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

December 12, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Dec-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 12 December 2019 Jeudi 12 décembre 2019

Orders of the Day

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Louise Lebeau

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Youth suicide

Mental health and addiction services

Assistance to farmers

Community safety

Développement économique francophone

Teachers’ labour dispute

Hospital funding

Government appointments

Government’s record

Automotive industry

Women’s issues

Religious freedom

Nuclear energy

Consumer protection

Police services

Legislative pages

Season’s greetings

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Affordable housing

Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

Indigenous rights

Faith Dickinson

Addiction services

Government’s record / Progrès du gouvernement

Julia Lane

Lorne Nelson Hooper

Sindh Music Festival

Nanjing Massacre Commemorative Day

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Home Warranties to Protect Families Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les garanties des logements pour protéger les familles

Protecting Passenger Safety Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la protection de la sécurité des passagers

Motions

Committee membership

Petitions

Education funding

Hospital funding

Public transit

Government’s agenda

Services for persons with disabilities

Teachers’ collective bargaining

Climate change

Mental health services

Education

Veterans memorial

Multiple sclerosis

Long-term care

Private Members’ Public Business

Public transit

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment (Till Death Do Us Part) Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (Jusqu’à ce que la mort nous sépare)

Ensuring Transparency and Integrity in Political Party Elections Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à assurer la transparence et l’intégrité des élections des partis politiques

Public transit

Long-Term Care Homes Amendment (Till Death Do Us Part) Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (Jusqu’à ce que la mort nous sépare)

Ensuring Transparency and Integrity in Political Party Elections Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à assurer la transparence et l’intégrité des élections des partis politiques

Public transit

Ensuring Transparency and Integrity in Political Party Elections Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à assurer la transparence et l’intégrité des élections des partis politiques

Orders of the Day

Order of business

598968 Ontario Limited Act, 2019

598968 Ontario Limited Act, 2019

2345260 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2019

2345260 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2019

A&One Fashion Jewellery Wholesale Ltd. Act, 2019

A&One Fashion Jewellery Wholesale Ltd. Act, 2019

Special Ability Riding Institute Act (Tax Relief), 2019

Special Ability Riding Institute Act (Tax Relief), 2019

Haggart Belting Canada Ltd. Act, 2019

Haggart Belting Canada Ltd. Act, 2019

1191650 Ontario Limited Act, 2019

1191650 Ontario Limited Act, 2019

1549408 Ontario Inc. Act, 2019

1549408 Ontario Inc. Act, 2019

Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc. Act, 2019

Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc. Act, 2019

Order of business

Visitors

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act (In Memory of Gord Downie), 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario (à la mémoire de Gord Downie)

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Private members’ public business

The Shoebox Project

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re going to begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Mr. Coe moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations / Projet de loi 123, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les stations de recharge pour véhicules électriques.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I look to the member to lead off the debate.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I am humbled to rise in the Legislature to speak at third reading of Bill 123. As you know, Speaker, few private members’ bills proceed to this stage of debate. It’s a great honour to have my name affixed to the bill, which has received such significant support from the Legislature, and in particular, the government.

What makes me most proud is the cross-party support this bill has received, and the hard work of many members that has gone into its development.

Speaker, as you know, although my name is on the bill now, it was not originally. I must give credit to the government House leader who originally led development of this bill and was inspired by his own challenges of an EV owner.

I must also recognize my co-sponsor, the member for Guelph. I know the member for Guelph was an early supporter of the bill, and without his contributions I know that we would not have been this successful in moving the bill forward.

Now, Speaker, I’d like to take a moment to discuss some of the background to the bill. EV technology is developing every day and it’s incredible, the vehicle options available to consumers. With any new technology, there are challenges with widespread adoption, but we’re seeing the industry work hard to overcome these challenges.

If you drive a gasoline-powered vehicle, you can be confident that you can get from point A to point B in southern Ontario and not have to worry about the location of the next gas station. You can leave my riding in Whitby with a quarter of a tank of gas to drive to Ottawa or Windsor with confidence that there will be numerous places to fill your tank along the way. For EV drivers, the situation is not the same. It’s true that our businesses and property owners are investing in EV charging technology, but it’s certainly less ubiquitous than the gas station.

EV drivers, driving even within a city or a region, might have to work to find charging infrastructure nearby, but technology is helping in this regard as well, Speaker.

At committee, we heard from the EV industry, participants like ChargePoint and Tesla. Both companies manage networks for EV charging stations and make location data available to the public on mobile or in-vehicle applications. An EV driver can quickly see charging options near them and can plan their trip around them.

This technology is really very encouraging, but this is not the end of the story. Let’s use an example of an EV driver who has a limited charge and has planned to stop at a shopping centre along the way to refuel. This driver can see on an application that there are charging stations at this shopping centre and even if they’re not in use. Some networks even show the estimated time at which a charging station will become available if it is in use.

In our example, however, the EV driver makes his way to the charging station, seeing it’s not in use but finding that the parking spaces in front of the charging station are blocked. The driver in our example doesn’t have enough charge to go to another charging station or simply must change his or her plans to find one. This just isn’t efficient, and in a time when we want to encourage EV adoption, we need to improve access to infrastructure. This bill does just that.

There’s a term for blocking charging stations, and the term is “ICE-ing.” It’s used quite a bit in the industry. “ICE” stands for “internal combustion engine.” The term refers to those driving gas-powered vehicles blocking EV charging station spaces. This doesn’t exactly tell the whole story, and it isn’t quite fair to those who drive gas-powered vehicles.

In the experiences that I’ve heard from EV drivers, many times they find charging stations blocked by other EV drivers not using them to charge but using them as preferred reserved parking spaces.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Rude.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Yes.

This is not right. Businesses invest thousands of dollars to have these charging stations available for their customers, and even install them specifically to attract customers. This is a significant investment to sit idle because some choose to take unfair advantage of convenience. With this bill, we’re making a real and practical change, but we’re also sending a message as a Legislature to all drivers: These parking spaces exist for charging, and only charging. If you don’t need it, leave it.

I know that other speakers will speak to the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, but I wanted to take a moment to address this bill as an environmental policy. I’ve made very clear in my speeches on this bill the economic benefit to passing this bill. We know that businesses will invest in charging stations if they could be used to attract customers, and we know, Speaker, that they won’t attract customers if customers can’t charge. That is simple. But let’s look at the other side of the equation: The easier it is to charge, the more people will invest in electrical vehicles rather than gas alternatives.

I also see this bill as a way to put in place an efficient and effective environment to promote the adoption of electric vehicles. As Ontarians, when we adopt electric vehicles, we reduce our carbon emissions and contribute, in the process, to a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren—like Sophia and Annette, my two granddaughters. This is a bill that’s not only economically wise, but it’s also good environmentally.

In closing, I wish to thank everyone in this Legislature for considering Bill 123. It is truly an honour—an absolute honour—to stand in my place and debate legislation which bears my name at such an advanced stage.

I would also like to thank my co-sponsor, the member for Guelph, for his dedication on this initiative. And I would like to thank the government House leader, who developed and championed this bill as a private member.

I would encourage all members—I ask all members—to please consider the economic and environmental benefits of this bill. Let’s make, together, this positive contribution to the EV landscape.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today to speak on Bill 123, the reserved parking for electric vehicles act, which I am co-sponsoring with the MPP from Whitby.

I’m proud to co-sponsor this bill because I think that you can chew gum and walk at the same time. I can be critical of the government’s climate plan and work with them to take a small but critically important step forward to support EV adoption in Ontario. I think people have voted for us to come here to Queen’s Park, put people before party and to get things done for people, and that’s what this bill does in an important and small way.

I want to thank Guelph city councillor Phil Allt, who first approached me at the end of last year and said to me, “Mike, we need a bill in Ontario that stops ICE-ing,” which is having a non-electric vehicle park in an electric vehicle parking spot. I promised him and others. I want to proudly say that about half of Guelph city council, including our mayor, all drive electric vehicles. I made a commitment to them that I would work on legislation like this.

During second reading of this bill, I told a story, and I think it’s important to tell that story once again. Just a few weeks ago, I was pulling in to charge my electric vehicle as I was driving back home to Guelph. There’s a spot about halfway between Guelph and Toronto that I oftentimes stop to charge. I took the last charging spot. A person drove up and they started ranting at me a little bit. “Mike”—they didn’t say “Mike”; they didn’t know who I was. They started saying to me, “Somebody’s got to do something about this. I’m sick and tired of going to charge my electric vehicle.

I look on my app, and it says the charging station is available. Then I arrive and I’m low on battery power, and I can’t charge because somebody else is parked in the spot.”

If you can imagine—for those of you who don’t drive an electric vehicle, imagine going to the gas pump and having a whole bunch of cars parked in front of the gas pump, and you can’t charge your vehicle. So this bill takes an important step in addressing that issue, in saying that there’s a $125 fine if you’re parked in that spot, to ensure that it’s available for people to be able to park and charge their car.

We know that electric vehicle adoption is going to be an important development in Ontario in the next decade. Right now, in this province, about 3.5% of drivers drive an electric vehicle. By 2030, estimates are that about half of drivers in Ontario will drive an electric vehicle, and the government’s own climate plan anticipates a 3,000% increase in electric vehicle adoption in the province. Now, I’m going to take issue with the fact that the Auditor General pointed out the government doesn’t have a plan for that uptake to happen.

I’m hoping that in the spirit of collaboration on this bill, we can encourage them to bring forward some plans for EV adoption in Ontario, because it’s going to be critical to meeting our climate obligations.

Transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in Ontario. If we don’t electrify our transportation system, we’re not going to meet our 2030 or our 2050 targets. So we need to ensure that we invest in infrastructure that allows people to walk, cycle and to get around through active transportation, and not only do we need to invest in electrifying and expanding public transit, but we also need to invest in electrifying our personal transportation fleet.

I just want to say that I’ve had an opportunity to work with a number of advocates in the electric vehicle space. The president of the electric vehicle association, Wilf Steimle, came to committee and talked about how important this bill is for electric vehicle drivers across the province, to ensure that they have the trust and the reliability to be able to find a place to charge and know that charging station is available.

I also had an opportunity to meet with a representative from Tesla. I just want to quote what Tesla said about this bill: “We recognize the frustration and disappointment that EV drivers can feel when they arrive at a charging station, needing to connect their vehicle, only to find that the stall is occupied by a vehicle that does not require access to charging equipment. We are encouraged that Ontario is taking steps to address this issue.”

Speaker, I oftentimes talk about the opportunities that exist in the $26-trillion global clean economy. If Ontario is going to be an economic leader and attract investment to this province that will help us address the climate crisis and help improve our economy, ensuring that we have the proper supports in place for electrification of transportation is critically important. We need to adapt our laws, our policies and our infrastructure to seize that opportunity. This is an important step in that direction.

But we also need to make sure that we invest in charging infrastructure. I would encourage the government to be looking at tax incentives to support businesses putting in charging infrastructure. I would encourage the government to reverse the removal of charging infrastructure from Metrolinx parking stations and actually start putting charging infrastructure not only in GO parking lots, but all public parking facilities should have charging infrastructure in place.

I would encourage the government to look at things like reinstating the rebate program for electric vehicles or at the very least take the provincial portion of HST off of electric vehicle sales, because for this law to truly be transformative, we need to make sure that there’s charging infrastructure all across the province, all across our 400-series highways, all across our provincial highways, so that vehicle owners not only know that they have a secure place to charge their vehicle but they actually have a place to charge their vehicle. I think this is an important part of Ontario sending the message that we’re open for business in the clean economy.

We know that $255 billion will be invested by global automakers in electric and zero-emission vehicles in the next five years. The question is, is Ontario going to attract that investment? Is Ontario going to lead the electric vehicle transformation that the world is going to experience over the next decade? We need an auto strategy that prioritizes electric vehicles. We have the skilled workers. We have the plants. We have the companies that can deliver electric vehicle solutions, and we need to make sure we have policies in place that support that transformation.

Speaker, in my final minute I want to just put on the record, for the people watching today and for the people across Ontario, that part of the reason people are switching to electric vehicles is not only for environmental reasons—though that’s a critical and essential component of it—but people are also doing it for personal economic reasons. We know that you can operate an electric vehicle for one fifth to one tenth of the cost of a non-electric vehicle. According to the Canadian Automobile Association, Canadians can expect to spend only around $300 a year to fuel their electric vehicle.

For some people, that’s how much they spend a month to fuel their gasoline-powered vehicle. As a matter of fact, electric vehicles operate at one tenth of the cost of a typical pickup truck on gas.

According to Plug ‘N Drive, EV operating costs are one fifth or less of a typical car. It costs about 25 cents a litre to charge your electric vehicle, and I believe that gas prices in Toronto were about $1.17 this past week.

If the government wants to help people save money at the pumps, let’s get rid of the pumps, and let’s have people go electric, because that is the cheapest way to drive in this province. This bill, I’m proud to say, will help make it easier for people to charge their electric vehicles.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to this bill today.

I want to just thank the member for Whitby and the member for Guelph for bringing this bill forward and getting it back into the House today so that we can pass it at third reading, and then it can become law. Again, I appreciate both of them for their hard work on this.

I think the member for Guelph and the member for Whitby both were very correct in some of the things they were talking about. This is indeed a small step down the path. This won’t solve all of the issues that we have, but I think it also highlights some of the challenges that we have as we develop environmental policy.

I have no doubt, as the previous Liberal government was rolling out their policies with respect to charging stations and so on and so forth, that it was never their intention to create a loophole that would allow EV chargers to block stations. But it wasn’t in the original bills that they brought forward. This bill seeks to right something that has become a problem.

I came across this only after I purchased a hybrid vehicle. As the member for Guelph highlights, after being elected to this place, I was spending about $400 a month in commuting charges getting down the 404/Don Valley to here. It was about $400 a month. Since switching over to a hybrid vehicle, maybe less than $50 a month is what I’m paying. So it has made a very, very big difference to me.

Where I began to notice and where I began to get frustrated as an EV owner is exactly as the members for Guelph and Whitby were talking about. You look on your apps and you can see where you charge. More often than not, as this has started to roll out, small, medium and large businesses, for that matter, have put these charging stations in advantageous spots on their premises.

To be clear, these are very expensive, especially the level 3 chargers, the fast chargers. These can cost a couple of hundred thousands of dollars for a business to install. This is not a cheap thing. This is a massive investment for a lot of them.

When you go to one of these businesses, when you’ve checked on the app, and you see that there is another vehicle stopped or parked in the spot and it is not charging, it is a very big frustration for EV owners. But it is equally a frustration for the people who invested in putting in these fast chargers—or the level 2 chargers, for that matter—to have people blocking them.

For me, it wasn’t people who were driving gas-powered vehicles; it was always EV drivers who were blocking the stations and not charging. Many EV owners were using these stations, and continue to use these stations, as preferential parking spots, knowing that there is no consequence to parking right close to the front door, especially during the Christmas season. It’s great: You go and park right next to the front door, because right now that’s where these charging stations are. They’re in very advantageous spots. You can park next to the front door, walk in and that’s the end of it.

This bill will change that. It will change that so that the people who have invested in these fast chargers, or level 2 chargers, will know there is a benefit to them. But also, those people who have bought electric vehicles will know that when they check online, when they go to charge up, they will have a spot that is waiting for them.

Again, as I said, it is a very small step. I think both members have highlighted the fact that we need to make improvements across the board. This one step will not help us meet our Paris accord targets—obviously not. But it, again, highlights what the Minister of the Environment had been saying all along, that as we develop environmental policies, there will always be the need to make changes to that policy so that we can actually meet those targets.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that when the previous Liberal government was bringing forward this bill, they had no intention of creating a scenario where EV owners would block stations and it would disadvantage small, medium and large job creators. This bill helps to correct that.

I really want to congratulate both members on doing this, on all sides of the House, because I know it received, if I’m not mistaken, unanimous support at second reading, Madam Speaker.

Look, it’s a good first step. We have a lot of work to do. As the provincial government moved out of the direct subsidy of electric vehicle purchases, the federal government, obviously, moved into that space. But I think it is incumbent on us to start to continue to make investments in EV charging stations across the province so that we can continue to build out this network.

I understand what the member from the Green Party was talking about when he said that the GO train stations—I often wondered, and we can have a conversation on that, where it was an advantage to somehow have a car driving to a GO train station and sitting for eight hours, charging in what was a two-hour charging spot, but blocking a station for eight hours. We could have that debate in this House, but ultimately I foresee a time when this bill will need to be repealed because every parking spot will just have a charging station. I think that’s the direction that we are going into.

Whether that’s in 10 years or 15 years, I think that’s where we need to be, not only as a province but as a country. We need to give people the confidence that they can drive coast to cost to coast and have access to the best network of EV charging stations. We’ve also heard this from the auto manufacturers, that they are moving in the same direction. They are moving out of the space of the internal combustion engine and moving towards fleets of exclusively green electric vehicles.

I think I’ll close at that—again, just to congratulate both members and to thank them for their non-partisan nature in moving this forward. I look forward to everybody’s support of the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill this morning. As people are well aware, we’re debating a bill that will impose a penalty for those who block access to an electric vehicle charging station. The bill was brought forward by the MPP for Guelph and the MPP for Whitby.

The House leader just remarked that this was a very small step forward. That shows admirable modesty, and this government has much to be modest about when it comes to dealing with the climate crisis, because, in fact, although this step is not a negative step—it’s a positive step—it has to be understood in the context of a wide-ranging suite of activities that undermine the response to the climate crisis. If one doesn’t understand that, one doesn’t understand how extraordinarily modest this step is—positive; I’m going to vote for it. I think it should go forward. But it deeply, deeply underscores the backwards nature of this government’s action on the climate.

Speaker, this government, I think, can be reasonably characterized as one that is aggressive in its actions against climate action, one that is consistently trying to undermine the activity that’s going to be necessary to preserve our society, to protect our property and our lives in the decades to come. I know the government will say very different. I think there’s time left on the clock and I would not be surprised if there was a ringing defence of the government’s activities.

But, Speaker, if you say you oppose children smoking and you stuff cigarettes in their mouths and you set fire to those cigarettes, then it may be that no matter what your words are, you support children smoking. If you support advertising for vaping products, something this government has done—and recently the really obvious health effects have forced some change of thought. If you support the expansion of sale of vaping products, which this government has and may be forced to rethink, then saying that you’re against children being exposed to nicotine holds no water, because your actions are radically different from your words. That is the situation we find ourselves in, in this province.

This, Speaker, is almost literally the least the government could do. Now, they might do less. I don’t know how: They’d have to be creative; they’d have to think about it. But it is almost literally the least they could do. I want to talk about some of the steps they’ve taken going backwards. The member for Guelph mentioned the ripping out of electric vehicle charging stations in GO stations around the GTHA. Twelve stations that had charging points had them cleared out; 24 chargers taken out of service on November 1, 2018. I have to say that if you want to encourage electric vehicle use, you don’t actually rip out chargers. You just don’t do that.

Now, the argument was made that the chargers weren’t making money. It may well be true. I won’t argue those numbers, but I’ll say this: As you expand the fleet of electric vehicles in this province, reducing the number of electric vehicle charging points is an expression not of support for expansion, but blocking expansion.

I was quoted by the CBC at the time, saying, “By ripping down electric vehicle charging stations that are already installed,” this government “is dragging Ontario backward and burning money.” I think it’s a fair comment.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Very fair.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Very fair.

But that isn’t where it ends, Speaker. Wait, there’s more; they didn’t stop there. Not only, as the member for Guelph noted, was there the removal of a rebate system meant to encourage people to put in chargers, but there was action on the building code. I was researching this last night, and I thought, “Okay, who do I go to about cancellation of electric vehicle charging station decisions?” Funnily enough, when you Google it, you come up with the Electrical Safety Authority. I have to give the Electrical Safety Authority the George Orwell obscuring-truth award of 2019—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The winner is—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: —the winner is—because when you actually Google their comment on the government’s actions on electric charging stations, they write: “On May 2, 2019 changes to the Ontario building code 2012 regarding electrical vehicle charging systems come into effect.” What changes could these be? “These changes were made by the Ontario government’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs to remove the technical requirements related to electric vehicle charging infrastructure in houses and non-residential large buildings, such as workplaces.

For more information please contact your local building official.” It is not obvious what was done. What was obvious was actually set out by the law firm Stikeman Elliott, in their report, which essentially said that the government is cancelling the provision of electric vehicle charging in new houses.

I think it’s one thing to cancel a move that would have automatically required the installation of electric vehicle charging in new houses. We build about 30,000 new detached, semi-detached and row houses in Ontario every year—in that range, fluctuating year by year. This government, in one stroke, eliminated roughly 30,000 new charging stations every year. I don’t know what the member for Guelph has to say, but my guess is that this bill may affect several hundred charging stations. Maybe I’ll go crazy and say it was 1,000.

Thirty times more charging stations were eliminated by the government’s action—30,000 per year. Over 10 years, you’re talking a very substantial number of charging stations that would have been in place.

The previous government did have a $1,000 rebate for retrofitting those electric charging stations on existing homes. It’s pretty pricey to go back and do it afterwards,

whereas when you’re actually putting a house up, just running some cable from the breaker box to the back of the house, to the side of the house, to the garage, would be pretty cheap. If you want to expand the infrastructure for electric vehicles and actually take on the climate crisis, which is threatening our way of life, you could have left it in place. But that isn’t what happened. Ones that were in existence in GO stations got ripped out, and tens of thousands that would have been put in place were blocked. That is a

summary of actions of a government that is going backwards on the climate crisis, putting our way of life in peril.

This bill—which I agree is positive; I’m going to vote for it—is the lightest tinge of green wash on this government, which has no interest in taking on this issue. In fact, it has a negative interest. It wants to go backward on this issue.

Speaker, I just want to illustrate a little further by going to the report of the Auditor General on the activities of this government with regard to its climate plan, because it’s illustrative of where this government is going, contrary to what this bill has to say. When I first read the auditor’s report—and I’ll be honest, I was under time pressure and I just read her quick

summary. But if you get the chance—because it’s actually pretty well written, shockingly, for a government report—you should actually read the detail about the elements in the government’s climate plan. I just want to note a few.

There was a piece in the government’s climate plan about emissions reductions from compressed natural gas. The government climate plan has a target for reduction. But what the Auditor General found was that the government actually didn’t do the calculations. There was an illustration brought forward from the Ontario Energy Association saying, “If you do this, you’ll probably get reductions in this range.” But the government actually didn’t do the math. I’ve seen that in grade 9 essays. I’ve seen kids go home, look at a magazine cover, quote the title on the magazine cover, put it in their essay, and they had the same level of due diligence as this government.

“Our review found that the ministry did not assess whether this level of compressed natural gas uptake is feasible or cost-effective.” So they didn’t even do the simple mathematics on: “Does this work? What’s the cost-effectiveness?” No wonder the government is saying, “We would like suggestions on how to take on this issue,” because they didn’t even do the numbers. And I know they actually have staff who can do numbers—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: They do?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s shocking, but they have hired people who are both literate and numerate, people who can actually read, do math, and give an opinion.

But that wasn’t the end of it, because the Auditor General went on to the whole thing with use of the renewable natural gas, which I think is a good idea. It’s a small idea, but you’ve got manure digesters on farms that can put out natural gas. You’ve got sewage treatment plants in Ontario that can put out natural gas. We shouldn’t waste that resource; we should use it. It’s a wise thing to do.

But when the staff was developing this plan, they estimated that there would be negligible emissions reductions from use of renewable natural gas—just because there’s not a lot of it, right? And it’s fairly expensive in most cases. In this case, the staff actually did crunch the numbers—good for them. “Instead of using the internal staff analysis, the plan based emissions reductions in this area on an Ontario Energy Association submission to the ministry.” The energy association, God bless them, said, “Our example is just illustrative.” You actually need to do the math.

So, in the first case, no math was done and they plugged a number in. In the second case, they were told, “You should do the math.” The staff did the math. They ignored the math and they plugged in another number—astounding.

But the last headline is the one that was most intriguing to me, and people should read the text. “Industry performance standards: Emissions reductions overstated in plan because of double counting and weaker finalized standards.”

So when you actually look at the substance of what was brought forward, it’s much grimmer than the headlines. A lack of math—no wonder this government is concerned about math in schools, because they don’t practise it in their operations. I think math is a really useful thing and I think it should be used when you’re doing estimates of the effectiveness of programs—or lack of effectiveness.

Speaker, I think I’ve established that we have a situation here where the climate crisis is like a cancer on our society. The potential for profound damage is clear, and we’re talking about a minor sprain and addressing a minor sprain—while you should address a minor sprain, but the cancer is where you really need to be focused, and this government isn’t.

The member for Whitby, when he spoke about this bill at second reading, said: “Although we know that there will be an eventual shift toward the increased use of electric vehicles, what remains uncertain is when and how rapid that shift will be. But what we should not be doing in these challenging times is identifying a problem and then not working diligently to find a solution.”

I agree. And when you’ve got a solution in place and you demolish it, then I have to ask the member: How does he address that? His government—and I’m sure he supported the changes that were in question—eliminated 30,000 charging points a year, demolished electric charging points in GO train stations around the GTHA, and now is talking about the need to help electric vehicle drivers.

Again, they should be helped. We should pass this bill. But this ignores the destructive initiatives that this government is engaged in that will make it harder for people with electric vehicles to get them charged in the years and decades to come and will impose on us, as the crisis deepens, the cost of putting in electric vehicle charging stations that would have been there anyway. More climate damage; more fiscal problem. That was ignored.

The member said, “Current electric vehicle owners have found it incredibly frustrating to arrive at a high-speed charging station only to discover a vehicle parked in that charging space—a vehicle not connected to the charger.”

Well, he’s right, you know. That needs to be addressed, and I think putting in a whole bunch of charging stations in other spots would help alleviate that. In any event, the member noted that, “Charging facilities are essential components to an expanding electric vehicle industry.” Which is why maintaining, under the Ontario building code, the requirement for electric charging stations made sense. The elimination from the building code is directly contrary to the measures and targets that this member wants to see go forward.

The member notes, “The more barriers we can remove”—to charging—“the more attractive the purchase of an electric vehicle or hybrid will become.” Absolutely true, and I wish he would have a talk with the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the need to change course again, revise the Ontario building code and actually expand the number of charging stations in Ontario—charging stations available to people who want to pitch in and help deal with the crisis that we’re facing. I don’t see that before us.

The member for Guelph made similar arguments in second reading. I will say to the member, I understand what drives you to take action on this. I just also want to say to you that sometimes there are partners that you extend a hand out to who will take your hand. Be careful: Count those digits after you finish shaking. That’s all I can say.

My colleague from Kingston spoke to this motion. He’s an EV driver as well, and he talked about the frustration of pulling into a station, needing to charge, because Kingston to Toronto—that’s a long enough drive; you’re going to have to charge. Actually, you can probably make it in one charge, yes.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, in summertime you can go both ways.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yes, but that being the case, occasionally you’re going to have to have a charge. The frustration of pulling in and not being able to charge: I understand; it’s pretty profound. He also noted the ripping out of the EV charging stations in GO train stations. Some days, I am left speechless.

The member for Mississauga Centre, who spoke well on this issue, and I have no doubt of her actual concern for the issue, said, “Electric cars and plug-in hybrids are becoming an increasingly common sight in Ontario, with their shining green parking signs that state, ‘Electric vehicle parking only,’ and there is a reason for that. The introduction of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids to Ontario’s automotive market was a positive step”—I agree—“as these vehicles are part of the solution to addressing climate change.” I agree.

Her government voted to block the vast expansion of electric vehicle charging stations, something that they could have done with no cost to the public purse. I often hear, “We need to do things so that we’re reducing government expenditure.” Well, there was no government expenditure in having new houses equipped with electric vehicle charging facilities—no extra expense for government.

It’s much cheaper than going back, five years from now, and putting them in, much cheaper for consumers who are going to have to switch, not because the government will compel them, but because the impact on the climate will be so profound that they understand they have to switch. They will feel morally driven.

In Sydney, Australia, in the last week, the bush fires around the city were so extreme that fire alarms were going off in people’s homes and offices because of the level of smoke. If your smoke detector is going off because the smoke outside your house is so high that your smoke detector says, “You are in danger. Get out,” then you have a sense of a scale of the crisis.

People should keep that in mind when they demolish and roll back efforts to deal with this crisis, because some day their smoke detector is going to go off, and it’s not because of the fire inside; it’s because of the fire outside.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m delighted to rise in the House this morning to voice my support for the bipartisan bill that was originally brought forward by the member from Markham–Stouffville, also the government House leader, and since has been sponsored by the member from Whitby and the member from Guelph.

Bill 123 is the bill to reserve parking for electric vehicle charging stations, and that is what we are debating today, the Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act. Bill 123 will help make electric vehicle charging stations more accessible and convenient to those that need them by ensuring that they are used for the express purpose of charging electric vehicles.

I think many of us know a friend, a family member or our colleagues, as was mentioned—the member from Kingston and the Islands and the member from Markham–Stouffville often talk about their frustrations, and I know the member from Guelph, as well, where you go to where you think it’s going to be a convenient spot in order to charge your electric vehicle: a mall, for instance. This time of year, the malls are very busy. Sometimes it’s impossible to find a parking spot. What will happen, often, when you have an electric vehicle charging station, is that someone might be blocking that station because, of course, everyone is busy trying to get ready for the holidays.

So the spirit of this bill and what it’s really trying to accomplish—it’s really a practical solution for common issues that we have across the province today, and that’s just blocking EV stations. That’s the matter before us in the House today. Again, these practical measures all add up together to make a big difference. They do make a change in the day-to-day lives of Ontarians. That’s very much what we want to do in this House. No matter what your political partisan stripe is, we want to improve the lives of Ontarians and make their life a little bit easier. Certainly, this bill strives to do that by making a change that could make significant impacts to someone’s day-to-day life.

For example, in my riding of Barrie–Innisfil, we have Park Place. It’s a fairly large plaza right off of the 400. Often, individuals who are on their way to, say, cottage country, on their way up north, those who might be driving an electric vehicle will stop into Park Place and will charge their vehicle. But sometimes those spots could be blockaded. So they’ll be calling the Park Place authorities, and it’s difficult for them to enforce it, because there are just no laws in place. What this bill would do, obviously, is make sure that there are designated spots so, as the member from Guelph mentioned, we do stop the ICE-ing effect. That would be really beneficial to them.

But it’s interesting to see how those spots in the Barrie Park Place plaza came to be. Tesla actually approached Barrie city council to build these EV stations. They covered the installation costs, and, of course, the municipality covers the operating costs. So this is happening somewhat throughout the province.

As many of you may know, to address the problem of other vehicles blocking charging stations, municipalities such as Sudbury—which I discovered thanks to the helpful research of my OLIP intern Marion Davies, who’s in the audience today—developed municipal legislation to reserve electric vehicle charging stations exclusively for the use of electric vehicles. So what we’re doing here is that we’re basically standardizing and expanding this framework and the rules for parking electric vehicles, ensuring that that happens all across the province, not just in Sudbury and in other municipalities.

This will complement really well with some of the effects happening globally when it comes to maybe building more of these stations; I know that Tesla was looking to create a few more of these. They’re looking to establish vehicle charging stations between Sault Ste. Marie and Kenora so that there are connections from coast to coast to coast. This is an initiative that they’re taking on themselves as a company, as it is in the interest of their supply-and-demand model for building vehicles as they know that more people will potentially buy one of their vehicles if they have the certainty that there’s a charging station.

We often hear of the uncertainty or the anxiety that might be caused by people who choose to uptake an electric vehicle and they want to find an electric charging station. So what we’re doing here is a practical measure to help that anxiety that may happen, to help the owner know that they can be certain that no one is going to be blocking that space and they can easily charge their vehicle as they wish.

I mention, of course, that we have this in the city of Barrie, but, as many people in this House know, I’m an avid outdoors individual who likes to hike quite a bit. I have a lot of friends in British Columbia. For them, they’ve found a way around the whole blocking of the parking spots for electric vehicles by really choosing where these spots go. So it really is up to working with our municipalities to also choose the places where these particular spots are being built so realistically there isn’t an ability to block that particular spot. That’s kind of their work-around. Of course you see this happening in all different municipalities all across Ontario.

What’s really interesting when we’re talking about hybrid and electric vehicles—I know that the Ontario public service, for instance, is also modelling the use of greener vehicles. In fact, 70% of its passenger fleet right now for the Ontario public service—that is, 1,632 vehicles—are plug-in hybrids or full-battery electric vehicles. So that’s already happening within our public service. Certainly this particular practical measure that we’re talking about today will help anyone who works within the public service, and they do need to charge their vehicle, to know that they can do so easily without someone blocking them. It’s a very noble measure.

Of course, overall, this bill, sponsored by the members from Whitby and Guelph, will help make it easier for Ontarians who have made the commitment to drive a greener vehicle. It’ll help them access charging stations and it will help contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, there are many ways that we can get there.

On the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using the electric grid in order to get there, it’s interesting to note that “Ontario’s low-emission combination of hydroelectric, nuclear, natural gas and non-hydro renewable generating capacity has enabled the province to avoid up to 30 megatonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions,” which is “equivalent to taking up to seven million vehicles off our roads. In 2017, approximately 96% of electricity generated in Ontario was emissions-free.”

So as we move towards some of these big accomplishments, and if you look at the accomplishments of Ontario—if you look at, for example, the targets that we have to achieve under the Paris agreement, you’ll see that while Ontario has reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 22%, the rest of Canada actually increased by 3%. So when we talk about, say, clean energy and obviously utilizing our clean electricity here in Ontario, that is a wonderful example.

But, of course, as the Minister of the Environment has often said, the climate is a non-partisan issue. The member from Guelph understands that as well. We’re constantly working together with all members in order to find ways of protecting our environment in a responsible fashion that is good for all Ontarians, obviously balancing our economy and our environment. We’ll continue to work with our partners—municipal partners, federal partners, members across the way, our Indigenous communities—in order to ensure that we can pass on a cleaner environment for future generations.

But we also have to look at, when it comes to electric charging stations, the role that that’s going to play. I know there are a lot of students right now at Ryerson University, specifically at the Centre for Urban Innovation. President Mohamed Lachemi and my good friend the assistant VP, Jennifer Grass, are working hard with students there to come up with some innovative ideas, and some innovative ideas when it comes to the cost of many of these things.

This is obviously a very good step. As Neil Armstrong has said, it’s one step for man, “one giant leap for mankind.” It’s a very practical solution in order to help those individuals who do need to charge at an electric station, knowing that they have the certainty of their particular access to a charging station not being blocked. I commend the member for coming up with something that will affect the lives of day-to-day Ontarians and, of course, be very good for the pocketbook.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I wanted to get in on this debate for a couple of reasons. First of all because I think it is a step in the right direction, but I also wanted to point out what my friend from Toronto–Danforth had pointed out, that the government has done more to get rid of charging stations in this province than they will ever do in this bill. I think that has to be said in this particular debate. But it’s a step in the right direction, and for that reason, of course, New Democrats will support it.

But I want to speak to the other aspect, and that is of electric vehicles. Most people know me; I’m from northern Ontario, a place called Timmins. I drive an F-150, a V6 that does 10.5 litres per 100 when I drive down to Toronto and back. I am waiting for Ford to come out with an all-electric. Why? For exactly the reason that was raised by my friend from Toronto–Danforth: It makes a lot more sense to be able to drive an all-electric not only from an ecological point of view but from a cost point of view.

To drive down to Toronto will probably cost me about $120 or $130 of gas coming here and the same thing going back. When I’m in my riding, I probably do about a tank a week as I drive to and from where I live, out of Kamiskotia Lake, and I go to constituency events, as you all do.

Moving to an electric vehicle just makes financial sense. The technology is becoming so advanced that Ford is now looking at putting on the market in the next couple of years an F-150 full-size pickup truck that can do 500 miles in the summer. That’s a game-changer. That means that people like me actually can buy an electric vehicle and are talking about doing it for roughly the same price that you’d pay for a regular F-150.

The reason I wanted to get on this debate—and I’m glad that my friend from Toronto–Danforth is here, because he and I have not always been on the same side of the ecological arguments, but on this one we’re lockstep. What’s happening will change the oil industry completely. I understand the debate around pipelines and the rest of it, but the problem that this nation faces when it comes to energy is that oil is going in the opposite direction when it comes to consumption over the longer run, especially if people are able to buy vehicles because it makes more economic sense for them to be able to buy electric.

It’s going to mean to say that oil is going to be one of those commodities that we’re going to want less of.

I read a really interesting report about two weeks ago—or an article; I can’t remember which one—and it talked about the price of oil to compete with electric vehicles. Once the electric gets to where it’s going, the price of oil would have to be about $10 a barrel.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Jesus.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, exactly. You can’t make money at $10 a barrel in the oil sands. You can’t make money at $10 a barrel even if you’re pumping rich crude. That completely changes the economics. What we’re now seeing is not just the ecological problems that we have from greenhouse gases and from various emissions; we’re seeing a transformation of our economy. I think what the Conservatives have to latch on to in the far right is that this is no different than the Industrial Revolution. This is no different than what happened to North America and to Europe at the turn of the previous century.

We’re not talking about 2000, but the years before that where we decided to go to a totally different manufacturing system around the automobile. That created an entire industry that fed the economy of North America and Europe for 100 years. This is going to do the same, but it’s going to do it in a greener way.

The quicker that we latch on as a jurisdiction to do those things that we can do to encourage people to invest in those technologies in our jurisdiction called Ontario, the further ahead of the curve we’re going to be when it comes to being able to take advantage of the economic opportunities that greening our economy is all about. And that’s coming from a guy from northern Ontario. I just say—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Who drives a red pickup truck.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Who drives a red pickup truck, F-150—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Licence plate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Licence plate number—my point is, it is a-changin’ and we’ve got to get in along with the change. I think the longer that this government, the Conservatives, try to deny that we need to go in this way—it is a mistake.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? Further debate?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 11, 2019, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Coe has moved third reading of Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day.

Hon. Kinga Surma: Sorry, Madam Speaker, no further business.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 10:30 today.

The House recessed from 1002 to 1030.

Louise Lebeau

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask for the House’s attention for a moment.

Louise Lebeau, the control room director of the broadcast and recording service, is retiring after 32 years here at Queen’s Park. She is a long-time staffer. Louise has been here since the inception of television in the chamber.

She is an independent filmmaker in her private life. Louise was the driving force and creative mind behind a myriad of informational programs and documentaries, most notably Women Should Vote: A Short History of How Women Won the Franchise in Ontario.

She is accompanied in the chamber today—she’s in the Speaker’s gallery—by her partner, Marc Chiasson.

Thank you so much, Louise, for your public service to the people of Ontario.

Applause.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Will Bouma: I would like to welcome, on behalf of MPP Daryl Kramp, Ms. Tiffany Lloyd in the members’ gallery today, executive director of the Napanee BIA.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It is my honour to introduce my best volunteer: my mother, Marlene Hogarth, and her friend Susan Kular, who is the grandmother to page Julian. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real honour to welcome a friend of mine from my Local Food days to the west members’ gallery: Jamie Laidlaw. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I also want to wish everyone a happy holiday and a wonderful new year.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’m pleased to welcome the family of page Suhani Surya from Oakville North–Burlington, who is serving as the page captain today. She’s joined in the members’ gallery by her father, Nanda Surya; mother, Shubha Narasimhan; and her brother, Sujay Surya. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Shae-Lynn Seeley-Reesor, who is the daughter of my constituency office assistant and who also works for the government House leader in the summer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to do my daily welcome to autism families and advocates who have spent the entire session here in the Legislature with us. We have Amy Moledzki, Amanda Mooyer from York–Simcoe, Angela Brandt, Esther Tang, Laura Kirby-McIntosh, Stacy Kennedy from Oakville, Michau van Speyk, and Qamber Ali from Bay of Quinte. Welcome back to Queen’s Park

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to welcome the UTM students who are visiting us today from my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my friends Xu Hu, Fong Hung, Shawn Byfield and Lin Li. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’d like to welcome Tim Lambrinos, chair of Canada’s largest business improvement area, Emery Village, which is in my riding of Humber River–Black Creek. Tim is proud to be chair of the BIA’s arts and heritage committee, a passion he learned from his late mother, Sheila Lambrinos, a former TDSB trustee and long-time New Democrat. Welcome.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the government House leader. We’re going to stand down our leads and move down our order while we wait for the Premier to arrive.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Agreed? Agreed.

So this would be the third question—two parts, right?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Fourth question.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Trevor Day): Fourth question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The fourth question? Okay. Got it.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Youth suicide

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Acting Premier. In April 2018, Devon Freeman’s body was found on the property of a group home where he was living. He had died by suicide nearly seven months—seven months, Mr. Speaker—earlier, but no one looked for him the whole time.

Devon was 17 years old and from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. Devon’s grandmother and the First Nation are asking the provincial coroner’s office to hold an inquest into his death, an inquest that would shine a light on Devon’s life and death so this doesn’t happen to any more children.

Will you support this request and take action on the inquest’s recommendations: yes or no?

Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for your question. The death or injury of any youth or any child is unacceptable. On behalf of our entire government, our hearts go out to this family and community. I can tell you, as a mother, the devastation of a death of a child is unacceptable.

The safety and security of all Ontarians, especially our most vulnerable, is a top priority for our government. As you know, for privacy reasons, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services does not comment on individual cases. Furthermore, the decision to hold an inquest is made by the Office of the Chief Coroner. The chief coroner and his staff are experts in their field and are responsible for determining whether an inquest is necessary.

Children’s aid societies follow a joint ministry and Office of the Chief Coroner directive when a child who has been in care within the last year dies, to help understand what happened and to identify opportunities so that further deaths may be prevented.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The continued neglect of colonial governments, such as this, means that young people like Devon, Rydell Mekenak and Kerri-Lynn Bunting live without hope, Mr. Speaker.

This week, the government voted down an amendment to Bill 116 to create a provincial mental health and addictions strategy for Indigenous peoples, despite a clear need with the higher number of suicides committed by Indigenous youth.

How many more young people have to die? How many young people have to lose hope before we wake up, as senior levels of government, and do what needs to be done to give these young people hope so they choose life over death?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Referred to the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Referred to the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that very important question. Our government takes mental health and addictions in the province of Ontario very seriously. That is why there is now an Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. And that is why the strategy will look specifically at the needs of Indigenous people, to ensure that we capture and provide the services that they need, when and where they need them.

Unfortunately, 15 years of neglect in this area has created the situation we have in the province of Ontario. We have to build the services—connected and integrated and holistic—so that all individuals have hope and all individuals, including our Indigenous population, have the ability to have the peace and what they need in order to go along their journey and have that hope instilled in them. It is our intention, utilizing Bill 116, to ensure that that is, in fact, what we do as a provincial government.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: My question is for the Minister of Health. I was proud to join my colleagues to support the passage of the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act yesterday. The issue of mental health and addictions services is not partisan. Everyone in this House wants to ensure that Ontarians are fully supported. Our government has already been working to get people living with addictions the help they need to stay healthy and end their addiction.

Can the minister tell the House what our government has been doing to address opioids and what we are planning to do in the future?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for his question on this. I’d also like to thank the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Attorney General and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for their very hard work on this file.

With yesterday’s passage of the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, we are working to build a modern mental health and addictions system. The act addresses key recommendations of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, which was created in 2009 to address this important issue. The Solicitor General, the member from Nickel Belt, myself and other members heard testimony from hundreds of witnesses. Thanks to the support of our colleagues from both sides of this House, we are now finally able to take action.

We are confident that the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence will make a real difference in the lives of Ontarians.

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

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the outstanding minister for her work on this important issue. All members in this House recognize the importance of improving mental health and addiction services. People in our communities have struggled with mental health and with addictions, as have friends and family members. For too long, mental health has not been prioritized as highly as physical health.

I am proud that our government has been working to change this and that we took another important step yesterday in passing the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act. Will the minister update us on what our government is doing to expand and improve mental health and addiction services?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government has been listening to Ontarians, and we know they expect us to take action on the mental health and addictions file. With yesterday’s adoption of the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, we are improving the mental health and addiction services that Ontarians need.

Our government will invest $3.8 billion over the next 10 years, to be implemented by a new Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence. The centre, working within Ontario Health, will develop clinical, quality and service standards for mental health and addictions so that patients will receive excellent and consistent care across the province. This will also enable performance monitoring across the system, allowing the service providers to get the services they need to deliver to patients and families.

Our government will continue to listen as we transform and modernize our mental health and addictions system.

Assistance to farmers

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. One of Ontario’s federally licensed meat processing facilities was recently closed. This has closed a major market for Ontario’s livestock farmers. It creates an even bigger problem because we’ve got a shortage of federally licensed plants in eastern Canada and, quietly, American processors are also saying no to Canadian-finished cattle. What this is doing is dropping the price. So, due to market forces beyond producers’ control, they could be losing up to $400 a head.

We have a program—or had a program—to protect farmers against market forces beyond their control. It was called business risk management, and it worked. It was bankable and predictable until the Liberals capped it. During the last campaign, we both promised—the NDP and the Conservatives—to lift that cap. My question to the minister is, what on earth are you waiting for?

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member across the aisle for the question. I want to ensure the member that the issue of Ryding Regency, though it is a federally inspected plant, is of great concern not only to the beef producers but to our government to make sure that we can find places to have safe food processed in the most cost-effective manner.

As it relates to the support programs, I can tell you that we have been working very hard with all the stakeholders in reviewing the business risk management program, which, as you mentioned, was capped by the previous government so that in disasters such as this, it no longer works. We’re working with all the industry to come up with a program that not only is there going forward, but is there to the extent that they need it going forward, because the program as it’s presently designed will do nothing to help these farmers in these circumstances. We want to make sure we have a—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I agree with the minister that this program no longer works because it’s capped. What the minister is not telling the farmers of Ontario is that since he has been the Minister of Agriculture, the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture has been cut by over 25%, over $250 million. You would think that at the least, this government who claims to love farmers could have taken some of that $250 million and lifted the cap under risk management.

Make the program better, but lift the cap so farmers have what they need: bankability and predictability. You’ve cut 25% out of the ministry’s budget. Lift the cap and directly impact those farmers today.

Interjections.

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

To the Minister of Agriculture to reply.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you to the member for the supplementary question. As I was saying, the program not only was capped, but also it doesn’t work in times of need. It is based on the across-the-board cost of production and helping everybody a little bit in bad times, but there is nothing in the program that deals with situations like we have here. So what we’re doing is getting all the people together and saying, “This is the money that’s available. Let us figure out the best way we can do it to make sure our agriculture community is protected in times of need under circumstances beyond their control.”

Of course, the item that you mentioned is beyond their control, but we need to make sure that help is there to do that. We’ve had a number of other instances. We had it last year with the DON in the corn. The program does not cover that, and so we need to fix it so that when times hit when something happens beyond their control, we have a program. The whole industry is working with us to design one of those, and we will be bringing that forward when it’s—

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

The next question.

Community safety

Mr. Michael Gravelle: My question is to the Solicitor General. Speaker, with the guns, gangs and drug problems in Thunder Bay continuing to get worse, I need to press the minister further about providing increased resources for the Thunder Bay Police Service to deal with this enormous challenge. With gangs from southern Ontario infiltrating Thunder Bay and bringing major crime to our community, we need to see financial support from the province and we need to see it now. When the federal government provided $65 million to the province to deal with guns and gangs, we were very disappointed that Thunder Bay was not a recipient of some of those funds.

The time has come for that support to be provided, Minister, so I ask the minister today: Will your government provide financial support to the Thunder Bay Police Service to deal with this overwhelming challenge?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The short answer is yes. In fact, we announced yesterday $195 million across police services boards to access the Community Safety and Policing Grant. I was pleased to make that announcement yesterday. As I said, there are 89 police services boards who put in applications that focused on local needs, that focused on provincial priorities including guns and gangs, domestic violence and, of course, human trafficking. Those monies have been announced, that money is flowing and we are making a real difference in ensuring that our communities are safe and getting the funds that they need.

I think there is no one—I hope that there is no one—in this chamber who would disagree with the statement that our police services and our boards need to have the support that they deserve to protect their communities. We are doing that as a government. As I said, $195 million is flowing to 89 police services boards across Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Gravelle: Thank you, Minister. We’ll look forward to seeing what portion of that goes to the Thunder Bay Police Service.

On a related justice note, Speaker, the Thunder Bay District Jail is in a state of virtual crisis. With extreme overcrowding, there is a dangerously increased tension between the inmates, unsanitary conditions, and extremely unsafe working conditions for the dedicated correctional service staff who work there. While we wait for the construction of a new correctional facility in Thunder Bay, we are dealing with a dangerous situation that will only escalate if not dealt with.

So I really have two questions for the minister: First, can you provide us with more details on the timing of the building of the new correctional facility, and do you have any plans to deal with the overcrowding of the district jail today?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the member knows only too well, serving in this portfolio previously, there are challenges in our corrections facilities. The corrections officers and the individuals who work in the 25-plus institutions across Ontario deal with some very challenging individuals in some, frankly, old infrastructure.

We have made an announcement. I’m very pleased—and of course, you were there when we made the announcement—to invest in the city of Thunder Bay and build a new corrections facility. That is moving forward, but we are going to, and we continue to, work directly with the community and the impacted stakeholders. We want to make sure that the facility that we build is what the corrections officers need and deserve and what the community and the justice sector need and deserve. Those conversations are ongoing now. We are in the final stages of tweaking the design-build because we want to get this right.

You know only too well that there are facilities in the province of Ontario that approach 100 years old. We need to take the time now to get it right, and we are doing that by consulting directly with the community.

Développement économique francophone

Est-ce que la ministre peut nous dire quels sont ses plans pour ce qui est de l’approche générale et des mesures qui seront à prendre par le ministère des Affaires francophones au cours de notre mandat?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie le député de Niagara-Ouest pour sa question. Notre gouvernement suscite l’intérêt de la part des communautés d’affaires franco-ontariennes et nous nous en réjouissons. Pour illustrer cela, j’aimerais citer un groupe francophone important, le Conseil de la coopération de l’Ontario, qui affirmait ce qui suit après l’annonce de notre énoncé économique de novembre : « L’orientation politique est intéressante. La francophonie n’est pas folklorisée, mais liée au développement économique. »

En collaboration avec mon collègue le ministre du Développement économique, de la Création d’emplois et du Commerce, et dans l’esprit de la rencontre entre notre premier ministre et le premier ministre du Québec à la fin novembre, je veux faire fructifier les liens commerciaux qui unissent les francophones dans notre belle et notre grande fédération, en commençant par tisser des liens avec nos voisins du Québec.

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

M. Sam Oosterhoff: Je remercie la ministre des Affaires francophones pour sa réponse. Ce thème qu’elle développe est réconfortant par sa fraîcheur et son caractère très positif. Au cours des dernières décennies, nous n’avons pas toujours su bien exploiter tout le potentiel des communautés d’affaires francophones en Ontario vu notre proximité avec le grand marché québécois—majoritairement francophone, faut-il encore le préciser.

Je sais que la ministre s’apprête à parler à un public d’élites des affaires et du monde politique au CORIM, à Montréal, à la mi-décembre. Peut-elle nous en dire davantage sur le message qu’elle portera là-bas?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Comme ministre des Affaires francophones, je veux aller au Conseil des relations internationales de Montréal pour livrer un message d’amitié et un appel au développement d’une nouvelle solidarité entre Franco-Ontariens et Québécois, y compris dans le domaine économique, en vue de relations qui auront un effet positif pour tous les Ontariens, francophones et anglophones.

Le plus grand service à rendre aux Franco-Ontariens, à ce moment-ci de leur histoire collective, est de leur faire prendre une part très active au dynamisme des affaires et au développement des technologies, pour l’enrichissement de tout l’Ontario.

Teachers’ labour dispute

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I want to start by thanking you for the lovely holiday party you put on last night, celebrating the wonderful people who work here at the Legislative Assembly, and also, on behalf of New Democrats, to thank Louise Lebeau on her retirement for the work she has done for many, many years here in the Legislature. I wanted to congratulate her.

Merry Christmas to everyone. I hope everyone has a great holiday season to celebrate with family and friends.

My question is to the Premier. Last spring, when the government announced their budget, the Premier stood in this assembly and boldly predicted that parents would welcome his classroom cuts and that not one teacher would lose their job. This fall, as parents were left to deal with cuts and conflict and chaos in the schools caused by those very cuts, the Premier has fallen silent, not answering a single question about education since October, despite being asked on 18 separate occasions.

So my question is, will the Premier break his silence today and explain to parents why he feels his cuts are justified?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy holidays, and I look forward to getting back in the chamber in the new year to do great things for Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, it’s unreasonable for the OSSTF to say to parents that they will continue striking unless they get an additional $750 million. To put that into perspective, it’s every resident in the leader’s riding. As a matter of fact, let’s make it all of Hamilton, all of Burlington and all of Oakville, going up to them and saying, “You’re paying an additional $1,000 of tax.” That doesn’t fly, Mr. Speaker. Our number one priority is to keep the kids in the classroom.

I always differentiate between the hard-working front-line teachers who work their backs off educating our students over the heads of the unions. The heads of the unions want to make sure they line the pockets of the unions. They don’t worry about the teachers. They don’t worry about the parents. Our government worries about the teachers—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, now we see the real Premier, the one who took on the unions from day one and said that they were union thugs and created this poisoned environment that has set negotiations so far back. It’s really, really troubling. But the buck does stop with the Premier. He’s the one who claimed that the parents would welcome these cuts, and, of course, they haven’t. He’s the one who said that larger class sizes would make students tougher, and, of course, it won’t. And he’s the one who told teachers that not one person would lose their job, and, of course, many have.

Now, as parents, students and educators reel from the chaos caused by these cuts, all the Premier can do is name-call the people who work in our education system. How can the Premier pretend that he is not the one wholly responsible for this mess?

Hon. Doug Ford: We have two separate values here in the chamber. The separate values are: The leader of the NDP is beholden to the head of the unions—by the way, it’s the public sector unions because she has lost all support in the private sector unions because they believe in what we’re doing: creating jobs and prosperity and wealth. She has totally lost the construction trades; they know it.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what we can do with $750 million. We can put 7,500 mental health workers on the front lines. We could help 64 new elementary schools or 28 new secondary schools—just to remind the public that under the previous regime, they closed 600 schools, more than any other government in the history of Ontario.

Our priority is to make sure we take care of the students, we take care of the parents and we take care of the teachers. We don’t take care of the heads of the unions that are beholden to the NDP and the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Unfortunately, nobody buys the Premier’s vision of the world. In fact, our parents and people in communities value the work that education workers do in our schools to help their children build a good future.

Look, teachers and education workers have been pretty clear for this whole process. This is about the Ford government’s classroom cuts, no matter which way the Premier wants to try to paint it. The Premier spent the spring, as we all know, picking a fight with the people who make our schools work, and he has spent every day since October trying to avoid blame for the conflict that he’s created. But obviously today, Speaker, he’s doubling down on that conflict, because that’s what he thrives on.

Now parents and students are looking for the Premier to do the right thing by them, but obviously he’s refusing to do that. So I guess my question is, will he finally stand in his place today and announce that he’s reversing those reckless classroom cuts and making sure that our quality education system is still there for our kids?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, the parents I’ve talked to—and I’ve talked to a lot of teachers. Even they are fed up with it. Every three to four years, they hold the province hostage. They hold the economy hostage. They hold the parents and the students hostage. There’s no predictability.

People want certainty, Mr. Speaker, and this government will make sure that they have certainty. They’re going to make sure that the students have a safe place to go to school. We’re going to make sure that teachers are well compensated. They’re actually the highest-compensated teachers in the entire country at $92,000 a year.

By the way, the teachers do a great job. They really do. They do a great job. You know something? Some of the teachers I’ve talked to are frustrated with the heads of the unions. They want to get back in the classroom. They want to start doing what they’re being paid to do, and that’s teach our students.

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I can tell you that the only thing that folks in Ontario are certain about is that this government is holding our kids’ education hostage with the highly illogical way they’re handling this.

Nonetheless, my next question to the Premier is that last night on CBC News, Ontario families heard the tragic story of Oula Jaber, a mother and grandmother who has been forced to live in a hospital bed, breathing through a tube, for the last two years as she languishes on a wait-list for surgery.

Can the Premier explain to Ms. Jaber’s family and to all Ontarians why anyone should have to live in a hospital bed year after year waiting for procedures that should be available but simply never arrive?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question. This is a situation that we are aware of. Although I’m not able to discuss the particular circumstances, I am sorry for this woman and her family. I’m not able to discuss the particular circumstances because of privacy issues, which I’m sure you will understand.

However, I am able to say that this was a very rare and unusual procedure. There are very, very few surgeons who are able to perform this procedure. This was not anything to do with hallway health care; this had to do with the particular circumstances for this woman. Now, that’s not satisfactory, but it was due to the medical procedure that this person needed.

However, I can tell you that in terms of hallway health care, we are making strides. We do have a plan that is reducing the number of people who are receiving hallway health care. Those numbers are going to continue to go down in the future, and we are working on many fronts in order to deal with that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ms. Jaber has missed her daughter’s wedding and the birth of her granddaughter while she languishes in a hospital bed. But her story is far from unique, regardless of the way this minister is trying to paint the situation. Earlier this year, I raised the case of Maria Konopeskas, an Ottawa resident stuck in hospital for two years while she waits for home care supports.

The Premier said he would fix hallway medicine, Speaker. Why are things going from bad to worse under the Conservatives?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, I wish to assure you and, through you, the leader of the official opposition and the public that this situation is not the norm. It had to do with this person’s particular requirements for a surgical procedure.

But we are working to reduce hallway health care. As you know, this is not a simple thing to do. I am working with the Minister of Long-Term Care in order to create more long-term-care spaces. We did make a promise that we would create 15,000 new spaces within five years. We’re well on the track to doing that, because we need to make sure that those patients who don’t need to be in hospital, the alternate-level-of-care patients, are able to move out of hospital.

That has been a problem because of the previous government’s inactivity on this file, their lack of creating those long-term-care spaces, that has allowed for this procedure to happen, allowed for this buildup of patients in the hospital.

We’re also working on our mental health and addictions plan to make sure that the patients who cycle in and out of our hospital emergency departments are not doing that anymore, that they’re going to be able to receive the community mental health supports that they need so they don’t end up in the hospital because—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, re-announcing allocations of long-term-care beds that the previous government had already announced does not actually build beds. Twenty-one beds built when almost 3,000 new people joined the waiting list is not good enough for the people of Ontario.

The reality for patients like Oula and Maria, however, is that the Conservatives under Doug Ford have continued the same policies as the Liberals before them, effectively freezing funding for health care and leaving hospitals operating over capacity to deal with the fallout in crowded hallways. That leaves patients like Oula and Maria waiting under a Liberal Premier and now continuing to wait under a Conservative Premier.

Why is the Premier taking things from bad to worse when he promised to fix hallway medicine?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I’ll remind the members that we refer to each other by our ministerial title, if applicable, and our riding name, if not.

I look to the Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. And again through you, I would like to indicate to the leader of the official opposition the actual facts of the situation, which are these: We are investing $1.9 billion more in health this year over last year, we’re investing $384 million more in hospital operations and we’ve also invested an additional $68 million to small and medium-sized hospitals, to correct a funding formula problem created by the previous government, where those hospitals were having trouble making ends meet.

But there’s more to be done. We are working on that. We are creating those 15,000 beds. We are creating the local Ontario health teams. They’re going to be able to connect care for people so they don’t end up in hospitals in the first place. We have great examples of some of the work that’s already being done. Southlake@home is a great example being done at Southlake hospital that’s connecting those patients who are alternate level of care with home care supports so people can go back home, which is where they want—

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

The next question. The member for Essex.

Government appointments

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to thank you again for hosting that wonderful party. It was great to talk with my colleagues. I want to wish everybody a merry Christmas as we head back to our families and our communities.

Speaker, it should come as no surprise that at the top of my Christmas wish list is for the Premier to actually answer one of my questions this session. So I’m hoping for a Christmas miracle, Speaker.

When the Premier announced back in June the roles of agents general, he said that those patronage deployments were experts. And for the expertise of his former party president, a 26-year-old lacrosse player and Dean French’s niece, he offered to pay upwards of $165,000 a year, plus expenses. He also said that the agents general appointees would be “accountable to real metrics, including deals closed and businesses helped.”

So to the Premier, a very simple question: Will he table, today, that accountability document that he has clearly had prepared that shows what the two remaining agents general appointees have accomplished?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Our government is taking a thoughtful and thorough approach to filling these positions because we understand their importance in attracting trade and investment opportunities. We’re taking our time in ensuring the candidates selected for our offices in New York and London are both credible and competent in their ability to serve the province and work on behalf of the people of Ontario in these key international markets.

But you asked for some metrics. Let me tell you: In fiscal 2018-19, Ontario’s trade and investment offices generated $394.5 million in investment attractions, leading to the creation of 1,640 new jobs and facilitated market access for 640 Ontario companies that have reported close to $70 million in sales.

Speaker, we need good, qualified people who can continue to help sell Ontario to the world. We look forward to providing an update when we have more to share in the future.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Alas, Speaker, I guess it is a lump of coal for me this Christmas, and of course for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, because the Premier, who once promised to respect the taxpayer, is now asking the people of Ontario to pay six-figure salaries to his friends, to his relatives and to insiders, and he can’t even tell us what they do.

It’s not just these jobs. From the high-priced Washington job he gave his campaign tour director to his request for an off-the-books personal pleasure wagon, the Premier has become the conductor of the gravy train he used to rail against.

Speaker, why does he think the hard-working people of Ontario should foot the bill for his personal patronage appointments?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, Ontario operates this international network of trade and investment offices. You asked again for results; I can give you the results. In our international trade office in South Korea, we can tell you that the Dayli company is investing $20 million here in Ontario in a brand new investment fund.

In India, VVDN Technologies announced the hiring of 200 engineers—we’re talking about master’s- and PhD-level engineers—here in Kitchener-Waterloo. Those are the kinds of successes—we worked for months on that one, Speaker.

I can tell you that our agents general for Dallas and Chicago have been working through the long, mandatory and thorough security processes because both offices are co-located in the federal consul general offices. They’re both hard at work, both in market and in Ontario, as they work through those processes. They will bring the same successes as all of the other successes we’ve shown—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Government’s record

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. But first, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for the great party last night and to thank everybody here for the service they’ve given to the province of Ontario and to the people in their ridings.

Premier, our government had a monumental year, achieving many great successes in serving the people of this province, whether it has been our historic return of jobs and employment, the prioritization and planning of crucial infrastructure projects or helping to end hallway health care by investing in vital front-line services. What is clear is that our plan in this province is working and the people are finally receiving the support they have needed for some time.

Premier, can you elaborate on key milestones and initiatives that this government has achieved and brought forward and what our priorities will be for next year?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to first of all start by thanking our great MPP from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. He’s doing an incredible job.

Our MPPs have seen it first-hand in the prosperity and growth that we’ve shown this province, with over 271,000 more families that are out there working, that can put food on their tables. As a matter of fact, for example, in the Stratford-Bruce Peninsula area, the unemployment rate dropped in November—are you ready for this one? This is a record throughout the country—by 2.4%, the lowest level in 19 years.

We have more people working, more people off the government payroll, and they’re actually contributing. They’re contributing back into society by paying more taxes. More money is coming up to Queen’s Park, to a tune of $1.6 billion. That’s what happens when you make sure you that you have an environment where the economy can thrive, and employ more—

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Again, back to the Premier: Premier, this has been incredible news and one of the many great examples of the leadership and culture change that our government has brought back to Queen’s Park.

I know that in my riding the support that our government is providing thanks to the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act and the Plan to Build Ontario Together Act will be making a major impact. Whether it’s removing unnecessary and burdensome red tape on our local job creators, ensuring immediate financial relief to families through tax cuts or providing a five-year freeze on WSIB premiums for our not-for-profit organizations, our government is taking action for the people.

Premier, can you speak more to the actions our government has taken over the past year and our plans for the year to come?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, I want to thank our MPP. Mr. Speaker, one of the historic actions our government has undertaken is to support the commitment to get our province moving again. After 15 years of scandal, mismanagement and all the backroom deals, those days are done. Prosperity is here in Ontario. We’ve never seen so many jobs created over numerous decades.

No matter where I go, no matter if it’s in the United States, or our great Minister of Economic Development travelling the world, spreading the word that Ontario is open for business, open for jobs, we’re going to continue making sure that we give incentives to the people out there by putting more money in their pocket, giving incentives to small businesses as we reduce their tax rate by 8.75%, again, until these small businesses can grow into larger businesses, buy more equipment—and, by the way, we expedite capital expenses of $3.8 billion, a total of $5 billion—

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

Automotive industry

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

After 100 years of General Motors in Oshawa, this week most of GM’s Oshawa assembly line workers will work their last shift, with the final vehicle expected to roll off the line next week. The end of GM production in Oshawa will leave thousands of proud auto workers in my community without a job, and it will have devastating ripple effects across the local economy and the auto parts supply chain.

This is a tough time for Oshawa. We deserved to have a Premier stand up for us and stand alongside us, but instead we got a Premier whose roll-over instinct was to say, “The ship has already left the dock. They’re gone. They’re done.” Those were his words then. Are they still his words now to the workers and families?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to reinforce that we have the best auto workers in the world and we will always fight for them. We know that now; we learned that when Toyota won the platinum award, announcing them as the best auto plant in the world. So we know we have the capacity.

We were very happy when we learned that Unifor and GM reached their agreement some time ago to keep 300 of those jobs in Oshawa. It was very good news for the city of Oshawa and all of Durham. We know that this historic site will continue to be a hub for vehicle parts manufacturing, technological innovation and regional economic growth.

Speaker, that’s why we continue to invest in our auto strategy, driving prosperity. We continue to invest in all of the automotive parts, the mould makers and the automakers.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Back to the Premier: It was brutal that the Premier of Ontario didn’t fight for Oshawa and the future of auto manufacturing in this province. He threw in the towel before even getting into the ring.

Speaker, since the Premier decided not to show up, let me update him on what has been happening at the GM plants in the US that were also slated for closure.

Last week, it was announced that the GM plant in Lordstown, Ohio, will now be making electric batteries, creating over 1,000 jobs. And just the other day, General Motors announced that they are prepared to produce electric trucks at their plant in Detroit. They were also told it was the end of the line, but their leadership didn’t just decide to take it.

So I wonder what could have happened, what might have been different, if this Premier had had the nerve to fight back.

He accused us of false hope. Well, do you know what? The folks in Lordstown and Detroit also had some of that, and now they have manufacturing in their future.

Does this Premier think that there still was nothing that he could have done for Oshawa? Or is he just getting the GM commemorative T-shirt?

Interjections.

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

The question has been referred to the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Once again, I want to assure the people of Ontario that we have the best auto workers in the world and our government continues to stand up for them.

We’ve always made sure that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs, and that means protecting and creating jobs.

We’re so pleased—I toured the General Motors facility in Markham just the other day, where they have 700 employees.

The neat thing about Ontario is that we have all five of the world’s largest automakers in Ontario. We’re the number two automaker in North America, just a bit behind Michigan. We’re also the number two IT sector in North America, just a bit behind Silicon Valley. We talk about that because the future of automotive is going to need both manufacturing and technology, and Ontario is the only centre in the world that has both of these.

We have a great future ahead of us in the automotive sector because Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

Women’s issues

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues. I know the minister has been very busy since she’s been sworn into her new role in June, and I want to thank the minister for all her hard work. She has spoken in this House about child welfare reform, violence against women, women’s shelters, hosting anti-human-trafficking round tables and increasing women’s economic opportunities. Thank you, Minister.

Recently, the minister was in Victoria to speak with her status-of-women counterparts from all across this country. Can the minister please tell this House what was discussed at the conference and how it will impact Ontarians?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her great question and all her hard work on this topic as well.

I was thrilled to be in Victoria last week to speak with fellow ministers of women’s issues from many provinces and territories, as well as the federal Minister for Gender Equality.

Speaker, we all know that women’s issues cross all government departments. Whether it’s economic empowerment, justice issues or representation in appointments and boards, policies made by governments impact all genders.

One area of particular importance is combating gender-based violence. This includes shelter and safety systems, cyber violence prevention and sexual violence supports. I want to thank my colleagues from across the country for their insights into such an important topic.

I am also honoured to be the co-lead of the human trafficking task team in Canada. I’m looking forward to working further with my federal, provincial and territorial partners to explore opportunities to host a national conference, summit or expert panel to address the pressing issue of human trafficking across Ontario and Canada.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the minister for that answer, and for representing our great province with such grace on the national stage.

Speaker, as the minister mentioned, gender-based violence and human trafficking are serious issues that impact the lives of many individuals in Ontario. It is an issue that crosses economic spectrums, genders and ages.

I had the honour of hosting a fundraising event for our local Women’s Habitat a few weeks ago to help decorate bedrooms for women in need, so they have a warm place to go when they are fleeing terrible situations.

Two weeks ago, our Premier named the minister, along with the Solicitor General, co-leads in our government’s anti-human-trafficking strategy. Our government also announced investments in supports for survivors and resources to combat such a horrible crime. Can the minister please explain further what those investments are meant for and how the strategy will be formed?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for your question and for being an advocate for the women in your riding and across Ontario.

We know that the crime of human trafficking impacts victims and families in multiple ways. That is why our government’s anti-human-trafficking strategy is being co-led. The Solicitor General and I have already been hard at work.

We are also working across ministries with our colleagues and across sectors to build a strategy that is truly impactful and that helps survivors, while holding offenders accountable.

As a first step, we have committed to $20 million a year in annualized funding for survivor supports and aid to help bring traffickers to justice. Speaker, this funding will go toward wraparound services such as transitional housing, trauma-informed counselling and mental health and addiction treatments.

We are also providing funding for Indigenous-led initiatives that support culturally appropriate care, that are designed by, and led by, Indigenous people.

Religious freedom

Mr. Gurratan Singh: It’s 2019, and in Canada, no one should be prohibited from working because of their faith. But currently in Ontario, Sikh paramedics are being told that they have to choose between their faith and their profession.

A change in specifications to helmets worn by paramedics is threatening to make it impossible for Sikhs in Ontario to serve in that role. Despite repeated requests to the ministry to provide an exemption or a waiver that would respect the human rights of Sikhs, the ministry has taken no action.

My question is to the Premier. Will he act now to end this discrimination and ensure that Sikh paramedics can continue to serve in the valuable role that they were trained to do?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Steve Clark: We value our municipal partners. We very much respect the information that the honourable member opposite has placed on the table.

I again want to say to the honourable member that I appreciate your bringing this matter before us. I would be more than happy to sit down with you after question period. But, again, our government has pledged that we are going to continue to work with our municipal partners. We want to sit down and, really, if there are issues that they need clarification on, there’s always the opportunity for us to have those meetings.

I want to thank the honourable member for placing that forward.

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

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Back to the Premier: This situation was highlighted in a recent arbitration between the city of Hamilton paramedic services and OPSEU. In her decision the arbitrator says, “To exclude capable and valuable paramedics ... is an intolerable result. Can it really be that a Sikh cannot be a paramedic in this province if he observes his religion by having ... Kesh?” However, this is what she felt she had to do based on the Conservative government’s regulations.

The ministry said last August that they would consider changing the regulation. With just a few days left to live up to this commitment, will the Premier end this discrimination now?

Hon. Steve Clark: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much for the question. Our government believes in building inclusive workplaces in Ontario. We are certainly aware of the recent arbitration and are reviewing the decision. We are working with our partners in the Ministry of Labour and the paramedic service that was involved in this case. We are working to ensure that reasonable accommodations are available to health care professionals. We respect the work that they do very much.

We will have more to say on this issue shortly. Thank you very much for the question.

Nuclear energy

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Ontario’s investment in refurbishing its nuclear fleet has enabled the nuclear industry to develop and advance its skills and capabilities. Our mature industry of operators, suppliers and highly skilled trades are exactly what’s needed to support the development of small modular reactors. Mr. Speaker, this positions Ontario as one of the best places in the world to develop new nuclear technologies.

Will the Associate Minister of Energy tell the House how signing an MOU with New Brunswick and Saskatchewan will create even more highly skilled jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Bill Walker: I thank the honourable member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for an excellent question and for all the work he does on behalf of his constituents.

We’ve already invested $26 billion to refurbish the province’s nuclear reactors to support reliable, emissions-free energy and highly skilled jobs, making us a leader in the world in this sector. The nuclear industry supports over 60,000 jobs across the province, many of them in my great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. And, Mr. Speaker, even more jobs will be created as a result of further investment in nuclear technology right here in Ontario.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that 6,000 highly skilled jobs will be created per year from 2030 to 2040 if we invest in small modular reactor—SMR—technology accordingly. In addition to creating jobs, SMRs will have significant investment and export potential for Ontario.

The Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines will outline this incredible potential in the supplementary answer.

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

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: It’s apparent that investing in SMRs will support thousands of jobs while producing non-emitting power and substantial export potential. Would the Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines tell the House about the future market potential of developing SMRs here in Ontario?

Hon. Bill Walker: Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for the work that he does and for his question. I want to wish all my colleagues in this place a merry Christmas and safe travels back to your ridings.

Last night, we spoke at a reception with the Ontario Nuclear Advantage and the Canadian Nuclear Association. It wasn’t as big as your reception, but we were loud and proud, Mr. Speaker: a full room of people who see the economic opportunity that’s attached to developing small modular reactors.

In terms of on-grid potential, we could replace fossil fuel plants in our system, with an economic value of $108 billion; off-grid, more than $35 billion in remote communities, forestry and mining operations; and of course, the export—if we get this right, and we will, by 2030, we’ll see an economic potential of more than $150 billion.

The Premier’s leadership in signing the MOU with our partners in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick has already attracted other provinces and jurisdictions who want to get in on the action and make sure that SMRs are part of the energy solution for the future of Ontario, Canada and the rest of the world.

Consumer protection

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I want to wish all my colleagues Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Hon. Todd Smith: Merry Christmas, Tom.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Thank you.

My question is to the Premier. The recent Auditor General’s report confirmed what new home buyers have been saying for years: that Tarion protects bad builders and not consumers. The previous Liberal government ignored the problems at Tarion for 15 long years as Ontario families struggled with cracked foundations, leaky windows, mould and other serious deficiencies in their newly built homes. But the current government is making these families wait even longer for help. The status quo will continue for at least another year.

Tarion won’t slowly fix itself. Why won’t the Premier appoint an administrator to take over Tarion and start fixing the problems for families who are struggling right now?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: One thing the member opposite and I absolutely agree on is that for the last 15 years, the new home warranty program in Ontario absolutely crumbled under the Liberal government’s watch. It was absolutely appalling, what they allowed to happen.

The fact of the matter is, we have been very decisive and we’ve been taking action based on what we’ve heard from consumers. Our reform has focused on overhauling the warranty program, enhancing claims and dispute resolution processes, introducing measures to ensure better built homes, and increasing transparency at Tarion. We’ve been listening and we’ve been acting, and we’re bringing confidence back into new home ownership in Ontario.

I have to share with you that we need to be measured in how we go forward. We have acted on 27 out of 32 recommendations from the Auditor General.

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

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: The government is tinkering around the edges at Tarion, with changes that don’t go far enough and won’t happen for at least another year. That’s not good for families in Cardinal Creek Village, who need help right now.

This morning, I provided the Premier, the Minister of GCS and other government MPPs several letters from these families, who are dealing with serious deficiencies in their new homes and can’t get help from Tarion because Tarion would rather protect the developer instead of these families.

Later today, I will table a bill that would help these families right now. Why does the Premier think the families in Cardinal Creek should wait a second longer for help?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I really appreciate the question. We have been very decisive and acted very quickly, quite frankly, as soon as the Auditor General report was tabled, because we care about families across Ontario who have not been properly treated and respected when it comes to the new home warranty.

The reality is, we are moving quickly and we’re going to be absolutely overhauling the board at Tarion. We’re going to make sure that the consumer’s voice is heard. In doing so, we’re reducing the size of the board from 16 to 12. Home builders and vendors will not be allowed to have more than one third representation. Another third will be made up by appointments, with the remaining third being experts and consumers, who deserve to have their voices heard when it comes to what matters when building the biggest investment that they may be making in their lifetime.

I am so proud of the work that our team has done in a short amount of time. I can tell you with certainty that people will have confidence in the new home warranty program that we’ll be bringing forward.

I thank you very much for this question. I look forward to working with you—

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

Police services

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the Solicitor General announced that our government is providing police services in Ontario with a $195-million investment so that they have the needed resources to keep their communities and citizens safe and to combat crime.

In my riding of Markham–Thornhill and across York region, we have a strong partnership with the York Regional Police service. I want to thank them for their dedicated service to our community.

The individual needs of police services across Ontario are as diverse as the communities themselves. That’s why I’m grateful that the Solicitor General’s new Community Safety and Policing Grant program allows local police services to receive funding to tackle the local needs of community safety.

Can the Solicitor General tell us how the YRP is being supported through the Community Safety and Policing Grant program?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I appreciate the question from the member from Markham–Thornhill. I know that he understands how important it is that we keep our communities safe and provide the resources our police need to do the important work they do.

As you mentioned, I was pleased to announce the recipients of the $195-million Community Safety and Policing Grant yesterday. In particular, because you are from York region, I would like to highlight what York region is receiving. The York Regional Police services will be receiving $16 million through the Community Safety and Policing Grant. They have rightfully highlighted a number of key initiatives that are going to make an important difference to the people of York region.

They are supporting an integrated and multi-sectoral partnership that aims to address the issues of gun violence, sexual violence and harassment, and human trafficking. It’s important for people to understand that human trafficking in particular is a funding pathway that gangs are using in the province of Ontario to fund their illegal activities. The investment that we’re making in York region and across Ontario is going to chop that funding opportunity off so that gangs are not using our young people as fundraising revenue to assist their illegal activities across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I hate to say this, but that concludes question period for 2019.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the pages to now assemble. Is everybody here?

It is now time to say a word of thanks to our legislative pages. Our pages are smart, trustworthy and hard-working. They are indispensable to the effective functioning of the chamber. They cheerfully and efficiently deliver notes, run errands, transport important documents throughout the precinct, and make sure our water glasses are always full. We are indeed fortunate to have them here.

Our pages depart having made new friends, with a greater understanding of parliamentary democracy and with memories that will last a lifetime. Each of them will go home and carry on, continue their studies and no doubt continue to contribute to their communities, their province and their country in important ways. We expect great things from all of you. Maybe some of you someday will take your seats in this House as members or work here as staff. We wish you all well.

Please join me in showing our appreciation to our legislative pages.

Applause.

Season’s greetings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I recess the House, I hope the House will grant me the indulgence of making a few concluding remarks. We’ve had a very interesting and busy fall sitting of the Legislature, and I think we’ve raised the bar in terms of decorum. I want to thank all of the members for their assistance in that objective.

We all share our responsibilities representing our constituents and working together to improve life in the province. You’ve worked very, very hard this fall and you deserve enormous credit for the work that you’ve done on behalf of the people of Ontario, so thank you for that.

I want to wish you and your families, your staff, and all the staff who help us in the chamber all the very best for the holidays, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and all the best in 2020. Thank you very much.

This House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I would like to introduce a wonderful constituent from my riding of Markham–Thornhill, Sharavati Bhide. She’s here in the gallery to watch her daughter Leela Bhide, who is serving as the page captain today.

Thank you for being here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Radu Cucui. He’s the proud father of page Alexandra Cucui from my riding of Mississauga–Streetsville. Welcome to the Legislature.

Members’ Statements

Affordable housing

Mr. Joel Harden: I rise on some sombre news today. Unfortunately, we have an intractable problem in Ottawa which I know is shared across the province and across the country, and that is an affordable housing crisis and a homelessness crisis.

I want to salute my colleague Catherine McKenney, who’s the councillor in Ottawa for Somerset ward, who is moving a motion later this month for a housing emergency. At this point right now in our city, 12,000 households are waiting for community housing; 600 people are living in cramped hotels rooms, which have been rented by the city because our shelters are overflowing; 19,000 households in our city spend over 50% of their income on shelter, leaving them impoverished; and last night, according to public health reports, 92 people slept outside in the cold Ottawa winter.

I think that should be sobering for all of us thinking about generosity in the holiday season, that so many of our neighbours in Ottawa and around the province are living without affordable housing.

I want to salute Councillor McKenney’s call. I also want to make note of the fact that inasmuch as we debate how much money we have for housing, another announcement crossed my wires today, and that is that Canada’s banks have recently disclosed that they will be paying out bonuses in excess of $15 billion to executives in the banking industry. I want to ask us, at Christmastime, what kind of a province we’re living in when billions are flowing to banking executives and people don’t have a safe place to live? We need better priorities.

Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: From a young age, I was incredibly fortunate to be able to rely on the world-class care provided at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, CHEO. I was born with a cleft palate that could very well have left me with difficulty speaking, were it not for the incredible doctors at CHEO. They have since provided top-notch care to both my brother and I as we were growing up dealing with various health chal