: We’ll wait for the next one.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We’ll wait for the next one.

I want to start this time allocation motion debate by saying, what happened? What happened on the way from the official opposition benches to the government side?

I remember distinctly being a member of the third party with you, Mr. Speaker, and listening to the official opposition of the day, the Conservatives. They would wax eloquent when it came to the evils of utilizing time allocation motions on the part of the Liberal government. I remember having these conversations with my colleagues—I won’t say any names in particular—who were on the opposition side.

It was always my view, and you’ve heard me speak to this before, that time allocation is a tool that should be used hardly ever. There are enough rules in the rule book in order to allow the government to get what it wants. As you know, after so many hours of debate, the question can be put. Somewhere around eight or nine hours, which is kind of the norm, you can have the question put.

The point is, it’s extremely important to understand what Parliament is all about. The Legislature, as the mother of all Parliaments, is about members of the assembly expressing their thoughts, their ideas, their suggestions, their support or their opposition, to whatever the policy is that the House is dealing with that day. How can you do that if you utilize time allocation? It means it’s a truncation not only of the legislative process, it also means it’s a diminishment of the role of individual members within the House on the government side as well as on the opposition side.

Because good debate creates better legislation. I won’t get into committee just yet—I’ll talk about that in a minute—but good debate creates good legislation.

I was just reading a book recently that was given to me by the Speaker. I thought I’d read everything about Winston Churchill. I’d read most of the biographies that were written about him and I’ve seen, obviously, a number of documentaries, along with everybody else. This particular book looks at his parliamentary time in the House of Commons, which spans about 60 years—the point being, Mr. Churchill understood and was a champion of the individual rights of members within Parliament.

One of the things that he talked about is that members of the House, including government members, have to have the ability at times to put forward ideas that may be different than what the government benches want, so that you can have good debate on issues in order to create stronger legislation. But it also is the institution by which we practise what we call democracy in the free world, and within our country and within other countries that are so blessed to have a parliamentary system.

For the government to all of a sudden switch its position from being opposed to time allocation to say, “Okay, now we’re on the government side. We are going to do time allocation,” I think doesn’t bode well for what’s about to come. I don’t think it speaks well in regard to what degree they really meant it when they were on this side of the House.

I remember some of the famous speeches given by some of the members of the now-government when they were in opposition. My favourite was—I don’t know the riding for Mr. Yakabuski, if somebody can help me.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke: “The guillotine.” Holy jeez, I used to jump out of my seat every time he did that, and I sat right next to him. I heard so many speeches by Mr. Yakabuski, the member from—where?

Interjection: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Renfrew-Nipissing—I’m terrible. That’s why I should never be voted as Chair of the House. Never mind names, riding names are even more difficult.

The point is, all of these members would get up in the House and would wax eloquently on the evils of time allocation. And I agreed with them. I’ve been—

Mr. John Vanthof: We thought they meant it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I really did think they meant it to a degree. I didn’t kid myself in understanding that, at times, a government is trying to pass its agenda, and if the opposition it completely trying to slow things down without good cause or good debate, yes, maybe there’s an argument for time allocation. I still have a problem with it, but I understand it. But the fact that there’s nobody on this side of the House who’s been trying to do anything deleterious when it comes to the legislation—we have been putting our points forward and having a debate about what is good and not good in Bill 2.

Let me turn to the bill just for a second. The government is doing three things in its legislation, of which I really want to focus on

schedule 1 and

schedule 2. The back-to-work legislation—we’ve heard from our caucus. I think it’s the wrong way to go, and of course we will vote against the whole idea of back-to-work legislation.

I want to talk to schedules 1 and 2. The thing that those two schedules have in common, which I think is highly ironic for the government, is that they’re saying, “We’re doing this because we are for the people. We are for the people, and we’re going to make sure that the six-million-dollar man is fired and that it doesn’t cost the ratepayers any money.” When you look at it, what they’ve actually done, as my leader Andrea Horwath has said, is they’ve converted the six-million-dollar man to the nine-million-dollar man.

They say, “Yes, but it’s not going to come out of the hydro rates.” Well, the only thing the government is doing is shifting where it’s going to be paid. So I pay my hydro bill out of my right pocket, and I’m going to be paying for the nine-million-dollar man now out of my left pocket, because all you’ve done in the legislation is say that it will be the taxpayer who is on the hook. We are going to pay for what they do with the board as far as the firing of the CEO and various other people at Hydro One and other subsidiaries. We’re going to be paying that out of the tax base.

So when the Premier stands in this House and says, “Promise made, promise kept”—well, first of all, there’s a promise, but it’s not being kept. What you’re actually doing is you’re saying, “I’m going to pay more in severance than what the Liberals had obligated themselves to by making the decision that I’ve made.” So we go from $6 million to $9 million, and then you take the cost and you say, “Well, it won’t come out of the hydro bill. Don’t worry about it.” You’re saying in the legislation that it’s going to come out of the taxes of Ontario; in other words, it’s going to be general revenue that pays for it.

So all it is, is a shift. I want to quote my good friend Mike Harris—not the current member, but the former member from Nipissing, who was the Premier. He used to have this saying: “There’s only one taxpayer.” I agree, there is only one taxpayer. All you’re doing is shifting it from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and I want to point out that it’s the same person.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My esteemed colleague across the way says, “No, no.” Read your legislation; I expect that members take the time. It’s not a very thick bill. There are only three schedules. I read it the first day that I got it. It clearly says in

schedule 1 and

schedule 2 that any decision that ends up costing money as a result of those sections will be paid out of the taxes of Ontario; it will be paid by the province of Ontario by an amount appropriated through this bill by way of legislation.

So let’s not kid each other. At the end, it’s us who are paying for it. If it comes out of my hydro bill or it comes out of my tax bill, it’s the same thing. At the end of the day, I’m the same person paying the bill. I don’t care if it’s my hydro bill, and I don’t care if it’s my tax bill; the point is, I’m going to have to pay for it. So don’t say, “Promise made, promise kept,” because that is not a promise that has been kept in any kind of way.

The other thing this legislation does which I think is rather interesting for a Conservative government to do is that it’s saying, in the case of

schedule 1 and

schedule 2, when it comes to the compensation of those people who are going to be displaced as a result of firing Mayo Schmidt, the CEO of Hydro One, and the second schedule, which is the cancellation of the wind farms in the government House leader’s riding—I forget your riding—

Hon. Todd Smith: Prince Edward county.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Prince Edward county—that you’re not going to be able to sue either those entities, being Hydro One, OPG, IESO, or any subsidiary of the government. You will not be able to sue. That’s an interesting one coming from the Conservatives when you stop and think about it. When a company or investors, either from within Ontario, within Canada or from abroad, says, “I want to invest in Ontario”—one of the attractions that we’ve always had is that we are a stable place to do business. People know what the rules are, and the rules are that once you’ve made a deal and once you have a contract, a contract is a contract. You don’t break them.

Well, what the government is doing in this bill is they’re saying, “We can break contracts.” What does that do for the confidence of those who are thinking of investing money in our province?

I’ll tell you, if I was an investor about to invest in some sort of business opportunity that may be somewhat controversial—the investors say to themselves, “The government is creating a precedent here that I may be, at the behest of either this government or a future government, in a position where they cancel my contract and then they essentially eliminate the ability for me to sue.” I think that’s a very, very dangerous precedent, and I just want to, in this time allocation motion, point out what it does. It makes a mockery of contract law in this province.

I think Randy Hillier—I don’t remember his riding name—is spinning, because he believes in property rights. What this does is it tramples all over property rights, because it says the government has the authority, in the end—the government has always had the authority to do this. Let me not leave people with the illusion that the Parliament never had the authority. But we never used it, because we understood that contract law and property rights are something that you don’t play around with.

Again, to my good member, the member from—Mr. Hillier’s riding; I can’t remember.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: She said it. There we go. It’s a good thing I’ve got a Deputy Speaker over here.

He must be spinning and just saying, “How can I even vote for something like that?” Because, at the end, it runs counter to everything that he stands for and the Lanark-Renfrew land association that he represented for so many years. I know he’s broken with them, but he’s still got to believe in some of that.

And the other thing I’ve got to say is—this is the part that really bothers me. Imagine that we gave that right to a private company. Imagine that I’m company X, and I have a big multinational doing whatever it is that I do, and I give company X that kind of right, to be able to break contract law. Who would ever want to do business with me? We don’t give that right—and neither should we, and neither will we—to the private sector. But the fact that the government is prepared by way of its majority in the House to allow themselves to essentially break contracts, to me, is just unbelievable.

The second thing is that if you think that the windmill cancellation ain’t gonna cost us money, read the legislation, because the legislation actually says that the government will set the compensation paid to the company that had the contract, and it will come out of general revenues. So the $110 million in cancelling this contract—which it’s about worth, if we believe the press reports; I don’t know exactly how much it is, but I’ll just go by the press reports right now.

If it ends up costing $110 million as reported, it ain’t gonna be the ratepayer or hydro that’s going to pay; it’s going to be the same taxpayer. There is only one taxpayer, and it’s going to be the taxpayer who pays the $110 million.

This is just a sleight of hand by the Doug Ford administration, the Premier of this province and the Conservatives, to make it look as if they’re doing something that’s populist in that riding. I understand the politics of windmills. Tories are opposed to it, and there are a number of residents who are opposed to it. I understand that, but don’t think for one second that there’s not a cost associated to this, because the government has transferred the cost from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and that, at the end, again, is a kind of an anti-Conservative thing to do.

I look at my friends in the Conservative Party, and I wonder, and I say, “To what degree do you actually stand for your principles?” Because it would be akin to New Democrats doing something that would be against their principles. I think we’d have a lot of people in this caucus who would have a hard time voting with the party if we did something like that.

So where are those free-spirited, independent-thinking Conservatives who believe in certain principles allowing something like that to stand? You’re going to give the government the right to take away a person’s right to sue when it comes to the breaking of contract law, and you’re going to make the taxpayer pay for it, not the ratepayer.

And the last point—not the last point but the other one that takes the cake: And I’m not making this word up, Mr. Speaker; it’s not unparliamentary because it’s in the legislation. The government is giving themselves the right to misrepresent the facts when it comes to settlement with the windmill constructor, whoever that is. If you look at

section 6 in, I believe,

schedule 2, and you look at

section 6 of the bill, it clearly says, in layman’s terms, that should the government misrepresent or has misrepresented the facts, that’s okay when it comes to the settlement.

Holy jeez, Mr. Speaker. One of the basic things in this Legislature is that we have to be truthful. In this Legislature, no member of the House is allowed to knowingly mislead the House, and should that action result in some kind of controversy or something negative happening, a member could be held in contempt. That’s just the way it is. That’s how Parliament works. You’re not allowed to mislead the House. Well, why do we have legislation that allows the government to mislead the private sector or the investors or the citizens?

Now, I know that my good friend the Clerk is looking at me, saying, “You’re walking borderline to what’s parliamentary,” but I want to make the point.

I’m not making this up; it’s in the legislation. If I’m not allowed to debate what’s in the legislation, what’s the point of this place? The legislation clearly says, in

section 6, that the government gives itself the right to misrepresent the facts when it comes to contracts with those windmills—ah, I knew this was going to happen.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I have been informed by the Clerk that you’re on the border, and you’re straddling that fence. You cannot impugn the motive of the government. You have read the act, and you have clearly stated what you have read in that act as giving the government the right to misrepresent the facts. According to the Clerk, you stating that in the House impugns the motive of the government. I would ask you, on a go-forward basis, to steer away from that language, if you could, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hear what you’re saying. However, if I was making this up and I was just willy-nilly saying the government is giving itself the right to misrepresent, I would be obviously out of order, but that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is the legislation, as written, gives the government the ability to—it says in the legislation that if the government has misrepresented or will misrepresent, they have the right to do so.

I’m just looking for somebody to give me a copy of the bill to read the actual copy. John has got it, but he’s too busy talking to somebody else—thank you. Okay, here we go. As I was saying, let me just read this out of

section 6.

Under

section 6(d), it says that “any alleged misrepresentation within the meaning of applicable securities laws in any prospectus, document or other public statement related in any way to the involvement of the government of Ontario in compensation matters at Hydro One Limited or any of its subsidiaries” is allowed. I’m not making this up. It’s in black and white. It’s written in the legislation.

The point that I make is, how can this House even be contemplating this? Actually, I agree with you and I agree with the Clerk: You can’t knowingly misrepresent, and you can’t allege that somebody’s misrepresenting, but we’re doing it in the legislation. It’s written. It’s in black and white. I ain’t making it up.

My point is, this is really cutting ground, this is like—in all my years here, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in legislation. I may stand to be corrected, but I don’t remember that ever being in legislation, that the government gives itself the right, if they knowingly or unwillingly misrepresented the facts and it ends up costing them money as a result of anything breaking securities law—that they have the right to do so.

Well, why do we have the law? Everybody else has to pass the test. If you’re company X in Ontario and you’re doing business here, you don’t have the right to misrepresent the facts knowingly—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’ve been informed by the Clerk that, according to the legislation, the words that are written are within the strict meaning of the act, the securities legislation. There’s a definition within security law that falls here. What you are saying—you don’t make reference to the wording in the act, the securities legislation. You’re talking about the motives of the government, as opposed to the definition within the securities regulations.

I know we’re on a fence. I’ve asked you to move on. I think you’ve made your point, and I would ask you, as debate continues, to steer off in another direction, if you could. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, when a member of the House is not allowed to speak to a

section of the bill—and I’ll read it again; I’m not making this up: “Any alleged misrepresentation within the meaning of applicable securities laws in any prospectus, document or other public statement related in any way to the involvement of the government of Ontario in compensation matters at Hydro One Limited or any of its subsidiaries” can’t be debated. We can’t debate what’s in legislation?

The point that I was trying to make is this: Imagine if we were to give that right to an individual or collective or all of the firms that operate in Ontario. Now, imagine if we had a law on the books that said Inco—or no, no longer Inco. Let’s say Glencore or Resolute or Bombardier or any of those companies had the right to have such a clause applied to them. It would make a mockery of our securities laws.

There’s a reason we have securities laws, and I can speak to that because it’s in the bill. The reason we have securities laws that protect the integrity of the system is exactly for that reason, so that when people do business in Ontario, they understand that there are strict laws when it comes to what you can and can’t do when it comes to your prospectus before the securities commission.

Imagine if Goldcorp or any other company were to fudge the books when it came to what they filed with the securities commission. What would happen? First of all, it would be chaos. Nobody would want to invest in Ontario if companies were allowed to misrepresent the facts when it came to the prospectus that they gave to the securities commission. That is directly related to this legislation, and that’s the point that I’m making. We would never do that. It’s just not something that would stand.

Can you imagine if all of these companies could say, “Oh, I’m just going to file a fake prospectus with the securities commission, and my company that I say is worth so much a share—I’m going to play around. I’m going to do a Bre-X”? Do you remember the Bre-X scandal in gold mining, where the guy salted the core up in Indonesia and the market went crazy, and everybody was buying Bre-X because he had falsified the information? The guy became a multi-billionaire as a result of his cheating the system, and a whole bunch of people in my community and in communities across Ontario lost money because the guy did not follow the law.

So what I’m saying here is that this is a very dangerous precedent for a government to take, and the fact that it’s a Conservative government that does it is beyond the pale. Can you imagine if they were in opposition to an NDP government, and we were to have

section 6(

d) in our legislation? They would say, “Oh, look at this. They don’t know what they’re doing. You can’t do that. It’s—”

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Anti-business.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Anti-business.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Anti, anti, anti.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Anti, anti, anti. It should have been “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.”

But the point—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: See? The government admits it. The government says it’s well meaning. Come on. How can it be? How can giving a company the ability to falsify, knowingly or by mistake, its submissions prospectus to the securities commission be a good thing in any kind of scenario?

The fact that the government is doing so in this particular settlement under

section 2 with the firm that built the windmills is like saying, “We can fudge the numbers. It’s not a problem. We gave ourselves the right to do so.” And I come back to the point—

Mr. John Vanthof: But it’s well meaning.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But it’s well meaning, I just found out from the government. I notice he’s being talked to. That is funny. “Don’t do that.”

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, I won’t say that. I’m not allowed to say that.

Anyway, I’ll just say two things to it. One is that the fact that the government is doing this is problematic from a business perspective, and it takes a New Democrat and a New Democratic caucus to point out that the government is anti-business here, anti-investment and anti-everything else, which makes it “anti, anti, anti.”

You can’t do this kind of thing in a society like ours, in an economy like ours. Ontario is known for having a stable business climate where everybody knows the rules. Why is Ontario one of the best places to invest in mining? Because we have one of the best systems when it comes to the securities commission, when it comes to stocks, when it comes to the whole idea of how you file claims. The whole system is very transparent, and people know what the rules are.

So they come to Ontario and they invest millions and millions of dollars, billions of dollars, to find ore in the province of Ontario and open up mines because they know that when they come here they’re not going to have the rules changed on them.

But when you’ve got a piece of legislation, from the very government that claims to be the government that represents business people and common sense, and they say, “We give ourselves, the government, the right to misrepresent the facts, knowingly or unknowingly, when it comes to securities, when it comes to the prospectus that we give to the securities commission,” there’s a real problem. I say to the second part of that: Imagine if the private sector had that. That was the point that I wanted to the make on that.

The other

part I just want to get back to—I’m looking at my good friend. Do you want—

Interjection: No, no.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay. All right. So I’ll go on.

Laughter.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it’s the way I communicate when I speak. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “Hey, do you want more time?” It’s all good.

So I made the point, and I just find it interesting to see who is actually going to stand with the government and vote for this. Those of you out there who are—oh, they’re putting up hands. My God, it’s amazing, the power. The lure of trying to get into cabinet is so amazing.

To me, the fact that a Conservative government and Conservative members would vote for something that’s so anti-business and so anti-securities commission and investment rules is just beyond the pale. It’s just like, my God, if somebody would have told me that the Conservatives would do this, I would have never believed it. But they’re doing it nonetheless.

The other thing I just want to say is that this whole shell game that the government is doing in regard to the hydro situation—both with Mayo Schmidt, the CEO, and with the windmills—is, in the end, all about shifting who’s paying: from me to me. It’s just that you’re taking it out of a different pocket. You’re saying that the settlement with the CEO and other executives that you fire from Hydro One and the cost of winding down and shutting down the windmill construction in Prince Edward-Lennox—I think I got it right—is going to be paid by the taxpayer.

I just say that for the government to say that they’re somehow doing something that’s not going to cost us money and not going to affect our rates is a bit of a—what’s the word I’m looking for? It’s a little bit of a stretch goal that they have, because all you’re doing is reaching into the other pocket of the taxpayer and saying that they’re going to pay for it. I wanted to get that on the record, Speaker, because it’s a part of the bill that I thought needed to be spoken to.

As for the time allocation motion, let me just—some of these new members obviously wouldn’t have heard myself and their Conservative counterparts speak to time allocation. There was a time when I was first elected—and Mr. Wilson, the minister of international trade, and the current Speaker, when we were elected in 1990, there was no time allocation. The way that this place worked was that the government decided what it wanted to pass as its agenda. They would sit down with the opposition—back then, there were two opposition parties; now only one.

They would sit down and say, “Okay, here’s what we want to pass within the fall or the spring session. What do you guys want in exchange for us to get there as a government?” The opposition in that system would say, “Okay, we’d like to have two weeks of debate on this bill. We’d like to have three weeks of public hearings on that bill and to travel across Ontario.” You would negotiate those things. The government would get its agenda passed.

The opposition, in the way this House works—the government has the right to introduce legislation, but they also have a responsibility to pass it. Our job in the opposition is either to support that legislation and try to make it better, or, if we’re not able to make it better and we’re opposed, to vote against it and point out its failings. That’s how this place works.

When we first got here, there was no time allocation. And you know what? This place worked rather well. I was here, and we passed legislation probably no differently, as far as the total amount of bills passed today, than were passed back then, except some bills went very fast. For example, we very seldom had any debate of bills at third reading. Why? Because we used to have a more lengthy debate at second reading or in committee. It was understood that the government needed to make up time in the House, so we said, “Okay.

As opposition, we’ll allow you to do this in three weeks in exchange for some committee hearings, and we won’t debate at third reading.” So most bills when they were called into the House at third reading, it was merely a formality.

It was the member from St. Catharines who pointed out when time allocation was brought here that in fact by making time allocation, bills at third reading now would be debated ad infinitum, as long as possible, because it’s the only thing the opposition is going to have, because they’re going to lose the ability to negotiate time in committee and the amount of time that you have for debate at second.

Here’s the bottom line, Mr. Speaker: The parliamentary system was designed in such a way to give members the ability to do their job.

I will give you a good example. The Mike Harris government introduced a bill in regard to snowmobile trails. They wanted to have a snowmobile trail system that was a unified system across Ontario, so that it wasn’t that Timiskaming had one standard and Algoma had a second standard. We needed to have interprovincial trails in Ontario that were somewhat standard as far as signage, how they worked, all that kind of stuff, and the revenue to pay for it. So the government introduced legislation. Generally, people were in support; I don’t think anybody in opposition was opposed to it.

We travelled the bill, and we actually listened to the public. What a novel idea. Remember when we went out and campaigned for 27 days and said to people, “If you vote for me, I’m going to do my best to do my job, and I’ll always make sure to come back and consult my constituents”? We used to consult with them by way of committee.

That bill travelled probably for only about three weeks, but we went to places where snowmobiles are relevant—the Parry Sound area, northern Ontario, all of those places—and we got some really good information from constituents who were interested in this issue and landowners who were impacted. Often, snowmobile trails go across farms—

Mr. John Vanthof: Farm fields.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Farm fields.

The whole issue of liability—there were all kinds of issues the government had not envisioned when drafting the legislation.

As a result of the public hearings, the legislation was amended. That bill still stands today unamended so many years later. Why? Because we took the time to do it right.

Imagine if the government of the day had time-allocated that bill after second reading with no committee time. We’d have a bill that would have infringed on people’s property rights, that would have done all kinds of things that would have been problematic, and the government would have had to reintroduce legislation later to fix it.

Let me give you the opposite example. The government under Mike Harris, when elected, came in and did legislation with regard to the Planning Act. There was a large exercise that was undertaken by the NDP government previously in order to modernize the Planning Act. There was a lot of good work done by way of committee and consultation with experts and the public to change the Planning Act. Well, the government did with the Planning Act what they’re doing now with the whole idea of cap-and-trade. Oh, they were opposed to it—it was one of those things.

When they came in, they willy-nilly changed the legislation and made a comprehensive bill where they tried to turn the clock back. Does that sound kind of familiar? They tried to turn the clock back, and they didn’t allow proper consultation. The bill went out for a week. I remember, because I was on that committee. It had one week of hearings—that was it—and only in southern Ontario because, God knows, you didn’t have planning in northern Ontario, that’s for sure. It didn’t even exist as far as they were concerned. The government passed that legislation because they used time allocation tools.

Guess what happened. Four or five times they came back with legislation—I’m just looking at the Clerk; I can’t remember the exact number. Four or five times, in the time that Harris was there, the government had to come back with legislation to re-amend the Planning Act to fix the errors they had in the original drafting.

So there is a reason why Parliament has the ability to consult by way of committee and why time allocation is not a good idea when it comes to us doing our jobs. Government members, especially, are hurt by time allocation, and I mean that. I sat in government; I remember well. When time allocation is used, you’ve got 76 members on the other side of the House who can’t do their job to represent their constituencies when it comes to the particular bill at hand that, maybe in committee, constituents are concerned about.

For example, with this bill, Bill 2, if you went to committee there would probably be a number of amendments that would be recommended by the public and experts when it comes to what you’re doing; for example, the changing of securities law so that you’re able to misrepresent the facts to the securities commissions. I think you would probably get a little bit of feedback on that one. I would love to see what the securities commission would have to say if they came before the committee.

The fact that the government doesn’t want to allow that type of consultation by way of committee means it gives short shrift to the comments that the Premier makes in the House when he says, “We are going to consult. We’re going to be the government of the people, and we will consult, consult, consult.” Well, this is anti-anti-anti-consultation. Thank you, that was a good line. This is not a government for the people; this is a government for some people. It’s backroom deals and their social conservatives and others that they’re trying to help.

For example, the cap-and-trade: What does the cancellation of cap-and-trade have to do with people? It means it’s going to cost me more money. I can’t get my windows changed and get the subsidy that I would have gotten if cap-and-trade would have stayed in place.

I’ll tell you what it’s all about. Cancelling cap-and-trade is saying the polluters don’t have to pay. That’s what this means, because cap-and-trade is simply those who pollute, who are unable or unwilling to change their manufacturing process in order to reduce emissions, have to pay. You take the money from there and you put it in green programs that allow people to reduce emissions in other areas. In other words, it could be another manufacturer who invests in technology to reduce their emissions. It could be a person who wants to change the windows in their house.

It could be a person who wants to buy an electric car. My good friend the member from Algoma–Manitoulin raised a question in the House about this just yesterday.

So don’t say this is for the people. This is for your people. This is for your backroom people. This is for large polluters so they can continue polluting and not paying, and we, the little guys—we, the people—get stuck with the bill and we get stuck with the pollution.

When I hear the government go on and on with regard to “promise made, promise kept,” it’s a promise made, but I’ll tell you, this is not something for the people in the end.

I would just say this: I don’t want you guys to be surprised when it comes to the vote. We’re going to vote against this. I don’t want the government to be too surprised. When the vote comes later on this morning after question period, I just don’t want you for one minute to think that we’re somehow going to vote for time allocation, because it is not a thing that I think should be taken lightly. Are there occasions where you may use time allocation? You can make an argument that sometimes that may be necessary, but I think those are very minuscule. You have other tools that you could use.

You can use calling the question. Allowing the bill to go into committee and actually doing the job that has to be done is an important process by which we bring the public into it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time. I know that our good friend the whip for the New Democratic official opposition has a few things that he would like to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand up in this Legislature and, today, talk about time allocation and the bill that’s being time-allocated.

I just listened to my House leader, my colleague from Timmins. It used to be Timmins–James Bay; now it’s Timmins. Timmins is going to be very well represented. He did a very good job of explaining time allocation and what the problems are with time allocation.

I’m sure that the members across the way think, “Oh, yeah, well, of course the NDP would be against time allocation,” because according to them, we are anti-everything. But I thought maybe we’d get a few quotes from when the government was on this side of the House a few short months ago. They also understood that time allocation isn’t good for the legislative process.

I have to hearken back to a quote, I believe, from Premier Ford, that this wasn’t going to be a government for government; it was going to be a government for the people—best ever, first ever. Well, actually, democracy and the legislative process is government for the people. By creating this time allocation on your very first bill—

Interjection: Number 1.

Mr. John Vanthof: Number 1.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Well, number 2.

Mr. John Vanthof: Number 2, but the number one—but actually, for us, and I’m going to give these quotes in a second, when I got the first inkling after the campaign was over that this government wasn’t really going to take democracy seriously—do you remember the day of the throne speech? I always like the band. With the last government, we talked about the band because their last throne speech was pretty fluffy, so we spent a lot of time talking about the band. As we walked in, it was the theme song from Game of Thrones. I walked in and I thought, “Oh, that’s very appropriate.”

I don’t know how many of you people watch Game of Thrones, but it was very appropriate, because over there is King’s Landing and we’re north of the Wall. In northern Ontario, we’re very used to being north of the Wall. We’re still north of the Wall, and you guys don’t get it, but you used to. You used to. When you were sitting here, when you gave these eloquent speeches, I actually believed you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, that’s your inner Conservative, John.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m still a progressive; I’m still a progressive.

Some quotes from the government House leader: “Sometimes what happens here—my friend from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke describes it as the guillotine coming down and slicing off debate. He makes a very effective sound effect every time the House leader”—I’ll put in brackets “Liberal House leader”—“or deputy House leader moves a closure motion. We’ve seen that time and time again. They should not be using a blunt instrument—and a guillotine is not a blunt instrument—to pass legislation in this House.”

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What was that sound?

Mr. John Vanthof: Whoosh!

“We’re all here as elected members from our municipalities taking our marching orders from our constituents to come here and represent them at Queen’s Park. We should have the opportunity to express our concerns with this system.”

From the Minister of Transportation—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh? Did he say anything?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes. “How can you say that something has been duly considered if you haven’t even allowed the public, the stakeholders—those people who will be most affected by it, those people who will be responsible for carrying it out—the opportunity to offer opinion or views as to how that legislation might be changed, altered, improved, or have some parts of it swept away altogether, because they’re not in the best interests of the people who will be most affected?”

How can the government that claims to be the best-ever, first-ever government for the people, in their very first actual, substantive bill, ignore those very same people? That’s what the legislative process is about. There’s first reading, second reading, and then if it passes—that’s when we get to do our talking, second reading, and most of us are pretty good at it.

But the big, important

part is when it goes to committee. That’s when people who actually have deeper knowledge of the bill get to make their comments. Hopefully those comments are taken into consideration and the bill is moulded to actually represent the people who are being impacted. But you guys are ignoring that from day one. The former government was, I would say, by the end of 15 years, a bit arrogant. You guys are starting where they left off. I can’t fathom that. All of the things that when you were on this side you talked about—all gone.

Let’s talk about the bill. The part about the wind farms—again, when you guys were on this side, both of our parties fought about the gas plant scandal, right? The cost started at $40 million, and then it went up to $1.1 billion. Why that was is because when the government of the day decided to shut those two gas plants, the companies were going to sue them. To keep the companies whole, to honour the contracts, the taxpayers ended up paying $1-point-whatever billion. That’s it in a nutshell. That’s it in a nutshell.

The current government has decided, “Ah, we’re going to solve that problem, because you know what? We see a lot of lawsuits coming down. We see all these wind farms that we’re”—and do you remember this? It wasn’t a comment by the Premier, but do you remember the comment in one of the debates that one of the leadership candidates was going to rip them out of the ground? Guess what? These folks are going to rip them out of the ground.

We all said, “Do you know what? They’re going to have a hard time doing that because the companies are going to sue,” and rightfully so, because they entered into contracts in good faith with the democratically elected government—in good faith. And now these guys, this current PC government—the PCs wouldn’t do that—this current Ford government has decided to look at laws on an issue-by-issue basis: “We’re going to do it with wind farms, but we’re going to follow the rules with the rest of the business community.” It doesn’t work like that. Business won’t trust that.

But they’re afraid of getting sued, so they’ve decided, “We’ll fix that. We’ll make it illegal for them to sue us.” That’s basically what this act is. You’re basically saying that companies, because you don’t like the contract that the previous government signed—we might not like some of them either. But you’re saying, “Even though you entered into the contract in good faith with a previous democratically elected government, we’re going to scrap it and we’re going to remove your right to sue for just damages.” That’s what you’re saying.

But do you know what else hasn’t been mentioned here? Do you know what else they’re doing? They’re actually downloading or uploading that problem to another level of government. Because if you’re an international company, you’re going to sue under NAFTA.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Or the GATT.

Mr. John Vanthof: Or the GATT. This has happened before. I have a little bit of personal experience with this one. When the provincial government of the day passed the Adams Mine Lake Act—and that was, at the time, going to be the biggest landfill in North America. The government of the day, the Liberal government, passed the Adams Mine Lake Act prohibiting that from being a landfill. But it was fully licensed, so the investors in Adams Mine were fully paid by the taxpayers of Ontario. Because they had a fully licensed landfill, the government said—except one.

One American decided that he didn’t accept remuneration. He sued the Canadian government under NAFTA, and it cost the Canadian government millions and millions and millions of dollars to defend the Ontario government’s law. The same thing is going to happen here.

So what you’re doing is basically uploading your problems—and I know you guys don’t like the federal government. But again, and it’s one of your mantras, there’s only one taxpayer. Pushing your problem up to somebody else isn’t helping the taxpayer and isn’t helping the people. It just isn’t, despite what you claim.

The first-ever government for the people: Even when I hear myself say that, it just—you guys claim to be the first-ever government for the people.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What about the rest?

Mr. John Vanthof: What about Bill Davis? Oh, he wasn’t for the people. What about Mike Harris? Yes, what about Mike Harris? I disagree with a lot of things that Mike Harris did, but I assume that Mike Harris thought he was representing the people, but no, not according to the current Premier. This is the first-ever government for the people? Come on.

But when you start at that point—so do you really want to make this work? Do you know what I think the government is afraid of?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s the public hearings.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s the public hearings with the securities commission, with the companies, with some of the municipalities that are going to have their contracts cancelled. That is what they’re afraid of.

But if this is the model you’re setting for yourselves, oh, we’re in for a rough, rough time, and so are you. Everyone remembers the Big Blue Machine. I remember it, too; I used to believe back then. But one of the hallmarks of the long-reigning Tory government—and Tory governments have done some good things: the college system—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Pushed by the NDP.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, pushed by the NDP, of course. But one of their hallmarks was stability, right? That’s why they lasted so long: It was stability. If my memory serves me correctly—you guys can disagree, but even when they had majorities, they kind of governed like a minority, because the way to create good legislation is to actually work with people, and you guys recognized that.

The minister of—oh, yes, this is a good one. The minister—she’s got a long one—from Nepean. And I quote, again, from the minister: “The beauty of talking about a time allocation motion is I’m actually allowed to talk about time allocation. I would really like to talk about matters that are important for the day, but I find, increasingly in this assembly, we’re starting to see this rush just to dump the bill and rubber-stamp it and then move on to something else. I think it’s eroding the confidence of this assembly when they do that, and I think it’s unfortunate.”

I don’t think it’s unfortunate; I think it’s tragic. I think it’s frightening that these folks, the current, new Ford government, are starting there, because a lot of these current, new members on the government side think that this is going to be how it’s done, and it very well may be how it’s done under their regime. But you’re going to be very surprised, because four years from now, you might not be sitting there, because people will recognize it. Those of us north of the wall know that the rules don’t seem to apply to everybody.

You guys, on this wind farm one, are making specific rules for one sector because you don’t like it, and all the other sectors are going to wonder: “Now, what’s this?” And you’ll be able to reassure: “Oh, no, no. We only did this because we don’t like these ones.” But you’re going to run into other issues. You’re setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

What’s even more dangerous is that you know it. You know it, because on your side and our side, you have business people, you have investment advisers, and in their former lives they would not advise their clients to invest in unstable environments, where the rules can change at the drop of the hat. It’s not that the rules can change going forward—that’s part of the democratic process—but that the rules for contracts signed previously in good faith can change at the drop of a hat.

I know in my private life—maybe farming is a bit different—I have done lots of deals with a handshake. Some of those deals have gone bad, but I never shook those hands again. The same thing is happening on a bigger scale here. There are people in my personal life—we weren’t a multinational corporation, but we did some pretty big things on a handshake, and I would do it over and over again with those people. But I’ve had people who shake your hand and then walk away thinking they’ve beat you for $15 or $20. In the big picture of government, that’s all you’re really doing here, but you’re building a reputation as a bad-faith administration.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Right out of the gate.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you: right out of the gate, a bad-faith administration. It takes years to build a reputation; it takes seconds on a personal level to destroy it. Oh, yes: “promise made.” I say: “promise maybe.” And you guys don’t seem to be worried about that.

I was telling you the same thing on Thursday afternoon. The people on Thursday afternoon were a bit more—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Lively.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes. They heckled a bit more. I don’t mind people heckling. A few of them on your side, on the government side, started heckling, “We’re doing this because we want to get ’er done. We want to get ’er done.” I’m thinking, “Okay, so the democratic process has been replaced by Larry the Cable Guy.”

Interjections.

Mr. John Vanthof: No, really—things go wrong when you want to get ’er done. I know that from the farm. You can do it right or you can get ’er done, and sometimes when you want to get ’er done it goes wrong. You don’t create legislation that affects the people who elected you with a get ’er done attitude.

You’ve got time to do it right. You have a mandate, but you have the responsibility to do it right. If this is the responsibility you’re taking—first, taking three bills that are substantive on their own and mushing them into one, something that everyone is also opposed to; secondly, to run this with a time allocation without letting any outside voices talk to this legislation. You claim to want consultation on—

Interjections.

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, you have a mandate to govern, but you don’t have a mandate to govern irresponsibly. And what you’re doing here is irresponsible.

In the Legislature yesterday, on a different issue, I heard the Premier talk about how the consultation for the sex ed curriculum wasn’t nearly big enough and how it was only a small percentage of Ontarians.

Well, the percentage of Ontarians who got to speak on this legislation—it was basically 20 people in your backroom. Twenty people in one of your backrooms is the full consultation process on this legislation. That is such a small percentage that you can’t even count it.

You guys like to say that the NDP knows nothing about business. That’s totally incorrect. Whoever is writing this legislation does not know anything about maintaining confidence in the investor sector, in the business sector. The one thing that we have in this province, that we’ve always had, is a stable legislative environment where, once you are in the system, once you’ve signed a contract, you can be confident that that contract will be honoured, and if it isn’t honoured, that you have ways and means to defend yourself. What you are doing is taking away those ways and means. That is no longer a stable business environment.

Oh, yes, you’re going to get ’er done, but it’s going to cause huge problems. That’s why we are so opposed to this motion and so opposed to portions of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate? Further debate.

Mr. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 2, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 2,

An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

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

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Orders of the day?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment. No further business today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. David Piccini: I’d like to introduce my executive assistant, who has come out today from my constituency of Cobourg, who is visiting and who has just joined my office—really excited to have him and excited to have him in Toronto: Ralph Kerr.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m happy to welcome and introduce today a couple of people who organized the March for Our Education that took place on Saturday on the lawns of Queen’s Park. With us are Frank Hong and Rayne Fisher-Quann, two of the three organizers, along with Gerd Bizi, who organized that march. We’re happy to have you here today. Welcome.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I’d just like to introduce my friend Kristen Cucan.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to introduce in the House two former staff who were very helpful and also became quite good friends of mine over the last year: Bryan Leblanc and Dorijan Najdovski. Welcome to our Legislature this morning.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to recognize Manish Sawhney in the members’ gallery. He was my campaign manager and led our amazing team to a great victory on June 7.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to introduce a guest here this morning. He was very helpful in my campaign and is with CN, works in corporate services as a manager for public affairs Ontario: Mr. Daniel Salvatore.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: I would like to introduce Patrick Magarelli. I offer him congratulations and condolences because he starts to work for me today. Congratulations, Patrick, and welcome aboard.

Annual Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: the 2017-18 annual report of the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question is for the Premier. We have two students today, as I mentioned in the introductions, who organized this weekend’s rally against the repeal of the updated sexual health and education curriculum, and I wanted to commend them for showing the incredible leadership that they showed on the weekend.

Last week, the education minister said that students need to learn about consent, cyberbullying and gender identity and appreciation. A few hours later, she backpedalled and left students, teachers and school boards more confused than ever. Will the Premier confirm that all information about consent, cyberbullying and gender identity from the updated health curriculum will be taught in Ontario’s classrooms this September?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. As I’ve said day after day after day—I said it very clearly—we’re going to consult with the people of Ontario. There are 14 million people in Ontario and less than 0.001% of the public school system and the separate school system was consulted. That’s not consulting people. When you have 1,600 people—online, by the way; the curriculum was already done, and then they decided to go out and get 1,600 people and get their opinions.

I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t believe in consulting with parents. We believe in consulting with parents. Once we do the largest consultation in the history of Ontario, then we’ll be able to answer your question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Deputy Premier said that issues related to self-identity and self-expression will be included in the curriculum this fall. Will the Premier confirm that all information about sexual orientation, gender identity and LGBTQ families from the updated health curriculum will be taught in Ontario schools this coming September?

Hon. Doug Ford: That’s not up to us to decide in this chamber; it’s up to the people—

Interjections.

Hon. Doug Ford: I know you don’t believe in consulting with the people. It’s up to the people of this great province to give us the direction to make that decision.

We ran a campaign for the people. It’s not for the government or for the opposition or for the special interest groups; it’s for the people.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it looks like it’s just for the Premier’s favourite special interest groups. That’s the problem. It’s not for the safety of our kids; it’s for the Premier’s favourite special interest groups.

The Premier’s backroom deal to scrap the updated health curriculum is causing nothing but confusion for students, for school boards and for teachers, and we all know why. The Premier made that backroom deal with social conservatives to help him get elected, and now he’s repaying his political debt to those radical activists—doing it at the expense of Ontario students and in apparent opposition to his Deputy Premier and education minister.

Why is the Premier putting his own political interests first and putting the safety of our kids in jeopardy?

Hon. Doug Ford: Leader of the Opposition, I have the greatest Deputy Premier I could ever ask for in Christine Elliott.

We ran, again, on a message: for the people. When the people speak, we listen. We don’t believe in big government. We don’t believe in the nanny state. We don’t believe in politicians dictating to the people. We believe in empowering the people and letting them make the decisions.

Executive compensation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is again for the Premier. The Premier’s decisions are being driven by backroom insiders, not by what’s best for all Ontarians. The Premier said that his backroom deal with Hydro One would cost “zero ... absolutely zero,” but now we know that Mayo Schmidt will walk out the door with at least $9 million. If Hydro One’s deal with Avista falls through, Hydro One ratepayers could be on the hook to pay over $100 million to a dirty-coal-burning American power plant.

When will the Premier release the full details and full cost of his backroom deal with Hydro One?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, through you: We ran on getting rid of the CEO of Hydro One. We ran on getting rid of the entire board. We did exactly what we promised. Promises made, promises kept.

We also ran on a promise that we were going to reduce hydro rates by 12%, and that is exactly what we’re going to do. We’re going to put money back into the people’s pocket instead of the government’s pocket.

We’re going to help small businesses. We’re going to help families that are struggling to put food on the table, when they have a choice between paying the highest hydro rates in North America or putting food on their table.

What we won’t do is lay 7,000 people off—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I guess the pledge not to waste precious public dollars has gone by the wayside: $9 million, plus $103 million, plus who knows how many billions with cap-and-trade cancellations? It’s going to cost the people of Ontario a hell of a lot of wasted money for his political purposes.

The people of Ontario deserve to know the full cost of the Premier’s backroom deal at Hydro One, but the Premier has refused to come clean on that deal. That’s why New Democrats were trying to bring forward an amendment to Bill 2 to require Hydro One to publish the full details of payments made to the departing CEO and the board of directors. But the government has decided instead to ram the bill through with little debate, no committee hearings and no chance for the people to have a say.

Why is the Premier shutting down an opportunity for the people of Ontario to have their say on this bill?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about hydro, my friend across the aisle, the Leader of the Opposition, had her members go out during the election and lobby for the highest hydro rates in North America, the largest carbon tax—

Interjections.

Hon. Doug Ford: —the largest carbon tax—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. I have to be able to hear the Premier.

Premier?

Hon. Doug Ford: You had one of your candidates bragging that we should have the highest carbon tax in North America, in the entire world.

We’re taking a different approach. We’re actually going to reduce gas prices by 10 cents a litre, making people more competitive, businesses more competitive—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What wasn’t true during the election campaign is still not true today.

But, look, what a start. What a start for this for-the-people Premier: the very first piece of legislation to be tabled in this Legislature and he’s shutting out the people in terms of committee hearings and opportunity for public debate and scrutiny of his first piece of legislation. That’s not very transparent. That’s not gathering the voices of the people. It’s shutting out the voices of the people.

He needs to tell us what the full costs are, Speaker, what the payment to Mayo Schmidt and the board of directors is going to cost. He needs to tell the government how he’s going to protect Ontarians from $103 million in charges and fines if the Avista deal falls through. He has to come clean about any further costs as a result of this backroom deal.

Will the Premier release the full costs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Leader of the Opposition, I’ll tell you what transparency is: Transparency is when you make promises during the election, you keep your promises. That’s what transparency is.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members, please take your seats.

Restart the clock.

Hon. Doug Ford: As we promised, and we delivered on our promise, the CEO of Hydro One had zero severance, absolutely zero.

We promised we were going to get rid of the cap-and-trade and carbon tax, the worst tax anyone could put on the backs of the taxpayers and businesses. We’re doing that. It’s done; it’s gone. We’re putting money back into the people’s pockets instead of the government’s.

Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate your question. Thank you.

Hydro rates

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Today, the Financial Accountability Officer tabled his annual report. He specifically highlighted two of his office’s most important reports: the real cost of selling off Hydro One and the real cost of the Liberal hydro plan, which is now the Ford hydro plan.

The FAO’s non-partisan expert report showed that privatizing Hydro One increases the deficit by billions. Privatization of Hydro One is a waste. It was a bad Liberal plan, and now it’s a bad Ford plan. It’s a deal that helps backroom insiders and big banks and hurts people. It’s not a plan for the people; it’s a plan for the rich.

How can the Premier justify the Hydro One privatization that adds billions to the deficit?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member from the new deficit party—oh, the New Democratic Party—for his question.

For 28 days, the most important standing committee that could ever be convened met, and on June 7 they made their decision, Mr. Speaker. They supported this leader and our government to reduce their hydro rates by 12%. In the past couple of weeks we have moved quickly to renew the leadership for Hydro One, to get rid of projects that communities not only did not need but didn’t want.

We’re on track to reduce those hydro rates. Promises—plural—made; promises kept—plural.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Please sit down. Restart the clock.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: The FAO also highlighted the report into the Liberal hydro plan. Last week the energy minister said he wasn’t that familiar with the Liberal plan. The only thing is, the Liberal plan is now the Conservative plan. The FAO’s report shows that the Ford hydro plan will cost Ontario more than $45 billion. The FAO’s non-partisan expert report shows that bills will increase permanently and people will soon see annual increases of nearly 7%.

The Premier says he’s for the people, so why is his plan increasing their hydro bills by billions?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Once again, through you, Mr. Speaker, I’ll just turn to my colleagues and ask for forgiveness that I don’t pay attention to Liberal energy policy—Liberal energy policy that the NDP supported time and time again, that saw their hydro rates either go up or be subsidized for the next generation, which would be my little girls Abigail Mae and Poppy Kate. We don’t stand for that on this side of the House.

We’re saving taxpayers $790 million in today’s dollars by terminating contracts Ontarians don’t want and don’t need. We’re renewing the leadership for Hydro One and we’re meeting our commitment to reduce hydro rates for all ratepayers.

Interjections.

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

Community safety

Mr. Deepak Anand: Mr. Speaker, as I rise for the first time in the House, I would like to congratulate you on your election and I’d like to say you’re doing a wonderful job. Thank you so much. I’d like to congratulate the rest of the 122 MPPs on their elections, as well.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. First, I would like to congratulate the minister for being tasked with this very important responsibility. I know the minister will serve his constituents and the people of Ontario with honesty and integrity.

With the recent brazen and indiscriminate act of violence seen in the city of Toronto, I’m proud to know that our government for the people will ensure that our police and first responders will have the resources and tools required to perform the job safely and effectively. Our first responders perform their duties selflessly and with incredible professionalism, and they deserve to have the proper resources to perform their duties.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Could the minister please explain to the members of this Legislature—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Community Safety.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Firstly, I’d like to congratulate the honourable member for Mississauga–Malton on his recent election as an MPP.

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the victims and their families who experienced this senseless violence. I want to also thank the first responders who acted so quickly to help the victims bring this incident to an end.

Public safety is our primary concern and we’re committed to examining current community funding programs and their effectiveness in reducing gun violence and gang-related activity in Ontario. This government has remained clear on the issue of gun violence and organized crime in Ontario. We will remain committed to providing our front-line officers with the tools and resources they require to perform their duties.

We are going to get resources to our police services. It means boots on the ground. It means more resources on the front line so they can do their job. That’s what we committed to in the last election: more tools, more resources, more supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Back to the minister: Minister, over the past 15 years, we have repeatedly seen our police being unable to acquire the proper tools and resources they need to keep Ontario communities safe. This has placed our front-line officers at risk, which is simply unacceptable. Under the previous government, our first responders were denied the ability to perform their job safely and effectively. With the rise in gun violence on our streets, our first responders deserve better and deserve to perform their jobs safely.

With the rise in gun violence on our streets, can the minister please explain how this ministry will help keep Ontario’s communities safe?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you once again for that question. Gun violence destroys lives and is a menace to our communities. It has no place in Ontario, and these attacks need to stop. The Premier had directed my ministry to work across government lines and with key stakeholders, including police, municipalities and community organizations.

We’ll also want to work with the federal government to ensure their sentencing is tougher for people who have committed violent acts and that the bail system is keeping our communities safe.

The status quo is failing, so I’ll remain committed to working with all members of this House and everyone in this province to find solutions that will keep our communities safe and protect Ontarians from being the victims of senseless violence.

Curriculum

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is to the Premier.

Earlier this month, educators, elders and knowledge keepers, including survivors of residential schools, were to travel to Toronto to participate in the curriculum writing session for the truth and reconciliation curriculum, one of the recommendations of the TRC commission.

This was cancelled on the Friday before people were set to travel and, in fact, some already had travelled into the city. Ministry staff have said that the move was taken in order to meet the directive by this government to find savings across the public service.

Speaker, will the Premier tell us when the truth and reconciliation curriculum writing will resume?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: We look forward to the opportunity for these young Indigenous people to have access to these important developments in the curriculum and for them to be a part of it, and we intend to see those meetings go on, moving forward. We put this on pause to be a little cost-conscious about how we intend to proceed with this. But we will move forward with this in short order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Suze Morrison: The minister has said that the curriculum was postponed—not “paused,” as he said—not cancelled and would resume. Summer was the ideal time for this curriculum writing to take place. In the fall, educators will have to be replaced in their classrooms by substitute teachers. This curriculum was to involve language and cultural learning as early as kindergarten, which is vitally important to preserving and passing on things like languages.

Will the Premier tell educators, elders and students when the truth and reconciliation curriculum writing will resume? “Paused” is not good enough.

Hon. Greg Rickford: One of the most important things we can do is to honour the principles of truth and reconciliation and ensure—as I think all colleagues from both sides could say and share, there wasn’t enough of that in our own curriculums, growing up as children in our public school education system.

We intend to remain committed to this opportunity, and we’ll have more to say about that in the very near future.

Rural infrastructure

M me Amanda Simard: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ma question s’adresse au ministre de l’Infrastructure.

I represent many small communities that have felt neglected in the last 15 years. During the election, Premier Doug Ford and our Ontario PC team campaigned on the promise to make life easier for families, businesses, seniors and students, and to send a message that Ontario is open for business. A key part of that promise is providing modern, reliable infrastructure to communities in every corner of this province. That includes expanding broadband access.

Can the minister tell this House about how his ministry will be supporting our government’s mandate to deliver relief for the people of rural Ontario?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: It’s an honour to rise during question period for the first time as Minister of Infrastructure. I want to begin, like many others have, by thanking the people of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex for returning me to Queen’s Park, and to thank my wife, Kate, and daughter, Annie, for all their support.

Also, I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for this very tough but fair question this morning.

Mr. Speaker, providing modern, reliable infrastructure to both our biggest cities and small towns is critical if we want to make Ontario open for business again. Access to broadband Internet is a key part of supporting economic growth in all of our communities and is an important focus of the Doug Ford government.

I’m excited to work with our municipal partners, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the private sector to deliver on the expansion of this vital infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Amanda Simard: Back to the minister: Thank you, Minister. I’m pleased to hear that the Ministry of Infrastructure is committed to supporting our government’s resounding mandate. The expansion of broadband is an important part of allowing our local communities to continue to grow and supporting the people who want to build their careers and raise their families in rural Ontario.

I know there’s a hodgepodge of programs and partnerships already under way between the different levels of government and the private sector to expand access to broadband and cellular services.

Can the minister tell us more about the role that our government will be playing in modernizing this critical infrastructure?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I understand, as do my colleagues on this side of the House, the value of reliable, high-speed Internet to our communities right across the province. It is not just a matter of convenience or supporting business growth. Broadband access can also improve access and create cost savings in health care, transportation and the delivery of community services.

In a few weeks, I will be sitting down with hundreds of municipal representatives at AMO in Ottawa to discuss their priorities and how we can work with our municipal partners to deliver the modern, reliable infrastructure that families and businesses rely on.

Climate change

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is for the Premier.

Scrapping the cap-and-trade program does more harm than good; case in point is my riding of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, the latest victim of these Conservative cuts. Mohawk College has now fallen victim to these cuts and they have had the $2 million promised clawed back—$2 million that was promised to open the new centre for climate change management. This centre was the first of its kind in Ontario, and it would have helped fast-track our region to a low-carbon economy. Now this innovative centre is scrambling to ensure that we can keep it alive.

So I ask: How many more green initiatives will end up on the Conservative chopping block while it dismantles cap-and-trade?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you, I thank the member for her question.

Our government was elected on a promise that puts people first and makes life more affordable for Ontarians. As I’ve said before in this House, we do understand the importance of tackling climate change, but we disagree fundamentally with the solution of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program. The programs that the member speaks of were programs that were being funded by that regressive, unfair tax.

This government has been clear: It will cancel cap-and-trade, it will not support a carbon tax, and it cannot support the programs that were supported by that regressive tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Mr. Speaker, cancelling cap-and-trade only hurts Ontario business, with small business suffering the most. And as we know, small business is the backbone of Ontario’s economy.

The federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act will apply to businesses located in provinces that don’t have a cap-and-trade program. This means that the price of pollution ultimately falls on the rest of Ontario residents, those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Why is the Premier ignoring the financial burdens that come along with scrapping cap-and-trade? Will the Conservative Premier be honest and tell us where this axe is going to fall next?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: This government has been very clear from the very beginning about our position on cap-and-trade. It is a little bit rich to think that a tax is how we are going to make business competitive. To talk about competitiveness and a tax is, I guess, the NDP way.

To talk about competitiveness for our Ontario businesses, our job creators, we are not going to have a tax. We are not going to have the highest carbon tax in the world. We are going to cut that tax. In doing that, we are going to create jobs for Ontarians and we are going to create a better environment, a more affordable environment for our province.

Public transit

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Merci, monsieur le Président. Premièrement, je veux vous féliciter pour votre élection comme Président de la 42 e législature.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Last week, the minister claimed that Doug Ford will be remembered as the Premier who brought transit to Ontario. Apparently, the ministerial script has been delivered from the PC Party. You know that as of last June, there were more transit projects under way in Ontario than ever before, including the Ottawa LRT phase I, which is scheduled to carry its first passengers in November.

The previous government committed to funding the LRT phase II. I know during the campaign, the then-leader, now Premier, did commit to funding not only the LRT phase II, but other projects all across our great province.

Can the minister clarify for this House his remarks from last week about the funding of ongoing transit projects, and can he tell me today—can he tell us today, actually—if phase II of the LRT will be part of the funding?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much to the honourable member from Orléans for the question, and congratulations on your re-election.

Yes, I did say that Doug Ford would be the Premier who brought transit to Ontario. I didn’t talk about the history, absolutely, but he will be remembered as the Premier who expanded the transit system in Ontario beyond the work of anyone before him.

Our commitment to expanding transit in the province of Ontario is ironclad. It’s as ironclad as the steel rails that move trains across this country. I can say on the LRT that we are continuously in negotiations with the city of Ottawa, in discussions with the city of Ottawa. Phase II is absolutely a project that this province, under Doug Ford, will be partnering with the city of Ottawa on. There is no question.

I can expand on that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you, Minister. You know, there is another Tory Premier who is remembered for transit, and they’re not fond memories. Mike Harris cancelled the Eglinton subway. He didn’t just cancel it, actually; he filled in the tunnels that had already been dug.

Uncertainty hurts Ontario’s economy and its business community. The $4.2 billion in corporate assets that are in limbo because this government cancelled carbon permits has caused enough uncertainty. They don’t need more on the transit file.

We know that this government has already cut funding for schools, businesses, homeowners and hospitals. Are transit projects next? Will the minister commit to this House today that this government will not cancel any planned or ongoing transit projects and that this government won’t fill in any more tunnels?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for the question. The members of the Liberal Party are going to have to get new scripts. That’s the same script that they were using when they were in government. It didn’t work then and it’s not going to work now.

If they want to talk about previous governments, let’s talk about the failures of the last government, the Liberal government that has now been reduced to seven seats across the province of Ontario because the people said that they want change. Doug Ford and the PC Party have brought that change.

Speaker, let’s be very, very clear. Make no mistake about it: Transit under this government will get all the due attention it deserves because we understand that if you can’t move people and if you can’t move goods, your economy will suffer.

We’ve seen what neglect has done under the previous government. That won’t happen under Doug Ford—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Members take their seats.

Next question.

Firefighting in northern Ontario

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Ontario continues to face a particularly challenging forest fire season. Conditions this year have resulted in significantly more fires in the province and a large area affected.

I commend the minister and his ministry for their swift action in Temagami and the efforts undertaken to help get the situation under control. But there’s still more work to be done.

Can the minister please inform the House of what steps his ministry has taken to ensure the ongoing safety of our communities?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much for the question, the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being appointed the chief government whip of the Doug Ford government.

I would like to reassure Ontarians that we’re doing all we can to fight these fires, attacking both from the air and on the ground. We’ve brought in over 450 skilled crews and aircraft from across Canada, the United States and Mexico to fight these fires alongside our fire rangers.

As wildland fires continue to burn across Ontario, I want to thank everyone who has been impacted for their co-operation and patience. I’d like to thank our brave fire rangers who are working tirelessly to fight these fires, protecting people and property. I would also like to acknowledge the support of law enforcement, municipalities, Indigenous communities and our emergency management staff during this time.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the minister: Minister, I want to thank you for your service and your appointment. I know you’re going to be a great member and lead on this file.

I, too, would like to thank all the firefighters, fire rangers and other individuals working to get these fires under control. Their tireless efforts are beyond appreciated.

Can the minister please provide this House with more details on what actions and additional supports were taken to battle these fires in order to keep the residents of our northern communities safe?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much for the question. With this government, public safety remains our priority at all times. I know this is a challenging time for people who have been evacuated from their homes or impacted by smoke from these fires. I’d like to thank them again for their co-operation and patience.

Our government has continued to monitor the situation closely and will continue to provide information and updates as soon as they become available.

Community safety

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Attawapiskat First Nation has seen a flood of illicit drugs and alcohol in their community. The Mushkegowuk Council has also declared an emergency due to drugs.

It takes the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service a week to get a warrant from a justice of the peace. It is so bad that the Chief and other community leaders have had to seize the contraband themselves.

Is it acceptable that access to the law is different depending on where you live? What does the Premier say to Attawapiskat and the Mushkegowuk tribal council?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: We appreciate the challenges and the opportunities that Indigenous communities in the remote and isolated parts of this great province have, and we’re very sensitive to them. We also acknowledge that the Trudeau government made it their priority to legalize marijuana without considering some of the consequences. In the view of many Indigenous leaders, it was brought along too fast and too hard without appropriate consultation.

Unlike the Liberal government, we’re going to listen carefully to the concerns that Indigenous communities have raised regarding the legalization of recreational marijuana, including the Mushkegowuk Council. I invite the member to put those to us in writing or through the Chief, and I look forward to those conversations in the not-too-distant future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Again, the Nishnawbe police have been clear that they don’t have the resources to properly patrol their vast territory, let alone tackle the crisis.

The federal government has allocated $15 million to the First Nations police in the province. New Democrats committed to $30 million a year. How much is this government prepared to commit to First Nations police in the province?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Minister of the Attorney General.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank you for your question.

Our government will always work to ensure that our province’s justice system is fair and equitable to everyone living in the province of Ontario. We are aware that the process may not always include all people. We will be looking forward to working with people in your community and across communities around this province to make sure that we can identify initiatives to help ensure that all Ontarians who need to be properly represented are able to be represented.

If the member opposite would like to work together on ways that we can do that, I look forward to the opportunity to sit down with him.

Trucking safety

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question: the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to congratulate you on being elected from this assembly as the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. Congratulations. I look forward to working with you.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. With an increasing number of vehicles on our roads and more goods being moved across our province, truck safety becomes ever more important. I know the OPP and other law enforcement agencies have been on our Ontario roads conducting safety blitzes to crack down on unsafe trucks and get the message out about safety.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell this House what is being done to help improve truck safety on our highways?

Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington for the question. I want to congratulate him on his re-election, but also thank him for the ongoing commitment to truck safety that he has been a champion of ever since being elected into this House.

Speaker, I’ve had the opportunity in the last few weeks as the new Minister of Transportation—and I’m honoured to have that role—to speak with members of the Ontario Trucking Association as well as the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada about the commitments that we both share and the importance of truck safety.

In this government, the safety of our people is our number one priority—on our roads, in our transit systems and wherever they may be. Many measures have already been done, and we’re going to ensure that we do everything we can to make our roads as safe as possible. They are among the safest in the province, and I can expand on that in the supplementary as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the minister, Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the minister for outlining how important truck safety is to him and to this government.

The trucking sector is important to our economy, and of course there are many good operators with good safety records, but it’s an issue we must always stay on top of.

Can the minister outline what other steps he and his ministry are taking to ensure that Ontario continues to be a national leader in truck safety?

Hon. John Yakabuski: In addition to speaking to the members of the trucking associations, I also had the opportunity to have a lengthy conversation with Vince Hawkes, the commissioner of the OPP. We share a lot of common ground with regard to what we should do and can do to make our roads as safe as possible.

Recently enacted on July 1, there’s a zero-tolerance policy for commercial truckers with regard to the use of alcohol or drugs—absolute zero tolerance. You cannot drink or use any drugs when you’re—you can have your prescriptions, but you can’t be smoking marijuana and driving a truck in Ontario, for sure.

Those kinds of issues, Speaker, are ones that we are absolutely committed to working on with the OPP, working on with the trucking associations. We have mandatory training now for someone to become a commercial truck driver.

There are many, many things that have been done and that we are going to do. But any time that anybody out there has a good suggestion for making our roads safer, we’re ready to listen.

Land use planning

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next question? The member for York South–Weston.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election.

My question is to the Premier. Community members of the Rockcliffe neighbourhood in my riding of York South–Weston are angry. They are angry because St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited will be building a factory in their community. They are also hurt because their concerns have been ignored in the process. Instead of a long-awaited park being constructed in the community, the lot was sold through a closed-door bidding process. Now there will be no chance to modernize the area. That means no stores, no small businesses or even a park.

The Conservative government prides itself on being transparent. So my question is, will this government stand beside the Rockcliffe community and ensure that this backdoor deal is stopped, or will it side with big businesses?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Jim Wilson: To the honourable member: Certainly we’d be very interested in learning more details about this case. I’m not sure whether any government ministry is actually involved at this time. Perhaps you could let us know during the supplementary.

I will certainly work with you and get back to you and answer your questions fully to the satisfaction hopefully of yourselves and your constituents. Please send us more information.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: The construction of the St. Helen’s Meat Packers Ltd. factory will compromise the Rockcliffe community. To be clear, the meat-packing factory is expected to be built across the street from not one but two schools, Rockcliffe Middle School and Frank Oke public school. It not only puts the health of young kids at risk, but the land also has a history of flooding and there are concerns that paving it over increases that risk.

Mr. Speaker, Rockcliffe residents deserve better. They should not have factory trucks driving past their homes and their schools on a constant basis and risking contamination of our community’s air, water and soil. So I ask again, will this government review its environmental assessment and stop this backroom deal so the children and families of Rockcliffe can live and thrive in a healthy community?

Hon. Jim Wilson: The Premier has indicated that he’s very familiar with this issue so he will bring us up to speed, and we’ll get back to the honourable member and take the question on notice.

Government spending and accounting practices

Ms. Lindsey Park: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the President of the Treasury Board.

We know that Ontario has one of the largest debts of all subnational jurisdictions in the world, and our debt is almost equal to that of BC, Alberta and Quebec combined. This is the true legacy of the mismanagement of the previous Liberal government. For people, for families in the riding of Durham, the state of the province’s finances is deeply concerning.

Would the President of the Treasury Board please inform us of the steps our government is taking to clean up the mess left by the previous Liberal government and restore respect for taxpayers in Durham and province-wide?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member from the great riding of Durham for that question.

Mr. Speaker, this government is motivated by a deep desire to set our province and our economy on a more efficient and sustainable path. That is why we have embarked on a line-by-line audit of the province’s books. In the 15 years that the previous Liberal government was in power, the average per capita debt increased by—and you won’t believe this—$10,614. What kind of legacy is that for future generations?

The people of Ontario deserve answers. A comprehensive line-by-line audit of government spending will fulfill that commitment. The era of obfuscation is over. The era of accountability is back. My colleagues: promise made, promise kept.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and please extend my thanks to the minister for his response.

We know that immediate action must be taken to open up the books in this province. Under the previous government, our debt ballooned to $311 billion and our credit rating was downgraded multiple times. Families in Durham are working hard and paying more than ever. They tell me that they want a change from the previous government, which wasted hard-earned money and spent our tax dollars on schemes that benefited political elites.

Would the President of the Treasury Board please give us more details on how the line-by-line audit will bring this change?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, our government is taking immediate steps to restore public trust. That is why the line-by-line review is first and foremost an efficiency exercise. We’re looking at all ways we’re spending money. The results of the line-by-line review will be used to develop a responsible plan to achieve efficiencies and deliver results for taxpayers. The entire point of this exercise is to ensure the sustainability of government services.

The legacy on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is one of indebtedness for the next generation. On this side of the House, our desire is to leave a legacy of hope and prosperity for the future of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take your seats.

Restart the clock. Next question.

Labour dispute

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is to the Premier. Since April, 65 workers at the Port Arthur Health Centre—all of them women—have been on strike. They need a fair wage and health benefits so they can continue to provide great health care to the people of Thunder Bay, but the employer has refused to sit down. They’ve refused three requests for mediation from the Ontario Labour Relations Board and have refused to give these women a fair offer.

Every day that the employer refuses to bargain, the people of Thunder Bay, who rely on this clinic, are struggling to get appointments, are struggling to get their medical information. They are forced into overcrowded clinics. They are forced to go to the overcrowded emergency rooms at our already beleaguered hospital, and use the ambulatory care at our hospital as well.

What will the Premier do to make sure that these health care workers get the respect they deserve and the people of Thunder Bay get the health care they need?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I thank the member for the question and congratulate her on her election to the Legislature.

We are certainly aware of the situation and we’re monitoring it at the Ministry of Labour. In this situation, both sides are encouraged to work together to resolve the differences at the bargaining table. Ministry of Labour mediators are available to assist the parties in the process.

I agree with the member. We hope that there is a resolution coming soon for the many reasons that she has mentioned. We look forward to that resolution hopefully coming soon between the two parties. To the member: We will continue to monitor it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: There are women at the Port Arthur Health Clinic who have worked there for 30 years. They have devoted their working lives to providing care to the families of Thunder Bay. I have received calls and emails supporting those workers.

People are shocked to learn that they are making $14.71 an hour. Many of these women have been working casual for years even though they work full-time hours. They are supported by public health care dollars. And even though they work at a medical clinic, the employer has refused to pay them basic health benefits or WSIB.

The employer has refused to come to the table. They have refused the help of the Ministry of Labour. I ask the Premier again, what will the government do to help these front-line workers and ensure that Thunder Bay can rely on the quality health care it needs?

Hon. Laurie Scott: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. I do appreciate that this is a serious situation. We want to make sure that everyone in Ontario has access to the health care services that they need.

Having said that, as the member knows, the ministry is not a party to these negotiations, but we do encourage both sides to get together to try and resolve this in the interests of the people of the Thunder Bay area to make sure they receive the care services that they need. I know that everyone is concentrating on the best interests of the people in the community and we look forward, hopefully, to a quick resolution.

First responders

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Cambridge.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: May I offer you my congratulations on your election to the chair.

My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Mental health is an issue that affects many of those within this province, including many of the province’s first responders. I was proud to see that our government for the people has taken the initiative to put forward the necessary funding for improving access to mental health supports throughout the province. With our government’s commitment, we will be able to help those affected by mental health, including many of our first responders.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services please update the members of this Legislature on what the ministry will do to offer more support for our province’s first responders?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d first like to thank the member from Cambridge for her question in the Legislature here today and congratulate her on her election as the MPP for Cambridge. I know the member is an excellent representative for her constituents, and I wish her continued success here in the Legislature.

Addressing better access to mental health supports is an important issue that I have advocated for for more than 15 years before serving as minister. We know our front-line officers deserve more, and our government will remain committed to providing the men and women of our police services with the resources and tools they require to keep communities throughout the province safe.

One of the issues discussed recently in a meeting between the Premier, Minister Bill Blair, Mayor Tory and Chief Saunders was mental health and the need for supports. It’s why our government is investing $1.9 billion, matched by the federal government, into mental health care. We are committed to helping our front-line officers, and we will remain committed to helping them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Belinda Karahalios: Again, my question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Thank you for your kind remarks. I am proud of the trust that the people of Cambridge have placed in me.

Thank you very much for your update on the mental health supports for our first responders. It is great to see the government for the people respecting our first responders and acknowledging the incredible job they perform day in and day out to ensure that Ontario’s many communities are safe.

Over the past 15 years, we witnessed the previous government fail to address the mental health of our first responders. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services please explain what tools and resources will be required to keep our front-line officers safe?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for the supplemental question. Our party has not only committed to providing our front-line officers with the tools and resources they require but will also continue to remain true to our commitment of improving access to mental health supports throughout this province.

Mental health is an issue that affects many Ontarians, and this government acknowledges that something must be done, and done soon. Our government has been clear on this issue and will continue to support the many men and women who perform their duties to keep our streets safe.

We will review the pilot projects across the province and see which are working. Through our mental health commitment for our front-line officers, we’ll make sure that they get the help that they need and are able to provide the services we need them to provide.

Addiction services

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is for the Premier. The Middlesex-London Health Unit has requested a six-month extension for London’s temporary overdose prevention site, or TOPS, to keep the site operating until the permanent supervised consumption facility is in place. The temporary site was approved in February for a six-month period and has already made a huge impact in reducing the number of overdose deaths in London. Not only has the site saved lives by reversing overdoses, it has also referred almost 100 clients to other services, such as addictions treatment, mental health counselling and supportive housing.

Speaker, will the Premier approve the extension of the temporary site and allow TOPS to continue providing life-saving care to some of London’s most vulnerable and marginalized populations?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member for the question. We are committed to fighting the ongoing opioid and other drug crisis and get people struggling with addiction the help that they need. We are currently reviewing the latest data, evidence and current supervised consumption sites and overdose prevention site models.

Premier Ford was clear during the election that he will listen to the experts and committed $1.9 billion to mental health and addictions programs, services and housing to match the $1.9 billion committed by the federal government, and we are doing that right now. We are listening. We want to make sure that we get this right. We are listening to the evidence and a decision will be made in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I think Premier Ford was clear during the election that he was dead against overdose prevention sites, even as the number of opioid-related deaths in Ontario continues to rise.

Last year across the country, 4,000 people died because of opioid poisoning compared to 3,000 the year before. In my community of London, we have the third-highest rate of hospitalizations due to opioid poisoning in Canada and the second-highest in Ontario.

Not only will keeping the temporary site open save lives, it will also help reduce some of the pressure on our hospital emergency room. Speaker, will the Premier make a decision based on solid research and evidence of harm reduction, or will he ignore the recommendations of public health experts and reject the request to keep this site open?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would like to clarify Premier Ford’s position on this issue and the position of our party. Subsequent to the announcement that you referenced in your question, Premier Ford did say that he wants to listen to the evidence, learn about the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. That is what we are doing right now. As part of our overall mental health and addictions process in developing a comprehensive strategy, we are taking a look at the supervised injection sites and overdose prevention site models. We want to make sure that we get it right. This is a big decision to make, to continue and to open more if we need to have more.

We are listening to the experts. We’re listening to the Canadian Mental Health Association, Children’s Mental Health Ontario and Addictions and Mental Health Ontario to finally develop a comprehensive strategy for mental health and addiction in this province, including the supervised injection site and overdose prevention site models.

Interjections.

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

Government spending and accounting practices

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. After 15 long years of economic stagnation, the people of this province in their judgment chose change. They chose change for working families, they chose change for our industry and small business and they chose change for the people of this province. While I know that change irks the members of the third party, they should come to appreciate the humility of being given seven seats in this Legislature.

After a decade of economic darkness in this province, the people want government to restore public trust. Minister, could you explain why it is so important that we end the party with the taxpayer and get this commission of inquiry done?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you very much to the member for the question. This commission of financial inquiry is all about restoring trust with the people of Ontario. These are very, very important steps that Premier Ford is taking to clean up Ontario’s finances.

Speaker, I want to refer to some specific language from both the Financial Accountability Officer and the Auditor General in both our public accounts and the FAO reports. He’s referring to the former Liberal government’s books. They are called “unreliable.” The word “distort” is there, and “conceal,” “deceptive,” “obstructive,” “unlikely assumptions,” “significantly understated,” and “inappropriate.” They ended with, “This accounting is bogus.” That is why we’re doing a commission of financial—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will take their seats. Take your seats.

Supplementary?

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the Minister of Finance for explaining why we need to move forward with this level of accountability.

Mr. Speaker, the province needs trust in government. After 15 years of lying and duplicity by the former Liberal government—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Absolutely out of order. I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Withdraw.

After 15 years of duplicity by the former government, it is so clear that we need—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You can’t utter unparliamentary comments. The member will withdraw again.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection: They cooked the books.

Mr. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we know they’ve cooked the books. Every—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That’s enough.

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 2, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 2,

An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Will the members please take their seats?

On July 24, 2018, Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, moved government notice of motion number 2, relating to the allocation of time on Bill 2,

An Act respecting Hydro One Limited, the termination of the White Pines Wind Project and the labour disputes between York University and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3903.

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

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Baber, Roman

Babikian, Aris

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Fee, Amy

Ford, Doug

Fullerton, Merrilee

Gill, Parm

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia

Kanapathi, Logan

Karahalios, Belinda

Ke, Vincent

Khanjin, Andrea

Kramp, Daryl

Kusendova, Natalia

Lecce, Stephen

Martin, Robin

Martow, Gila

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norman

Mitas, Christina

Mulroney, Caroline

Nicholls, Rick

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Park, Lindsey

Parsa, Michael

Phillips, Rod

Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg

Romano, Ross

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Scott, Laurie

Simard, Amanda

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, Todd

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arthur, Ian

Begum, Doly

Bell, Jessica

Berns-McGown, Rima

Bisson, Gilles

Bourgouin, Guy

Burch, Jeff

Coteau, Michael

Des Rosiers, Nathalie

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Glover, Chris

Harden, Joel

Hassan, Faisal

Hatfield, Percy

Horwath, Andrea

Hunter, Mitzie

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Lalonde, Marie-France

Lindo, Laura Mae

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

Monteith-Farrell, Judith

Morrison, Suze

Natyshak, Taras

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shaw, Sandy

Singh, Gurratan

Singh, Sara

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

West, Jamie

Yarde, Kevin

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 68; the nays are 41.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further business this morning, this House is in recess until this afternoon at 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

Members’ Statements

Riding of York South–Weston

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to start by taking a moment to thank the residents of York South–Weston for the trust and confidence they have put by electing me as their representative at the Ontario Legislature. It is an honour and a privilege to serve you.

It is also an honour to stand in this House for the first time as the first-ever member of the Somali community elected to provincial office in the country.

It truly makes me proud to be part of a team that truly represents the incredible diversity of this great province. Our New Democrat team, under Andrea Horwath’s leadership, is one that values and celebrates our diversity, but more importantly, it is a team that recognizes the importance of every single Ontarian deserving to see themselves represented in government.

My being here would not be possible if it was not for the incredible work of our campaign team. Thank you to the dedicated staff, the committed volunteers, everyone who dedicated selfless hours to making sure we connected with thousands of residents in every corner of our riding. I share this moment with each of you, and to you I extend my enormous thanks.

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Brampton West on a point of order.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to introduce my very good friend, a candidate of record from Mississauga–Brampton South and a great businessman, Mr. Amarjeet Gill.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members’ statements.

Human trafficking

Mr. Lorne Coe: I rise this afternoon to speak about human trafficking and the work of the Durham Regional Police Service. It’s an ongoing struggle, and the Durham Regional Police Service is hitting back hard against those who would solicit sex from young women and girls. So far, the Durham Regional Police Service’s work has resulted in charges including sexual exploitation, child luring, and obtaining sexual services from a minor against several people across the region of Durham who responded to online ads placed by undercover officers.

Speaker, Durham police have focused their fight against human trafficking primarily in two ways: by arresting and charging the pimps who control sex slaves, and by reaching out to the girls and women and offering them support should they choose to escape the exploitation to which they’ve been subjected.

I hope that the excellent work of the Durham Regional Police Service will have the net effect of putting a definite dent in a sordid industry that has harmed too many young women in the region of Durham.

Private member’s bills

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I had three private bills on the table when the Liberals called the last election, but I am still determined to press the new Conservative government to consider the ideas I had proposed.

I had wide support for the suggestion that Ontario would benefit from having a poet laureate. We wouldn’t be the first province to create the position. Canada has a poet laureate, as do many Ontario municipalities, including my city of Windsor. I believe we could honour the late Gord Downie of the Tragically Hip by creating the poet laureate position in his memory.

I had another bill to honour the memory of the brave Canadian military personnel from Ontario who lost their lives in combat while serving our country. Other provinces—BC and Saskatchewan, for example—have created a Silver Cross or Memorial Cross licence plate. These are made available to the immediate family members whose sons, daughters or spouses paid the supreme sacrifice while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

My third bill would strip away the red tape and allow Ontario distillers, for example, to sell our whisky where it’s distilled and bottled. This would allow Windsor to reopen the doors of the historic Canadian Club Brand Centre in Old Walkerville. Some 15,000 visitors a day used to take the public tours that were once offered in this historic, magnificent architectural gem.

So, Speaker, a new government, but I will still be pressing for these and other ideas in the coming weeks as the proud member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Grand River Champion of Champions Powwow

Mr. Will Bouma: I rise today to bring attention to an important event in my riding of Brantford–Brant. The Grand River Powwow has a history that started in 1977