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

October 17, 2018

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2018-Oct-17 (PDF)

L036 - Wed 17 Oct 2018 / Mer 17 oct 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 October 2018 Mercredi 17 octobre 2018

Orders of the Day

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

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Cannabis regulation

Cannabis regulation

Cannabis regulation

Cannabis regulation

Government fiscal policies

Automobile insurance

Automobile insurance

Education

Cannabis regulation

Education funding

Taxation

Home care

Government services

Energy policies

Municipal government

Public transit

Government’s record

Member’s privileges

Visitors

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Energy policies

Canadian Regional Parliamentary Seminar

Climate change

Toronto Raptors

Gasoline prices

Theatre Scarborough

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day

Riding of London West

Seniors events in Simcoe North

Eva’s Satellite

Introduction of Bills

Child Care and Early Years Amendment Act (Not-for-Profit Corporations), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance (organisations sans but lucratif)

Petitions

Sport martial arts

Animal protection

Injured workers

Mental health and addiction services

Employment standards

Indigenous affairs

Northern health services

School boards

Employment standards

Gasoline prices

Indigenous affairs

Orders of the Day

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

Committee sittings

Standing orders

Visitor

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Smith, Bay of Quinte, on behalf of Ms. Mulroney, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

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

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

Hon. Todd Smith: It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill this morning here at Queen’s Park. It’s a beautiful Wednesday morning out there.

Interjection: Fragrant.

Hon. Todd Smith: Fragrant. Good word.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to third reading of Bill 36, the Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018. It’s

an act that will ensure strict controls on the purchase and usage of recreationable—recreational cannabis here in Ontario.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Finance, Minister Fedeli, who will be speaking later today on this important piece of legislation.

I want to start by thanking everyone who was involved in the preparation of Bill 36. It’s a long list and it was a lot of work by a lot of people. First and foremost, I think it’s very important that we thank the Attorney General, Caroline Mulroney, for all the work that she has done on this bill.

I also want to thank the team at the Legalization of Cannabis Secretariat at the Ministry of the Attorney General that has been working around the clock to help make sure Ontario is ready for today’s legalization of cannabis, led by Renu Kulendran—I hope I said that right—and all of the members of her great team, including Ryan Freeston and Jesse Todres. I know they’ve been working closely with officials from many ministries, including finance, municipal affairs, health and so many others. Thanks to the work of so many members of our dedicated professional public service as well, to ensure that Ontario is ready.

I also want to thank the parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General, the MPP for Durham, Lindsey Park; and the members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, including its Chair, the member for Mississauga–Streetsville, Nina Tangri, for their work in reviewing and debating this bill as it’s moved through the legislative process here in the House.

Finally, I want to thank each of the interested stakeholders who took time to make submissions as part of our consultation process before introducing this bill, and to the standing committee for their role in shaping this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, good morning. As you know, the federal government has proceeded with its decision to legalize cannabis. That wasn’t a decision that was made here. If passed, Bill 36 would provide added certainty around the work that we’re doing in Ontario to keep cannabis out of the hands of children and youth, while keeping our communities and roads safe and combating the illegal, illicit market.

Nous continuons à travailler pour éviter que le cannabis tombe entre les mains des enfants et des jeunes, tout en assurant la sécurité publique et routière et en combattant le marché illégal.

The federal government’s legalization of cannabis is one of the most significant changes in terms of controlled substances in Canada since the repeal of Prohibition. So, Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to take this time today to address members of this House and, indeed, all Ontarians, on our work to ensure a safe, reliable system in Ontario.

One of the significant changes contained in Bill 36 is the introduction of a private retail system for recreationable—recreational cannabis; I’ll get this right before we’re done today. And, no, it’s not what you’re thinking. I can read your mind over there.

After examining the previous government’s model, we concluded that a system of government-run stores was incapable of seriously competing with the illegal market and, in turn, would leave our communities more vulnerable and susceptible to the underground market.

Après avoir examiné le modèle conçu par le gouvernement précédent, nous avons conclu qu’un système de magasins exploités par le gouvernement serait incapable de soutenir la concurrence du marché illégal et laisserait nos collectivités plus vulnérables face au marché noir.

A private retail store model would allow Ontario businesses to participate in the retail system. Increased competition would offer consumers more access and better combat the illegal market, while keeping gangs and criminals out of the marketplace. To help design the private retail model proposed in the bill, our government conducted consultations with key stakeholders, including municipalities and ministers’ round tables with key public safety, industry, health and consumer groups.

Pour concevoir le modèle de vente au détail privée que propose le projet de loi, notre gouvernement a consulté des intervenants clés, dont les municipalités, et a tenu des tables rondes de ministres avec des représentants des secteurs de la sécurité publique, de l’industrie et de la santé ainsi que des groupes de consommateurs.

Several ministers and MPPs also led their own parallel engagements on the retail model, Speaker. The input we received was invaluable in the creation of this bill. Municipalities, police and health stakeholders strongly advocated for the creation of a tightly regulated cannabis retail regime with broad provincial control and oversight. So that’s what this bill proposes. If passed, the Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018, would establish the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, or AGCO, as the provincial regulator for private cannabis retail sales in Ontario. In this new role, the AGCO would issue licences to eligible retailers across the province and enforce operator compliance.

The AGCO would leverage its existing experience, expertise and infrastructure in regulating alcohol and gaming in Ontario to regulate cannabis retail stores, building on its mandate to regulate in the public interest.

La CAJO utiliserait son expérience, son expertise et son infrastructure en matière de règlementation des alcools et des jeux en Ontario pour réglementer les magasins de vente de cannabis, se fondant sur son mandat de règlementation dans l’intérêt public.

AGCO staff and their embedded OPP unit possess a deep understanding of compliance and enforcement in sectors that share similar risks as what we expect from the cannabis market. Turning to the AGCO, already an existing regulator, also eliminated the need to expand the size of government by creating a new regulatory oversight body.

Mr. Speaker, we heard through consultations that there’s strong support for the AGCO being established as the provincial regulator for private cannabis retail sales in Ontario, especially by municipalities and police stakeholders. While some new resources would be needed to help get the AGCO up and running in the short term, ultimately we expect the licensing regime would run on a sustainable cost-recovery basis.

Establishing the AGCO as a province-wide regulator also would benefit smaller municipalities who could not implement their own municipal licensing regime due to their lack of administrative infrastructure. This approach also means that the AGCO can provide communities and operators more certainty through a one-stop licensing approach rather than allowing a patchwork of municipal licensing regimes to spread across Ontario.

In order to best compete with the illegal market, our government made the decision that the number of licences for cannabis retail stores would not be capped but, instead, would be issued based on market demand.

Afin de pouvoir lutter contre le marché illégal, notre gouvernement a pris la décision de ne pas limiter le nombre de licences délivrées à des magasins de vente de cannabis, mais d’en délivrer suivant la demande du marché.

Under our proposed plan, once an applicant has applied for a retail licence, the AGCO would conduct an in-depth assessment through criminal, financial integrity and background checks to ensure the business would be carried out in accordance with the law, honesty, integrity, good character, and in the public interest.

The OPP would be instrumental in the AGCO’s due diligence and eligibility assessment of retail applicants. Their work in the AGCO provides significant assurance that individuals, notably those who may be aligned with organized crime, do not gain a foothold or are otherwise involved in any sector regulated by the AGCO.

If, and only if, the applicant meets the due diligence requirements, the business would be eligible to receive a retail operator licence. A retail operator would then need to get an authorization for each specific store location; once again, through replying to the AGCO.

Once the AGCO receives an application for a retail store authorization from a licensed retail operator, a public notice would be posted on the AGCO website and a placard displayed at the proposed retail store location to indicate that a licensee has applied for an authorization at that location. Local residents and municipalities would be provided with 15 days to provide written submissions to the AGCO with respect to the application. Further checks involving criminal and financial records, training verification and personal disclosures would also be necessary, as well as an inspection of the physical store itself.

Licensing would be enforced by the AGCO through regulatory measures, including licence suspensions and revocations and monetary penalties.

La délivrance des licences sera surveillée par la CAJO, qui appliquera des mesures de réglementation, dont la suspension et la révocation de licences et des pénalités pécuniaires.

The legislative framework would also establish general offences under the licensing scheme, including prohibitions against hindering inspectors or investigators.

The AGCO would also undertake additional compliance activities, including:

—physical store inspection prior to opening, to ensure licence conditions and regulatory requirements are met;

—ad hoc, on-site store inspections, including mystery shopping, to test age and ID requirements; and

—investigating and replying to public complaints, referring to municipal police and bylaw enforcement as necessary.

It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 36 would provide municipalities with the opportunity to decide whether there will be any stores in their communities at all. Each municipal council will have the right to opt out of having bricks and mortar cannabis retail stores in their communities by January 22, 2019.

Rappelons aussi, monsieur le Président, que le projet de loi 36 accorde aux municipalités la possibilité de décider si elles acceptent ou non que des magasins soient ouverts sur leur territoire. Chaque conseil municipal aura le droit de refuser que des magasins de vente au détail de cannabis soient ouverts sur son territoire d’ici le 22 janvier 2019.

That gives each council three months from the municipal election date to make this decision, and the decision date is five months after we announced our intention to move to a private retail model.

Speaker, it seems that, in my experience, people run for office precisely because they want to help shape important decisions in their communities, and every municipal candidate has known for months that they’ll have a very big, very important decision in front of them should they be elected next Monday, October 22. My guess is that the vast majority of municipal candidates have already formed an opinion on this issue one way or the other. I therefore have every confidence that after five months of debate, local councils will have no difficulty making the best decisions to meet the needs of the communities that they serve in.

Nevertheless, municipalities that feel they need more time to consider their community’s specific circumstances would have the option of opting in to the private retail framework when the time is right for their community. For municipalities that do have stores, municipalities will have a say into where those stores go. This will be accomplished without resorting to duplicative licensing or a patchwork of zoning bylaws.

Should a municipality choose to opt out, they would send a copy of their resolution to the AGCO. Municipalities that opt out could later opt in; but if a municipality does not opt out by January 22, 2019, it cannot opt out at a later date. So if they’re in, they’re in.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion about the fate of the illegal cannabis stores that have been operating in the province. Let me be crystal clear on this matter: If you’re operating an unlicensed store today, you will not be eligible for a legal licence. If these operators have an interest in legitimizing their business, they must close their doors or face penalties. The Cannabis Act, 2017, and Bill 36 will, if passed, prohibit any person from selling or distributing recreational cannabis in Ontario other than the Ontario Cannabis Store or a licensed retail store. And to further enforce these laws, Mr.

Speaker, the act also prohibits landlords from knowingly permitting such activities on their premises, and allows for the immediate closure of storefronts being used for the illegal sale or distribution of cannabis.

Individuals and corporations convicted of these offences will be subject to high maximum fines upon first conviction, with additional fines for each day on which the offence occurs or continues on subsequent convictions. Individuals may also face a potential jail sentence, proof positive that combating the illegal cannabis market has been and remains one of the central tenets of the plan for the legalization of cannabis in Ontario.

Preuve flagrante que la lutte contre le marché illégal de cannabis a été et demeure l’un des axes du plan de légalisation du cannabis.

One of the additional subjects of great discussion regarding the legalization of cannabis has been where cannabis should be permitted to be consumed. Opinion has varied widely from community to community. For instance, I heard from Smiths Falls, a town looking to develop a cannabis tourism industry, that they wanted people to be able to smoke cannabis on the golf course. Other communities wanted stricter consumption rules.

The prior government had an unrealistic and unenforceable one-size-fits-all, province-wide model that meant that residents, particularly in large urban centres, would be highly limited in the places where they could legally consume cannabis once it was legal.

To remedy this issue, we took the advice of experts, including the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and largely aligned the rules for cannabis consumption with the tobacco restrictions under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. This approach prohibits smoking and vaping of cannabis in areas where the smoking of tobacco is also prohibited, such as playgrounds, child cares, schools and hospitals. Our approach also allows local municipalities to enact bylaws that further restrict smoking cannabis beyond the provincial minimum standards in places like parks.

Notre approche autorise aussi les municipalités locales à adopter des règlements municipaux limitant le droit de fumer du cannabis au-delà des normes minimales provinciales, notamment dans des endroits comme des parcs.

Once again, these proposed amendments have been crafted after consultations across the province and are designed to allow each of Ontario’s 444 municipalities to shape consumption rules that work for them.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a bit of time today to outline to the House about the government’s education campaign on the government’s awareness campaign on the upcoming changes to the law regarding cannabis, because, as my colleague from Hastings–Lennox and Addington said last week, we can’t just legislate; we need to educate. It’s the same message we heard consistently in our consultations with health care professionals, educators and police. So, Mr. Speaker, we’re launching an awareness campaign to educate and communicate with people regarding applicable rules, regulations and health and safety measures.

Donc, monsieur le Président, nous lançons une campagne de sensibilisation pour faire connaître à la population les règles, règlements et mesures de santé et sécurité applicables.

While Ontarians will be seeing some of our advertising on the airwaves, we are placing particular focus on engaging people, and particularly younger people, on the digital and social channels, where they’re spending an increasing amount of their time. It should go without saying that these ads do not promote cannabis use or the cannabis market, but instead focus on social responsibility, including the serious health and addiction risks of short- and long-term cannabis use.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have a diverse province with many nationalities represented and languages spoken. To ensure we reach Ontarians in their communities, television and online video ads will also feature voice-overs in more than 10 languages.

The deterring effects of our zero-tolerance policies will be amplified through these ads, which will work to educate people about the dangers of driving impaired and the stiff penalties associated with that.

Many people will be looking for as much information as possible. Because of this, all ads, including search-optimized ads, will direct viewers to the government’s Ontario.ca/cannabis homepage for more detailed information and resources. Again, that’s Ontario.ca/cannabis.

No matter where or how you hear about your government’s plans, our commitment to protecting youth, road and community safety and fighting the illegal market will be paramount.

Et quel que soit l’endroit où vous entendez parler des plans de notre gouvernement—ou comment—notre engagement à protéger les jeunes, à assurer la sécurité routière et à lutter contre le marché illégal sera primordial.

I have said it before but can’t say it often enough: We and the AGCO will have zero tolerance for anyone who provides recreationable—I’m going to get that right before I’m done, Mr. Speaker—recreational cannabis to kids and youth.

We are confident that when taken together, the licensing model proposed in Bill 36, to be overseen by the AGCO, with flexibility and certainty provided to local communities and our public awareness campaign, are the best way forward to achieve our objectives: protecting our children, keeping our communities and roads safe, and combating the illegal market. These are the most important things associated with Bill 36.

Again, I’d like to thank the Attorney General, Ms. Mulroney, for the work that she has done on this very important and historic piece of legislation; our parliamentary assistant, Ms. Park, sitting right behind me; and all of the members of the public service who have worked so hard to bring this bill to reality on this very historic day, not just in Ontario but in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time this morning.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Good morning. What a historic day. I am so proud to actually rise here today to be able to speak to Bill 36 as we usher in legalization across Canada and here in our province.

I just want to start us off on a high note: Today is actually David Nesta “Ziggy” Marley’s birthday, so it is Bob Marley’s son’s birthday. I think it is fitting that we acknowledge that today. In addition to being a musician, Bob Marley and many of his family members are actually social justice warriors and use their music as a way to engage the community in taking action and getting involved civically. I think it’s really great that we’re ushering in this legislation on a very historic day.

I appreciate the comments made by our government House leader today. I understand that today is the result of federal legislation, but that doesn’t mean that as a province we don’t have a responsibility to ensure we do our jobs in a timely, fair manner and with due process to ensure that any legislation we put forward takes into consideration the voices and the concerns of people from across this province. Frankly, this legislation doesn’t adequately do that.

I’ll just start by making a few comments about the process. I think there were many voices that were excluded, but this bill was introduced in a rushed manner and then promptly time-allocated. Time allocation, as we all know, is meant to truncate the debate and committee hearings for the sake of expediency. This meant that committee hearings were swift and, unfortunately, individuals, stakeholders and communities were offered very little time to prepare presentations. It should be noted that this tight timeline did not account for the resources or the means of many communities that would be directly affected by this monumental change in Ontario’s laws.

In a written submission from the chief of Whitefish River Anishinabe First Nation, the community expressed their concerns, saying, “I must strongly state at the outset that this letter and the process by which these submissions were invited is utterly contrary to the duty to consult which is owed to my Nation and to all First Nations in Ontario when it comes to matters impacting our rights and interests.”

We have all known that the cannabis legalization was coming on October 17, and for nearly four months this government did nothing. The Conservatives continue to point the finger at the federal government and hide behind what they deemed a tight deadline, but I’d like to remind this House that we sat here all summer—sat here overnight—and not once did a debate happen on this very—

Hon. Todd Smith: And you loved it.

Ms. Sara Singh: I would have loved to have a midnight debate on cannabis legislation. I think that would have been a worthwhile use of our time, not spending the time that we did debating the things that we did—

Mr. Roman Baber: We consulted stakeholders—

Ms. Sara Singh: Yes, and that’s why we rushed through the committee hearing process and we didn’t allow many stakeholders to actually present. I thank you for adding that, Mr. Baber—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Please use the member’s riding.

Ms. Sara Singh: I don’t know his riding.

Interjection: York Centre.

Ms. Sara Singh: Thank you, York Centre; I appreciate that.

The government had ample time to recognize cannabis legalization as an urgent priority, so I find it shocking that they chose not to. If the Conservatives wanted to get this right the first time, they absolutely could have and should have. In fact, I would have been happy to have been called to the people’s House for a midnight session if it meant getting cannabis legalization right.

The fact is that, one way or another, this was delayed, and the government is still using time pressure as an excuse for rushing through a piece of legislation that will change history. This was a time for careful debate, not a rushed job.

This is why municipalities are still up in smoke, trying to work through what they should be doing. While this government says they are ready, municipalities have clearly indicated they are not, and police services are indicating to us that they are not. What should have been one of the biggest priorities for this government are the needs of those Ontario municipalities. Cities across Ontario are going to feel the tangible effects of legalization, from retail locations opening up across the city, to the economic changes that they’ll encounter, to enforcing this bill as it becomes law on their streets.

But, unfortunately, again, this government has left them with little to prepare themselves and actually voted down some very critical amendments that would have offered municipalities more power. So you want to talk about the committee process? That’s what it was like.

Just this morning, it was confirmed that in Markham, city council voted unanimously 11 to 0 to restrict the consumption of cannabis to private residences only. This bylaw will essentially replace sections of Bill 36, with Mayor Frank Scarpitti saying, “It has been clear from our residents that they weren’t happy with the new rules so we passed this bylaw in response to that.”

We’ve heard also from Mayor John Tory, who is expressing concerns that the city of Toronto will be “unfairly burdened” by the “increased enforcement and social costs triggered by this significant change.” Bringing municipalities to the table as an equal partner would have allowed for their concerns to be addressed and integrated into this bill, rather than putting them in a precarious position, left to deal with the burden.

This is why we keep stressing the importance of public safety and also that this government find ways to work with communities to ensure that there is a balance: to destigmatize use or users and consumers, but ensure the public is kept safe. This bill didn’t do enough to do that. How will law enforcement training be updated? How will municipal police forces be given the tools and resources they need? Companies, employers: They’re all still waiting for answers from this government.

Furthermore, because of how little time we had, the topic of criminalization was not adequately explored through this bill nor through the committee hearing process. It came up very briefly through one presentation, and I’d like to take some time to explore that a little further.

Thousands of Ontarians have had their lives effectively derailed by a cannabis-related criminal charge. We are happy that the federal government has recognized this and will be moving to pardon these individuals, largely in part by the influence of our federal NDP counterparts, but we all know there is still so much more work to be done. These records created barriers to employment and obstacles for people in their everyday lives. Many people were denied opportunities because of these charges, unable to volunteer, let alone be considered for the career of their choice, and barred from participating in their children’s extracurricular activities or even accessing housing.

It is widely understood that there is a racial disparity when it comes to drug enforcement. Racialized individuals are more likely to be arrested for cannabis offences than non-racialized individuals, despite evidence showing that the consumption rates are very similar across all racial groups. Another concern for us is this ambiguity in the

section on licences and authorizations. Racialized Ontarians—in particular, Black Ontarians—were, are and will continue to be criminalized in the context of cannabis. Many are currently in prison due to this criminalization. Quite likely, many will not be able to benefit from the corporatization of cannabis that we’re about to see because of arbitrary factors left undefined in this bill, which could be used to deny an applicant’s eligibility to hold a retail operator licence. These are just a few of the questions—many, many questions—that this bill has left us with.

I want to assure this government and the people of Ontario that are watching at home that, as the opposition, we will continue to press this government and ask them for clarity every step along the way, because there is still so much more to be understood about this process, to be understood about the legislation. As we usher in this historic piece of legislation, I am very proud to stand here and work with this government, as we tried to in committee, to ensure that voices were heard and concerns were considered. Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t go far enough to ensure that those issues were dealt with accordingly.

We urge this government to continue to think of ways that it can engage communities, that it can ensure that public safety is paramount, and that we can continue to ensure that we don’t allow the illegal market to thrive here in our province.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Rather like my colleague from Brampton Centre just mentioned, it’s an honour to rise in the House today. This is a historic day for our country and for our province.

But I’m worried about several things with this legislation. My colleague from Brampton Centre brought up many of them. Here’s what I think the legislation should begin with—plain and simple language that most people in our province will understand very well. I think the legislation should begin with an apology. It should begin with an apology to all of those people, the thousands of people, who have been criminalized for possessing a substance that today is legal. That is something that this government could commit to rhetorically, at least, in the framing of the bill.

Instead, I find it curious that the government has been preoccupied, as my colleague said, with a great deal of rush, rather like an undergraduate writing an essay tight to deadline, Speaker.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please.

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s okay, Speaker. I understand the member’s sensibilities have been offended, but he’s going to have to listen to what the opposition has to say in the people’s House.

Here’s why I think the framing of this legislation should begin with an apology: As my colleague from Brampton Centre said very well, disproportionately, racialized and Indigenous peoples in this country have been criminalized by Canada’s war on drugs, particularly cannabis. There are 560,000 people right now, Speaker, with a criminal record due to cannabis possession. What does that do to people? It impacts their employment prospects. It impacts their travel prospects.

Today we are now on the cusp of an era of legalization. And what is our rush to get the consumption and distribution model ready? I’ll tell you what the rush appears to be about for me, Speaker. It appears to be about companies—large companies; highly valuated companies—that are poised to make, have already made, incredible profits. They are poised to make incredible amounts of money. That’s the rush to get to deadline today—rather like an undergraduate writing their paper through the night. That’s how this government has approached this legislation, and I think that’s deeply concerning.

Interjection.

Mr. Joel Harden: The House leader is offended. I want to ask the House leader, through you, Speaker, why was it that we had a midnight session in this place on interfering in the city of Toronto’s elections? Why was it that we spent weeks preoccupied with the grudge match that the government has with the city of Toronto? Why weren’t my colleague from Brampton Centre, our lead on this file, and I and our party allowed to engage in a fulsome debate? Why was the Association of Municipalities of Ontario not given the right to testify at the social policy committee? We asked for them to be prioritized.

They wanted a seat at the table. But they didn’t come. Why didn’t they come? Because we had 12 hours of hearings.

I’m detecting a theme with this government, Speaker. They feel passionate about something—and I respect passion. They want to move ahead quickly. But the problem is, you can only blame your invisible friend for so long. I’ve heard this government say every single day that I’ve been in this House, “The Liberals have set us up for failure.” Well, that rhetoric, your invisible friend that you like to bash—at a certain point, you’ve got to own your own decisions. And I’m going to make a prediction: In the next three years, this government is going to own this decision.

As I said earlier, they should have framed this legislation with an apology, because they’re aware of the research as well as we are. They should apologize to Jodie and Marc Emery, two people who operated an illegal dispensary in Toronto, in defiance of the law, because they knew the people they were helping had medicinal needs that they were helping to serve, and recreational needs. The stigma applied to cannabis and not applied to alcohol didn’t make any sense to them. They were fined $200,000 for operating a dispensary in the city of Toronto.

Today it’s legal and the market is ready for big producers like Aleafia, Aurora and Canopy Growth, whose market share I don’t question, just like I don’t question the fact that Budweiser has the ability to sell beer.

But the question I have is, for people who have been criminalized by our approach to drugs, why is this government mute on that question? Why is this government not necessarily prioritizing the needs of people who have taken enormous risks?

Speaker, I invite my friends in this House to research the history of compassion clubs in this country when it comes to cannabis. I invite members of this House to research veterans’ organizations, people who have struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder, who have used compassion clubs across this country to deal with the significant pain they’ve contracted in the line of duty of service for us, and how they have had to flout the law and utilize compassion clubs to access medicines they need to survive.

That’s the history of cannabis in this country. That’s what we’ve had to put people through. And yet this government is in a rush. Why are they in a rush? They’re in a rush because there’s a lot of money to be made.

I have to mention a few people, because I mentioned Jodie Emery and Marc Emery. I want to mention John Akpata.

Back home, in my approach to this job, when I don’t know the answer, when I don’t have fulsome background research on a public policy issue, I prefer to take my time. I prefer to host a town hall, to invite the community to tell me what I think I need to consider: What does your MPP need to consider on this subject?

We had a town hall last month on cannabis policy. John Akpata, in our city, has been somebody that the mayor of Ottawa has sought out for advice. John said to me, “Joel, this legislation, in its framing, should begin with an apology to all those who have been hurt by our approach to cannabis over the years. It should also make sure that the market that we’re about to create for this isn’t just about corporate cannabis and their shareholders and the dividends they get paid.”

I have a question for the government. Why is it that they have—and I respect the fact that this is their philosophy. They believe that on the retail side, cannabis delivery and retail should be privatized. I’ll acknowledge that they’ve even allowed people who previously have had criminal records to maintain the operation of a retail store. That’s a progressive step. That’s a good step, to try to include people in the retail market.

But on the supply side, we have what amounts to a monopoly. In principle, I don’t mind that, because what you can do in regulation is make sure that the monopoly that supplies the retail sector with cannabis produces safe cannabis. I get it.

But on the one side of the ledger, they like privatization, and on the other, they like a state-run monopoly, the revenues from which are scarce. The Premier in this House said clearly that this isn’t a revenue project for the government. Last night we stood in this place and debated whether Brampton should have another hospital. My colleagues from Brampton—well, my colleagues, at least, on this side of the House were here, making the case for a hospital in Brampton. We need revenue in this province.

This government is handing out a billion dollars in tax cuts to corporations—that’s something they committed to in the election—and we are starving our public services for revenue. Other jurisdictions, like Colorado, California and the state of Oregon, actually have revenue streams.

I know that for my friends, “tax” is a four-letter word, but “tax” is actually a three-letter word. It’s how we pay for stuff. The great Ed Broadbent, who lives in my riding, has impressed upon me that government is not just in the business of supervising expenditures. Government is in the business of making sure we procure appropriate revenues, particularly from the wealthiest among us, to pay for the services we need.

So Brampton needs a hospital. We’re sitting on the cusp of a market that is about to be massively influential. Revenue streams will flow. Why is this government not contemplating, through the Ontario Cannabis Store, an appropriate revenue stream to build hospitals, to build schools, to make sure that kids aren’t drinking water with lead in it, to make sure that people can get a skilled trade or a college or university education? That’s what other jurisdictions are doing.

Instead, the religious commitment, the religious fervour my colleagues have to the free market would seem, on the retail side, to allow for no revenue or very limited revenue coming back to the province, and on the supply side, absolutely nothing. Why is it that we’re poised, on this historic day, to offer no apology to people who have been hurt?

On the business side of this, this is simply about primping and getting ready an infrastructure where investors can make a lot of money. How much money? Well, this is interesting. The executives from Aurora were on television, on the Business News Network, the other night. Aurora, as a company, right now, is capitalized at $13 billion. That’s one of the biggest companies in the country. In the third quarter, that same company had a return of 211% from the previous third quarter.

I mean, Speaker, if you and I are saving for our retirement, we’d love a return of between 4% to 7%; 211% tells me that the investors are clamouring at the gate. So what are we getting the cannabis industry ready for? Whose interests will it serve?

Other things I heard when people came to the town hall we hosted in Ottawa Centre in September: I had folks from Indigenous nations—the Algonquin peoples, where I’m from—come to the town hall and say, “Joel, we risk getting the treaty relationships wrong again in this market.” There is a nation-to-nation responsibility that Ontario and Canada have when thinking about Indigenous interests in this particular sector. As my colleague from Brampton Centre mentioned, Indigenous communities are divided. Some don’t want to participate in this sector, and some do.

From what I read in a legal opinion yesterday and what I heard at home, they do not want to be understood in a subordinate relationship to the province of Ontario. That’s not the role of Ontario, to dictate to Indigenous nations how they should run their enterprises. There’s a fiduciary duty that those groups have to produce products which are safe for market, but we have to respect the decision-making structures that the treaty system in which we live has bestowed upon us. Bill 36 does not do that. It does not do that.

What I’m telling my friends is we can’t rise periodically when we open this place and at large ceremonies and acknowledge we’re on the un-surrendered and unceded territory of whatever nation is in question, and then on the other hand, in major commercial transactions, absolutely undermine that commitment. You can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth. Either we’re committing to a new era of reconciliation where we acknowledge that our Indigenous friends—places like Tyendinaga, that I know the House leader opposite is intimately familiar with, and where I’m from, the Algonquin nations, want to make sure that they can participate in this market in a fair way.

Here’s what I heard, also, at the town hall that we had in Ottawa Centre: I heard that in order to qualify as a licensed producer under the Health Canada regulations, you need between $5 million to $10 million to go through the elaborate set-up process. My question is, who will be able to navigate that federal bureaucracy? Who will be able to take advantage of this market? Well, I think I can answer my own question: the large organizations. If Indigenous organizations want to get in on this market, they’re going to have to partner with the Tilrays, the Canopys, the Auroras of the world.

As this hot mess moves forward in the next three years, we’re going to have to be asking ourselves what role will grassroots organizations play.

If the government is going to forbid them from entering the market because of the high entry opportunities, if organizations at a grassroots level, through the compassion club model—which has been common in our country for years—decide to do co-operative grow-ops, keeping in line with federal requirements, four plants per household; if they decide to move forward with cannabis distribution at a grassroots level in that way, and this government, through policing realms or criminal justice realms decides to intervene in that, watch out. That’s all I have to tell you.

One of my favourite moments in the election: When I was knocking on doors, I was down by the Legion on Metcalfe Street, if you know where that is, in Ottawa Centre. I walked in and I started talking to the Legionnaires, talking to the veterans. They pulled me aside and they said, “Joel, where are you at on cannabis? Where’s the NDP at on cannabis?” I had to confess. “You know, it’s not something that’s featured heavily in our platform, but tell me what you think we should know.”

They said, “Well, Joel, we were the group of veterans that met with Julian Fantino when he was Veterans Affairs minister for the federal government,” when then-Minister Fantino decided he was going to take cannabis away from veterans because it doesn’t have a drug information number from Health Canada. He was going to take that away. The veterans mobilized, and it was the veterans in Ottawa Centre who led the charge and they turned him around. You know, Julian Fantino is a lobbyist for cannabis now. They worked on him. He changed his mind. That’s great, okay?

But they said to me, “Joel, when big corporate cannabis comes into the game and they start setting the prices, we’re worried. We’re worried that what will happen in Ontario is what happened in California.” In California, when they legalized, the medicinal market got completely crowded out. It was just about the recreational market, and high prices, and veterans, the veterans that I talked to and whom I respect, told me they live on fixed incomes: “We are not interested, having fought for this country, in being disrespected by federal governments.” They turned to me and they said, “Joel, we fought for you. Now you fight for us.”

So that was my first epiphany, Speaker, back in August, that this was something I needed to take seriously—no, it wasn’t in August, because the election happened. I think it was back in May.

Here’s the point that I hope we can circle around to: As the advent of the legalization of cannabis becomes apparent to all that this is a new threshold, let’s not forget—let’s never forget—the Jodie and Marc Emerys; let’s not forget Dana Larsen in Coast Salish territory out on the west coast; let’s not forget the Indigenous peoples and the racialized peoples who have been criminalized by Canada’s war on cannabis.

Do you know, in Ottawa, Speaker, there’s a criminologist I used to work with at Carleton University. Some 6.3% of our city are Black Canadians, but 22% of possession-for-marijuana arrests are levied against Black citizens of our city. What the member for Brampton Centre talks about is absolutely true. And if we take marijuana out of the criminal realm and we put into it the civil realm, we will not get away from that problem. What will happen is the fines that are going to be levied are going to be levied—and this is what I worry about—disproportionately on communities who have already been over-surveilled, already been over-policed.

We have to make sure that this market is something that works for people and protects civil liberties. What I’ll tell the government is that if they decide to line up behind big corporate cannabis—if that’s who they want, if those are the interests they are interested in safeguarding—they can expect grassroots pushback. It has happened to me and it will happen to you.

At the end of the day, the history we have as a country is one in which there is always a push and pull between rights and obligations. At this point, the rights that have been asserted for decades by Canadians have been met with criminal enforcement. Today is historic, because today we have an obligation to make sure that cannabis is actually not criminalized on a recreational level, and it hasn’t been criminalized on a medicinal level. But that’s only because of the sacrifices and hard work that have been put in by so many of my neighbours, so many people in this great province, in this great country.

They are the people we should be thanking today. Those are the people we should be remembering.

For every single Canadian, for every single person in this province who is currently at risk, I welcome the news that I’ve heard from Ottawa. I’m glad that Justin Trudeau decided to do something else other than tour the country, and acknowledge that we needed amnesty on possession charges, on marijuana-related charges. It’s not something that would be unique. Other jurisdictions—Oregon, California—have gone down this road.

I want to end, Speaker, by saying a couple of things. I want to end by saying a bit of a warning, actually. I haven’t seen the PSAs the government has circulated yet. I look forward to seeing those. But some of the other folks that showed up at our town hall were young people, people based on campuses, and they were part of an organization called Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. They were a group that would have loved to participate in our consultations. They didn’t.

But what they told us at our town hall very clearly is that if we move forward with a “This is your brain on drugs” approach for the teen audience, if that’s how we think we’re going to convince them not to use cannabis, then we are woefully unprepared for what we’re going to get.

Heather D’Alessio, the local

chapter president of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, told us that she had regular use of cannabis through her teen years, not because for some reason—you know, the analogy is often told, the Reefer Madness reason, that the drug compelled her to seek it out. She was using cannabis, literally waking and baking in the morning, Speaker, because she was covering up pain that she’d endured through her teen years—the terrible, strained circumstances in which she had to live through abuse. Cannabis was her refuge from that abuse.

Her point to me was, in the city of Ottawa, there are six beds for people suffering with eating disorders—six beds, Speaker, six residential beds—and why do we have such little support for mental health services? If we want to make sure that kids don’t get addicted to substances, let’s make sure our health care system, our community care system, can meet them in the needs they have. And let’s not stigmatize drug use. Let’s understand that drug use comes from a place that usually is motivated by seeking self-medication from harms.

Speaker, it’s been an honour to rise today to speak to this historic legislation. I hope my friends were listening to some of what my community had to tell me about this issue. I thank you for the opportunity to do so.

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

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House.

My points will be to raise a couple of cautions with respect to the bill. Some of the issues that have been raised in front of the committee and in my community are as to the power of the municipalities to decide where cannabis stores can be located. The choice that the government has made in this bill is to not allow municipalities to regulate the zoning of retail stores for cannabis. That has raised some significant issues in Ottawa because of the possibility of a high density of many retail stores causing some social issues.

En particulier, je sais que la ville d’Ottawa aurait été intéressée à la possibilité de réglementer où les magasins de cannabis pourraient être établis pour éviter une concentration énorme de certains magasins, par exemple, sur le chemin Montréal.

One of the issues that arose in cities like Ottawa is that there are communities that are particularly vulnerable. There’s a way in which we had tried in previous legislation, for example, to limit the number of payday loans to be in one particular area, because that community was being exploited by payday loans. One of the issues is, we had hoped that a similar approach could be undertaken with cannabis stores, to not have all the cannabis stores in one particular location where the population may be particularly vulnerable.

This has been eliminated in this legislation, and I would have liked the government to listen a little bit to some of the positions of the municipalities in that regard.

My second point is, that’s fair enough. The Liberal position on this was that it should be government-owned and that eventually it could be liberalized over time, with a view to proceeding with caution. A Conservative government chose the privatization of it—fair enough. Nevertheless, some of the issues that arise are whether the enforcement resources will be there to ensure that all of these stores that are going to be open will be sufficiently monitored.

There are some issues that we have seen elsewhere. In Colorado, when the market was completely open, there was significant increase in consumption, with some problems on the road and some problems also in terms of mental health addiction. So this caution-to-the-wind approach that has been put forward by the government raises some concerns in many communities.

It is interesting when we look at comparing the different legislation. Today is an historic day in Canada. Ontario’s is not the only legislation, it’s not the only province, that has to make some decisions about cannabis. When we compare the different legislation, we see that Ontario will be the place where, indeed, it’s going to be the most liberal approach to cannabis sales.

In the three provinces that have chosen to go the privatization route—Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba—both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have decided to have either a wave of first applications for retail or a cap on them to, a little bit, create an approach where it’s going to be some monitoring and some learning as we go.

Ontario has decided not to use a cap, like Alberta, and decided that the market is fully open and will let it ride as it wants to go. However, in Alberta, they at least have some restrictions on the ability of smoking on the street. So it’s interesting that of all the choices that were open to this government, we chose the least restrictive at a time when many people say this is uncharted territory. We don’t really know how this is going to play out.

We all agree that the war on drugs had significant costs and had to end. Legalization is part of a transition we are in, where we certainly are prepared to allow people to smoke. The question is, how far do we want to discourage this smoking, if indeed it’s bad for health?

We don’t want to put ourselves in the position where, like alcohol or like smoking, it becomes glorified like in the 1950s or in the 1960s, and then we spend years and years of public health dollars trying to deter people or educate people about not smoking. So that’s one of the issues: We don’t want to have the Mad Men era, where glorification is done about something that could be detrimental to health.

The cautionary approach that had been recommended, at least by some of the states that have gone the route of legalization, seems to have been tempered here. Those are the concerns that I want to express to this government. Soon I think we will be there, to continue to monitor the situation and ensure that we are prepared to react if indeed there are some excesses.

My three points were these: Maybe look at giving some more power to the municipalities to decide where stores could be located, in terms of protecting some vulnerable communities. Ensure that a share of the tax revenue that will be made is dedicated to public education and to research on cannabis. This is the approach we have on gambling, and I think it’s an approach that we probably should endeavour to put here. Finally, I want to make sure that we continue to have the appropriate resources to enforce this bill and this privatization structure that we’re putting in place.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m pleased to rise on this historic day to discuss Bill 36. For many years, since the previous government first introduced their legislation to monopolize the cannabis market, I was the first political leader in Ontario to speak out against that approach.

The reason I spoke out against that approach, Mr. Speaker, was that I felt it would not achieve the primary objective that I think cannabis legalization needs to achieve, and that is to eliminate the unsafe underground market, to get organized crime out of the cannabis market, and to take people who are in that grey zone, in what is known as the grey market, and bring them into the legal market.

While there are flaws in Bill 36, I believe the legislation starts to change the direction that the previous government was going in, to open the market up and to actually take on organized crime and get organized crime out of the cannabis market. That’s why I think it’s important that we support the shift in direction that this bill takes in moving us away from having 40 retail stores that, quite frankly, would do nothing to stop the unsafe underground market, and to move towards having enough retail access in the marketplace to eliminate the unsafe underground market. Therefore, I will be supporting that shift in direction.

Mr. Speaker, this is a massive sea change in public policy in Canada and in Ontario. I wish—I truly wish—that at committee, the government would have listened to the concerns people raised and made amendments to this legislation.

It puts people like me in a bit of a difficult situation. We want to see a market set up in a way that’s going to eliminate the underground market, but we also don’t want to see legislation that is going to have people smoking cannabis in public parks and in places where our children might be located. I know there were a number of individuals, particularly in the public health sector, Mr. Speaker, who raised concerns about the fact that this legislation aligns with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act instead of taking a more restrictive approach and not allowing people to smoke cannabis in public places.

As this new change in public law rolls out, I hope this government listens and I hope this government starts putting evidence above ideology in politics. If we find—and I think there are some real reasons that we will likely find that having people smoke cannabis in public places is not desirable. And so I hope this government will be open to amending this legislation at some point in the future based on the evidence. We should follow that evidence, as we move forward, and do the proper research to ensure that we’re adequately protecting public safety as we move forward with cannabis legalization.

Mr. Speaker, the second concern I have—again, I wish the government had listened to people at committee on this—is that the private market can go in one of two ways. It could be something that’s monopolized by the private sector. We don’t want to go from having a government monopoly to a private monopoly or oligopoly where just the big players have access to the marketplace. This is a huge opportunity to make sure that this legislation is about supporting small businesses, local entrepreneurs and Indigenous communities.

I was just hearing on the radio this morning about a First Nation in eastern Ontario that wants to take advantage of the opportunities in the cannabis market to start bringing revenue into a community that is low-income and doesn’t have the financial resources it needs to invest adequately in supporting members of their community.

So we can look at cannabis as an opportunity for small businesses, for entrepreneurs and for people who may face challenges in having the opportunity of being business owners—maybe, you know, individuals from disadvantaged communities—to participate in the cannabis market, to create small businesses, to create jobs in their communities, and to invest that money in their local communities to benefit those communities.

I believe the government needs to listen to those individuals, businesses and community advocates who want to see a cap either on the number of licences or on the percentage that any one company can have in the marketplace, because we don’t want to see a monopoly in cannabis. The best way to ensure that the granting of licences goes to small businesses, supporting those local entrepreneurs, local economies and local communities, is to put a cap on the total number of licences that will be granted to any one company.

As we move forward and as the government puts together its regulatory regime about granting licences, I think it’s critically important for this government to listen to the entrepreneurs who have already been operating in this grey market to ensure that they have access to the marketplace. I can tell you that in my community of Guelph, which by the way has more small businesses than almost any community in Canada on a per-capita basis, local entrepreneurs want to participate in that marketplace and they want to make sure they’re not frozen out by the big companies. And so I hope this government listens to those individuals who have been pioneers in developing the cannabis marketplace.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to use a bit of my time to focus on the federal side of things just briefly. I know we’re in a provincial Legislature but I think it is so important, and I’m encouraged to hear, that the federal government is looking at granting amnesty to those individuals who were convicted on minor cannabis possession charges. I want to encourage the government to move forward on that because far too often in the history of cannabis prohibition in Canada—and I’d say across North America—too much of that has been directed to disadvantaged communities.

It has been sometimes racially motivated and sometimes motivated by targeting people who are lower income and from more disadvantaged parts of our communities. Now that cannabis is legal, I think it’s time for the government to grant that amnesty.

One of the things I would compliment this government on is the fact that you’ve made it clear that those businesses operating in the grey market prior to legalization will still have an opportunity to apply for a licence and participate in the marketplace. I want to compliment the government for making that move. That’s something I’ve been advocating for and I’m happy that the government listened on that one.

In conclusion, even though I have some mixed emotions about some aspects of this legislation that I don’t fully support, I still will be voting for this legislation because I think it’s an important step forward to opening this market up to entrepreneurs, to making sure we have enough retail outlets available all across the province so we can stop the underground, unsafe illegal market.

Let’s be clear: The war on drugs has not worked. Canada has the highest per capita youth usage of cannabis of any country in the world, and we have to change that. We have to reverse the trajectory of that because we know the evidence shows us that cannabis negatively affects the brains of young people who use it, particularly up to the age of 24. So that, for me, is one of the reasons it is so important to eliminate the underground market. I know this isn’t going to happen overnight; it’s going to take some time, but if we have a robust retail market out there it will put an end to the underground market. That’s why I’ll be supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I’d like to thank all those involved in the debate this morning. Unfortunately, the time for debate this morning has expired and this House stands recessed now until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It is with great privilege that I get to introduce two of my good friends who are travelling here from the great island of Trinidad and Tobago: Safraz Hussain, a lawyer and advocate, and his partner, Christie Borely, a lawyer who is actually clerking at the Supreme Court in Trinidad and Tobago.

Hon. Jim Wilson: It’s my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Kelly Harris, vice-president of corporate and public affairs at FirstOntario Credit Union. Kelly is just making his way in. He is well known to us on our side of the House as a former staff member.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I’d like to introduce my favourite 25-year-old daughter, from the Ontario nuclear association, Taylor McKenna, who is here today.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome to the House this morning the good folks from the CAA: Teresa Di Felice, government and community relations; Christina Hlusko, president and CEO, north and east Ontario; Amy Bryson, board chair; Marrianne Bridge and Ethel Taylor, board members; Michael Goodale, a board member for Niagara; and Elliott Silverstein, the manager of government relations from the CAA. They’ll be having a reception later today, so I hope everyone can join us. Thank you.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’d like to welcome today two members of the Falun Dafa Practitioner Youth Club of Toronto, Adel Alexander Boufama and Qianmin Cui, who are with us in the gallery today.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It is my great pleasure to introduce in the members’ gallery today Nikki Romano, one of our legislative interns, who is going to be working with me the next little while. Thank you, Nikki. I’m looking forward to working with you.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to introduce one of my most wonderful volunteers and supporters, Mr. Phil DeBruyne. He’s a retired instructor at the Ontario Police College. He is joined by retired Lieutenant Colonel Angelo Caravaggio and retired Peterborough chief of police Murray Rodd.

Mr. Doug Downey: I’d like to introduce several members from the credit unions around Ontario: Michael Ras, with Meridian, and Kelly Patrick, who is a representative. There are several others we had breakfast with this morning.

Mr. Dave Smith: Although he’s already been introduced, I’d like to acknowledge him as well: my wife’s former boss, the former chief of police for Peterborough, Mr. Murray Rodd.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I also wanted to recognize Jay Denney, who is also here with the credit unions.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’m pleased to rise this morning and to welcome the Corbrook developmental services agency, who will be visiting Queen’s Park later today. We want to welcome them here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors. The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, thank you. We are still doing introduction of visitors. Are there any more introductions of visitors?

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice from the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook of her intention to raise a point of privilege, and I wish to advise the member that I will hear her point following oral questions this morning, after question period.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. The federal government announced their intention to legalize cannabis over three years ago. There’s only one province in Canada not ready. When will the government have legislation in place to regulate its sale and distribution?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, Ontario is one of the only provinces that is ready. They handled well over 38,000 orders last night. I give all the kudos to the great team that we have here and the Ontario Cannabis Store. They did a great job. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition has to know they stayed up all night working to fulfill the orders, and I’m very, very proud of them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I’ll remind the Premier that legislation has not yet passed and it became legal at midnight last night, Speaker.

Municipalities, local police, educators have been looking to this government for a plan to deal with this huge change. The government had all summer to prepare, but instead of preparing, this government spent the summer debating how many wards Toronto city council should have.

Why didn’t the Premier make getting cannabis legalization right a priority?

Hon. Doug Ford: I just have to remind the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, it was the federal government that dumped this on our shoulders, dumped it on the country. They didn’t give the police the tools they needed, as I addressed yesterday with the OPP.

Our job is to make sure we protect the children, protect neighbourhoods, keep it away from schools, keep it away from parks and hospitals.

We gave the authority to the municipalities. If they don’t want anyone smoking marijuana, cannabis in their area, they’ll vote against it. They can literally make it impossible for anyone to smoke cannabis in their area if they opted out.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, instead of prioritizing this issue, this Premier dumped on Toronto all summer. For a change this significant, the government could have made it a top priority. Instead, we have a government scrambling to pass laws for a substance that is already legal, launching an education campaign hours before people can legally light up, and a Premier who says you can’t smoke in parks while his Attorney General says you can. The Premier wants to blame everybody but himself. Why did he not make this his priority?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I missed the first part of the rebuttal from the Leader of the Opposition.

The legislation is passing today. We did a great job, once again. Our number one priority is to make sure our children are safe, make sure we keep it away from schools, make sure we let the municipalities decide if they’re going to even sell it, where they can smoke cannabis. That’s what I’m proud of. I’m proud of our great team down here and the Ontario Cannabis Store. They did a great job.

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Ontario’s police have been working around the clock to prepare for the legalization of cannabis. I, on behalf of all of my NDP members in this caucus, as the official opposition, want to commend them for working so hard for doing that. In fact, they say they’re ready. However, yesterday the Premier said they’re not ready. Which is it?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’m glad the Leader of the Opposition and her whole team have a different outlook about the police than they did during the election. They had a big sign, “Eff the police.” They’re police-haters. That’s what the NDP are. They don’t like our police. I support our—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier, Speaker: What we’re hearing from police is that the real confusion has been caused by a government that still doesn’t have legislation in place. The Premier spent his summer holding weeks of debate—even through the night, as we all recall, Speaker—to fight his old enemies from his old job at Toronto city hall, but the legislation needed to deal with this major change is being rushed through with almost no public hearings whatsoever, and it still isn’t ready. Why is this not his priority?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I’ve travelled across the province and talked to almost every police department in the province: OPP, Toronto, Peel, York and so on and so forth. I can tell you, they support our government more than they’ve ever supported any government ever. They love what we’re doing. They love that they finally have a friendly voice down at Queen’s Park rather than being attacked by the NDP constantly, being attacked by the Liberals—throwing out Bill 175 attacking the police. We stand shoulder to shoulder with all law enforcement across this province.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, sticks and stones, Premier. People expect their government to have laws and a plan in place to keep their children safe and protect people’s rights. Instead, they see Liberals in Ottawa and Tories at Queen’s Park playing the blame game. This Premier wants to blame everyone but himself. We’ve known for three years that this was coming. Why is this Premier—of all Premiers, Speaker—still scrambling to get ready?

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Why are you smiling so much this morning?

Hon. Doug Ford: Oh, boy. Because you guys are a bunch of jokers; that’s why I’m smiling.

Anyway, through you, Mr. Speaker, again I will repeat what I’ve kept saying over and over again: Our priority is to make sure that our children are safe. Our priority is to make sure that we give the powers to the municipalities to make a decision to either opt in or opt out.

Again, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our police, unlike the NDP. They don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with our police. They want to attack our police. I can tell you, our police are informed, our police are ready, and we will do everything we can to make sure this is a smooth transition.

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m going to go to the Minister of Community Safety, Speaker, and maybe he won’t throw the same sticks and stones that the Premier likes to throw.

Can the minister tell us, as of right now, at this very moment in time, what law police are enforcing in this province with regard to marijuana use?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thanks for the question. First of all, our police are ready to go. We’ve invested time and energy into ensuring that they’re able to do their jobs, and they are able to do their jobs.

Our ministry is committed to making sure that we work with the police to make sure that they have the tools to do what they need to do. Our top priority has been from the beginning—not three years ago but less than 120 days ago—to ensure that they had the tools that they needed to be able to do their jobs. We’re confident that they are able to do their jobs effectively.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the police say that they’re ready. The minister says that they’re ready. The Premier doesn’t think that they’re ready. It’s really pretty confusing out there, and it becomes worse when last night a memo was sent to chiefs of police across Ontario stating that, as of right now, the law of the land is still the Liberal legislation. This is causing even more confusion than what the Premier is causing.

Police are doing their best to prepare for this significant change and, as I’ve said, we’re very grateful for the hard work that they’ve done. But this government is raising more questions than it answers. What law are police supposed to be enforcing as of right this moment?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that our priority as a government is to ensure that our children are safe, that our streets are safe and that we remove illegal sales of marijuana, and that is what our police are doing. They have the tools. They are doing their jobs and we fully support them. This government, unlike the opposition, has made public safety and supporting the police forces that enforce our laws a priority. That’s what we’ve done, that’s what we’re doing, and we’re going to continue to support the police.

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. There continue to be a number of concerns in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and from Ontarians across the province regarding the ability to keep our communities and streets safe after the federal Liberal government decided to rush through with the legalization of cannabis. Simply, there are many Ontarians, including many families, who are concerned about what the legalization of cannabis will look like in Ontario.

Minister, can you please explain to the members of this Legislature what your ministry is doing to ensure our communities can remain safe now that the federal government has legalized cannabis?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for that question. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the federal government’s legalization of cannabis is now in effect. Many Ontarians and their families will look to the hard-working and dedicated members of our police services to help keep communities safe.

Our government remains committed to tackling organized crime in this province, and we will ensure that our police services have the necessary tools to shut down the illegal cannabis market in the province. The men and women of our police services are the ones who will be taking the risks that are necessary for keeping the great people of this province safe.

These brave men and women didn’t ask for this challenge. They’re dealing with the challenge that was put forward to them by the federal government. I can assure you, however, and all members of the Legislature, that our government for the people will do everything in our power to ensure our front-line officers have the tools they need to be able to provide the services to the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I thank the minister for his response. Our dedicated front-line and emergency responders work very hard, putting their lives on the line day in and day out to keep our cities and streets safe. I know the minister will continue to work with our government’s policing partners so Ontario’s communities can remain safe.

With the federal government having rushed the legalization of cannabis, Ontarians deserve to feel confident in their own safety and the safety of their families. Ontarians need to know that our government is listening and taking action to combat the illegal cannabis market.

Could the minister please update the members of this Legislature on how our government for the people is ensuring that this province takes a responsible and safe approach to the sale of cannabis?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for the follow-up question. I want to begin by recognizing and thanking our Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance for the incredible job they’ve done in such a short period of time.

Our government’s top priority remains protecting Ontario families and their children, ensuring road safety and combating the illegal cannabis market. As of today, the only legal place to buy cannabis in Ontario is through the online Ontario Cannabis Store website. Starting today, the numerous illegal dispensaries that are operating in many parts of the province will remain illegal.

I want to assure all members of this Legislature that our government for the people will be working closely with the men and women of the province to ensure that illegal cannabis markets are closed.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question this morning is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, the Financial Accountability Office declared that this government’s cancellation of cap-and-trade would result in the loss of $3 billion over the next four years.

Can the finance minister please tell us how this shortfall will impact the $15-billion deficit that the Campbell report recently discovered?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, thank you for the question. It is something, to hear the party opposite talk about the deficit, talk about accountability.

The fact that we’re even aware there’s a $15-billion deficit is because the government made it clear to the people of Ontario that we were going to be transparent and we were going to make sure that taxpayers understood the state of the province’s finances.

But to the question: We made a promise to the people of Ontario that we would get rid of the regressive job-killing cap-and-trade program. Clearly, that was going to reduce revenues to the government. We think that’s a good thing, because it puts money back into taxpayers’ pockets, $264 a year for every family. We’re proud of that. That’s a commitment we made. That’s a commitment we’ll keep.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Mr. Speaker, any savings this government claims it will achieve in cancelling this program will be more than negatively impacted by the cancellation, by the substantial loss in revenue that cap-and-trade would have generated for this province.

So I ask the finance minister up front to please tell Ontarians what he is going to do to make up for the $3-billion hole in the budget that this has created.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: It’s just a difference between our points of view, that’s all. We don’t believe that every dollar the government gets is a dollar that is best spent. We think the dollars that are best spent are in taxpayers’ pockets. The people of Ontario understood that. That’s why they put our government into the position it’s in. That’s why we’re the government: Because they know they can spend their dollars better.

We will address climate change. We will bring forward a climate plan, a balanced plan, that deals with the issues. But it will not be done at the expense of average Ontario families. And $264 may not be a lot of money to you, but it’s a lot of money to average Ontario families. We’re going to give it to them.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Next question.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Finance. We have been hearing a lot about fairness in the auto insurance system. It is clear that action should have been taken a long time ago to support drivers in Ontario. While it’s unfortunate the Liberals did nothing more than offer empty promises, it’s encouraging now to see the work being done in our caucus.

The private member’s bill introduced on Monday by the member from Milton moves us forward in developing an auto insurance system that is fair and serves the needs of drivers across Ontario.

Could the minister please explain the importance of combatting rate discrimination in Ontario’s auto insurance industry?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Brampton West for the question. Let’s be clear: Rate discrimination is simply unfair. A good driver in Toronto should not have to pay more for insurance than a good driver anywhere else in the province.

This is about fairness. This is about building an insurance system that works for drivers. This is about taking action that the Liberals, backed by the NDP, never did do.

I look forward to working with the member from Milton and other stakeholders across the industry to bring more fairness—finally—to the auto insurance system.

Over 10 million drivers in Ontario are counting on us. They’ve been ignored for far too long. It’s about time someone started working for the people.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you, Minister. As a long-time advocate for lower auto insurance premiums, I’m proud to stand with a government that is finally taking action for the people of Brampton and Ontario.

Rate discrimination is an unfair practice that we must take action against. I’m pleased the member from Milton’s private member’s bill seeks, if passed, to address this issue across the entire province.

Ontario’s drivers deserve more fairness in their system. They deserve an auto insurance system that works for them. Moving forward, we must continue to build a robust Ontario auto insurance system that serves the needs of drivers.

Could the minister please reiterate our government’s commitments as we develop improvements to our auto insurance system?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Our government is committed to developing a system that puts the drivers first. We are committed to fairness in rate-setting, we are committed to ending discriminatory practices, and we are committed to taking action where the Liberals never did.

The Liberal-NDP failed attempt to provide relief on auto insurance is broken beyond repair. We must look for thoughtful ideas across the entire regulatory system in order to find improvements, thoughtful ideas like those found in the plan put forward by the member from Milton yesterday. His legislation, if passed, will bring more fairness to the system, allowing the auto insurance system to better serve drivers. Drivers across Ontario are grateful for his leadership on this file.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Gurratan Singh: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Ending postal code discrimination in auto insurance rates has been a long-standing priority of the NDP. That’s why I introduced my bill to end the unfair practice of postal code discrimination, which is hurting my community of Brampton and communities across the GTA.

I am committed to ending this practice, the NDP is committed to ending this practice, but the government is only paying lip service to this very important issue. If the government were truly serious about ending postal code discrimination in auto insurance, then why didn’t the government put forward legislation instead of putting forward a private member’s bill?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: It’s clear, it’s very clear—in fact, it’s crystal clear—that the Liberal-NDP system of failed stretch goals on auto insurance is absolutely broken.

To the member from Brampton East, I would say, welcome to the party, better late than never; but it’s not even “better”; it’s not good. The member from Brampton East wants the GTA to be considered a single geographic area when insurance companies set their rate. However, this will only serve to increase insurance costs across the entire GTA. In fact, the member’s plan would cause rates to rise in many of his own caucus colleagues’ ridings. I wonder if you even caucused your own caucus on your idea before you rushed it in yesterday.

On the other hand, our member from Milton got it absolutely right. He took time to consult, to listen and to develop a plan that will deliver fairness—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Yesterday I tabled a bill that, if passed, will not only end postal code discrimination in auto insurance, but also hold insurance companies to account. Drivers in areas like Brampton, Scarborough and Jane and Finch will no longer be gouged for the rates that they pay, and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer or renew discriminatory insurance contracts. But standing in the way of this, Mr. Speaker, is a government that in July approved a 9% increase in auto insurance rates for drivers.

How can the government, in good conscience, say that they’re trying to bring down rates on one hand and then increase rates on the other?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I realize the member did file a bill yesterday, so not only is he literally a day late, he is many, many, many dollars short. His bill will serve to increase insurance costs across the entire GTA, something that he and the Liberal Party know very well. In the deal that they concocted back in 2013 in order to pass the Liberal budget, the NDP supported this, and none of it has ever happened. It was a “stretch goal,” to use the Premier’s words, backed up by the NDP. So we will not be taking any lessons, especially a day late and a few dollars short, from that member.

Education

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: My question is for the Minister of Education. I had an opportunity to meet with the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association representatives this morning, and I know the minister has had a chance to meet with some of them. First, I just want to do a shout-out to all the candidates in Ontario who are running for school trustee on Monday. I wish them luck. Everybody needs to go out and vote for their school trustee. If I had a crystal ball, I have a feeling trustees are going to be really important over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just ask—there is a group that is called the partnership table that has been in existence for many years. It is school board representatives, parent representatives, teachers, support staff and caretaker staff, all of whom have input into the legislation and have input into budget priorities on an ongoing basis.

I want to ask the Minister of Education whether the partnership table has met since the new government has been elected.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate the question. But I think we have to make sure that we understand what we inherited. When that member opposite was a trustee, she destroyed the school board that she was—

Interjections.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: And the government had to get involved to clean up their mess. It goes without saying—

Hon. Todd Smith: And then she did the province next.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, the bottom line to all of this is that we are being very thoughtful in how we move forward and work with our partners in a thoughtful way. We’re encouraging everyone, and I might say, Speaker—I’m going to use this opportunity to remind all the partners that the member referenced to participate in our consultation. We’re off to a great start. I encourage everyone who wants to have their voice heard at this time in terms of making a difference and helping us determine the path forward to clean up the mess that we inherited to get involved: fortheparents.ca.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll take that as a no.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there is an online consultation on cellphones in classrooms and on math curriculum and on the health and physical education curriculum. But what we are hearing is that many, many initiatives have stopped, so the curriculum writing on social studies, the First Nations curriculum, the equity and inclusive education policies—those discussions. There are a lot of initiatives that have stopped.

My concern is that the partnership table was a place for all of the representatives within the education sector who were tapped into their communities, whether it was trustees or whether it was education workers or whether it was parents, to come together and talk to the government about priorities on budget. The partnership table was part of a broader consultation in the lead-up to, for example, the fall economic statement or the budget.

I would ask the Minister of Education: What is the plan for a broad consultation with all of those partners and whether the partnership table will be part of that in the lead-up to the fall economic statement and the budget?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Our number-one priority is making sure that we clean up the mess we inherited. Need I remind the member that they closed 600 schools across Ontario?

Parents received the EQAO results last week, and the math scores of their children in the schools that this previous Liberal government was responsible for have failed dismally with EQAO. We’re going to fix that as well. That’s what we’re talking about and that’s what we want to hear from every single person in this province about through our consultation.

I’m really pleased today to share with you, Speaker, that in two short weeks we’re hearing from thousands of people who are taking time to submit written submissions on job skills, on life skills, on testing, on STEM, on health and physical education and on making a better path for students because they know, over the last 15 years, our students went completely off the rails—

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

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Next question.

Cannabis regulation

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question today—

Applause.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you. What a team. My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. With recreational cannabis being legalized today, there have been numerous concerns regarding the federal government’s approved roadside tests to ensure that Ontario’s streets remain safe from those who choose to drive while impaired.

Speaker, the Premier wrote a letter to the federal government yesterday stating that the federal government has left the hard-working men and women of our police services without the necessary tools and support they need to reliably test for impaired driving.

With cannabis now legalized by the federal government, can the minister please explain to the members of this Legislature how this government will keep our communities safe from those who drive while impaired?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the members of this Legislature, and all Ontarians, that we’re committed to working with our policing partners to ensure they have the necessary tools and resources to enforce the federal legalization of cannabis.

One of our government’s top priorities remains protecting our children, ensuring road safety and combating illegal cannabis sales in the province.

The fact remains that the federal government had three years to act and failed to do the work required to ensure our communities and streets could remain safe after the legalization of cannabis. In fact, the federal government has only approved one device for use for roadside cannabis testing, one that makes it completely impractical to operate in a police cruiser. In addition, this device has a number of problems associated with it, including numerous reported failures when utilized at temperatures below zero.

Our government will continue to work to ensure—

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the minister: While the lack of action from the federal Liberal government is concerning, I know that my constituents in Flamborough–Glanbrook are comforted knowing that our government for the people is taking impaired driving seriously.

Sadly, we know that people are willing to risk the lives of others and make the choice to get behind the wheel while they are under the influence.

Minister, while the federal Liberal government continues to be unprepared, what proactive measures is this government taking to make sure that our roads stay safe, and that those who break the law are punished?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank my colleague from Flamborough–Glanbrook for the question. Our government is taking a two-pronged approach. First of all, earlier this year, we instituted a zero-tolerance policy for young and novice drivers and commercial drivers when it comes to the presence of drugs in their system. We’ve also launched a very comprehensive public education campaign so that we can educate the public on the dangers of driving while under the influence of cannabis.

One thing we want to make absolutely clear to the people out there—there are misconceptions, but we want to make one thing absolutely clear: Impaired is impaired, whether it’s by alcohol or drugs. Our ministry is making sure that we have educated the people with a two-pronged approach because we want our highways to be safe. It’s our number one priority.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Education’s Parents Reaching Out Grants provide modest but very important support to school councils for projects that engage with parents who may experience barriers to participation in their child’s education. Now, with the school term nearing the halfway mark, school councils are in the dark about the status of their planned events, and some have been told the funding is under review.

Can the minister tell us why her government is delaying approval of the Parents Reaching Out Grants for 2018-19?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much for that question.

Speaker, I want to remind everyone in this House that we are keeping a promise we made during the election, and that is, we’re respecting parents. I think the first step in respecting parents is being responsible with their precious tax dollars.

While we’re embarking on this consultation, which has far surpassed the dismal 1,638 responses the former Liberal government generated, we are actually listening to parents.

As we embark on a new path forward for the Ontario education curriculum, we’ve hit the pause button in some instances because we want to make sure we’re getting our investments right.

To those parents who are listening today, I suggest to them—we want to hear from you, we want to hear your priorities, we want to hear your concerns—go to fortheparents.ca and participate in this very unique consultation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: This was a very straightforward question about a program that parents and communities are concerned about right now. It sounds to me like the priority, or the first step, as you said, for your government is actually to cut funding for parent councils.

From events focused on math skills to workshops on raising emotionally healthy kids, the Parents Reaching Out Grants have served to connect parents with their school communities. Some of these programs have already registered hundreds of parents, and the school councils have applied in good faith, following the ministry’s process. Now they could be left with nothing—yet another example of this government changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Can the minister explain why this parent engagement funding is being withheld from parents wanting to be involved in their kids’ education? Or is “For the Parents” just another empty slogan?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Well, Speaker, I have every confidence that that narrative that member on the opposite side of the House is trying to create is not going to stick at all because—again, when we start hearing from our parents that we’re on the right track, that they’re appreciative that they’re finally being heard and that we’re respecting hard-earned, precious tax dollars.

We’re hitting the pause button until this consultation is finished. I would think that that member opposite would be well advised, instead of creating turmoil, to encourage her people to get involved in the consultation so that we can get involved in a thoughtful way and have a very good dialogue. Quit fearmongering.

Taxation

Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Speaker, our government has been clear: We are opposed to any tax that will impact the hard-working people of Ontario.

By threatening to impose their carbon tax, the federal Liberal government highlighted their lack of concern for Ontarians. The former provincial Liberal government’s regressive, job-killing cap-and-trade carbon tax caused hydro bills to spike and gas prices to rise. The NDP, on several occasions, have stood up in this Legislature and defended the Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax, making it clear that they do not intend on making life easier for Ontarians either.

With the release of the FAO’s financial review of the cancellation of cap-and-trade, can the minister explain to us how our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, will benefit Ontarians by cancelling the cap-and-trade carbon tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Under the leadership of Premier Ford, throughout the campaign we were very clear. We were going to get rid of cap-and-trade and we were going to fight the carbon tax. We were going to do that because we believe there are more effective ways to protect our environment. We were going to do that, as well, because we want to put money back into the pockets of Ontario families.

The FAO report that the member references made it clear yesterday: $264 per family, a $1.3-billion reduction. We see this as good. The opposition sees this as lost revenue to the government. We see this as found revenue to families.

Mr. Speaker, our Premier has made it clear: We are going to do everything we can to make life more affordable in Ontario. This is just one step, and we are going to make sure it gets done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Norman Miller: Speaker, through you back to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks: It’s clear that on this side of the House, we truly do have the people of Ontario in mind when making each and every decision.

The FAO report highlights some great benefits for Ontarians. However, it also highlights the negative impacts that the federal backstop will have. My constituents are worried. Should the Trudeau carbon tax be imposed in Ontario, it will have a profound impact. Ontarians cannot afford a carbon tax. Ontarians are tired of paying inflated hydro bills and gas prices, and small business owners are struggling.

Can the Minister of the Environment describe how our government will fight the Trudeau carbon tax?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: For months on end, the opposition in Ottawa has risen in the House and asked questions about the Trudeau carbon tax. They’ve been faced with non-answers, redacted documents—some have said, a carbon tax cover-up.

How much is the Trudeau carbon tax going to cost? Well, yesterday, we got an answer. We got an answer from the FAO: $648 a year. In four short years, it’s $648 a year. That’s the price of four hydro bills—too much for Ontario families; too much for Canadian families.

That’s why, with the leadership of our Premier, other Premiers are coming together—six now—to talk about alternatives, to talk about killing the Trudeau carbon tax. We will do everything in our power to fight this regressive, job-killing carbon tax.

Home care

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier. Verna Gingerich is a senior in Kitchener Centre. Verna lives with compression on the spine, and unfortunately, a surgery resulted in serious nerve damage. In 2017, she was assessed to receive two hours of basic home care each day. She relies on this care to shower, dress, help open or partially open items, and prepare for her days. Without it, she’s trapped in her apartment.

Inconsistent scheduling and changes to scheduled PSW appointments leave Verna’s life in a state of chaos. Since 2017, Verna has had over 250 personal support workers assist with her personal care. There is virtually no continuity of care, and seniors like Verna are suffering.

What measures will this government take to ensure that heartbreaking stories like Verna’s aren’t the norm?

Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The example you raise today is one that, frankly, all of us have heard. The inconsistency that we see in the health care that is provided, particularly as it relates to home care, is a real issue for our government, and we’ve made some commitments to try to fix that system.

We’re 110 days in. I trust that you will give us the time to make this happen and make it right, because we can’t rush decisions. We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.

We are doing this carefully, in a measured way. Our Minister of Health is more qualified to do this, as a former patient advocate, than anyone else I can imagine. We want to do it right, so we need the time to make sure that that happens.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the Premier: This past summer, Verna received notice that her daily care time was going to be further reduced to only half an hour in the morning. Verna and her children advocated against this initial time reduction, yet the private company recently ordered another assessment to see if they could reduce her care further. Again, the occupational therapist determined that Verna needs the daily hour and a half of personal care. Verna needs these exercises so that she can become more independent. Does the Premier think it’s right for a private company to prevent Verna from getting the care she needs by overriding the recommendations of health care professionals?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I trust that, as an MPP, you are actively engaged with conversations with the CCAC. I know in my own constituency office, and I’m sure in many of ours, we spend a lot of our time making sure that the people who need the service are getting it.

It is inappropriate for decisions to be made and to pit private and public is wrong, because the point is, the CCACs are making the decisions about how much care is needed and when that will happen. I would encourage you—and if you need some help with that, we’re happy to help—to deal with the CCAC directly and make sure those cuts are not happening, because they certainly are not happening from this government.

Government services

M lle Amanda Simard: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Yesterday, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers informed Canada Post that rotating strikes will begin on October 22 if a new agreement cannot be reached. Many Ontarians rely on Canada Post each and every day to receive important government services, programs and documentation. From social assistance programs to birth and death certificates, these services are vital to the people of Ontario.

While the federal government battles with the postal workers, can the Minister of Government and Consumer Services please update the Legislature on our government’s plan should a postal strike occur?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to my honourable colleague for the question this morning. Our government recognizes that a Canada Post strike could cause inconveniences for many Ontarians.

We hope the federal government can reach a deal with the Canadian postal workers. In the meantime, I want to assure the people of Ontario that we are ready. We’ve been working collaboratively, government-wide, to minimize the impact on critical government services and programs. We’ve launched ontario.ca/mail to provide information to the people of Ontario. A contingency plan is ready, should alternative delivery processes be deemed necessary.

We also recognize that many Ontarians still receive social assistance and other government payments through Canada Post, and we encourage those who are receiving cheques via Canada Post to sign up for direct deposit if they haven’t done so already. We’re committed to ensuring Ontarians get access to critical Ontario government services—

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

M lle Amanda Simard: Thank you to the minister for his response. I’m happy to hear that our government planned ahead for this possibility and has a clear plan in place to ensure the people of Ontario can still access their services.

I’m sure many of us are also wondering how this potential postal strike will affect the Ontario Cannabis Store, given the federal government’s decision to legalize cannabis in this country. With today being the first day Ontarians are able to order cannabis from the OCS online store, many will have questions about how their product will reach their doors. Could the minister please explain how the Ontario Cannabis Store could navigate a potential strike by Canada Post and how Ontario customers could be able to have their cannabis orders fulfilled?

Hon. Todd Smith: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for the question. Ontario will be ready in the event of Canada Post service disruptions. We have made our expectations clear to the Ontario Cannabis Store. They must be ready to continue delivery service in the event of a work stoppage at Canada Post. The Ontario Cannabis Store has been evaluating options to ensure cannabis delivery can continue in the event of a Canada Post strike. The OCS has indicated that they have a clear plan and they will be prepared with an alternate delivery process, should it be needed.

However, in the meantime, we hope the federal government can come to an agreement with the postal workers.

Energy policies

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs.

Minister, Julie and Ronald Denomme from Hanmer in my riding have paid the deposit on a valid contract signed way before the June 19 deadline to change their windows as they try to decrease their heating costs. They expected a $5,000 rebate from the GreenON program.

In Sudbury, contractors are racing flat-out to complete as many contracts as possible before the October 31 deadline. These contractors don’t have time to drive the extra 40 minutes, 50 minutes or an hour to come to Nickel Belt because there is so much work to be done in town.

Will the minister please agree to extend the deadline so my constituents are not at a disadvantage to get the GreenON rebate simply because they live in rural northern Ontario?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate the situation of your constituents, but when this government was elected, it was elected on the basis of eliminating the cap-and-trade program. The responsible thing to do with the elimination of the cap-and-trade program was to wind down the program in a very transparent way, and that is what we’ve done. Yesterday, the FAO confirmed that our estimates around the wind-up of that program were largely accurate.

With regard to the window program, the government set a date of the end of the month in terms of the end of eligibility for that program. We did so so that people who had been participating would have the time to carry it out, but we did so in a very transparent way, because we need to bring an end to this program because we brought an end to the funding for this program.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: This arbitrary deadline is, in effect, discriminating against rural and northern citizens. The Denommes are not the only ones affected. Madame Yvonne St-Denis from Red Deer Lake Road and Catherine and Richard Gagne are facing financial loss; so is Sheila Renton.

Contractors can work like two or three jobs together when they work in the city, so they are rescheduling my constituents for after the deadline. Many of my constituents are on the verge of losing thousands of dollars—dollars they don’t have. So it looks like this PC government is actually taking money out of the pockets of rural and northern residents.

Will the minister change the deadline so rural and northern residents don’t end up losing, big time?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: This government is in the business of putting money in people’s pockets. That’s why we got rid of the cap-and-trade program; that’s why we’re fighting the carbon tax.

When it comes to northern and rural Ontario, we’ve taken steps like the expansion of natural gas and others, because we understand—for the first time in a very long time, the people of rural and northern Ontario are seeing a government that understands the issues, and they are being responded to by ministers responsible.

We made a commitment to responsibly wind down this program. We are responsibly winding it down.

Municipal government

Mr. Ross Romano: My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I know that our government for the people is very excited that this is Local Government Week. This is because we all know that our local governments play a vital role in helping Ontarians.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which failed municipalities, downloading costs on them and making it harder for them to work on a day-to-day basis, we value our local partners and appreciate all they do for the people across Ontario. I’m particularly proud of the work being done by the city councillors in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Their efforts are vital in providing the key services my constituents need.

Minister, can you please explain why it is important to have a week like this dedicated to celebrating Ontario’s local governments?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for that excellent question. As the member said, local governments provide—they’re really the closest level of government to the people, and they provide such essential services. Just to name a few, you have to look at the amount of community centres, things like libraries and the fact that local governments are instilled with making sure the garbage is picked up and the snow is removed from the streets. They provide such essential services.

Local Government Week gives a wonderful opportunity for us to teach children and students about the different levels of government. We give them the opportunity to understand what local governments do and how they differ between the provincial level of government and the federal level of government.

This Local Government Week is even more exciting as Ontarians go to the polls next week to vote for representatives at the local level.

In the supplementary, I’ll talk more about how we’re working with our local government partners.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you to the minister for that excellent answer about the importance of local governments and their critical role in the lives of Ontarians.

Our government is clearly committed to listening to Ontario’s municipalities and working with them. At the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference this past August, we had a tremendous turnout from cabinet and caucus members who held productive meetings with our municipal partners. We also watched you, Minister, as you demonstrated our government’s commitment to a strong working relationship with AMO by signing a new memorandum of understanding.

Would the minister please explain how we are working with local governments to help them deliver better services and address issues like reducing red tape and building more housing?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, I want to thank the member for the question.

The member is absolutely correct. This year, at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference, the AMO conference, our government had a record number of meetings with our municipal partners, some 540. He’s also correct that I signed the memorandum of understanding, the MOU, one year before the renewal date. I have to tell you, we’re continuing our work with AMO. We’re going back to monthly MOU meetings to listen to their concerns and to proactively work on the issues.

Lastly—I think it’s very important during Local Government Week—I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone running for municipal office our sincere best wishes. We want to thank them for putting their names forward on the ballot. Do you know what, Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Steve Clark: I look forward to dealing with all those newly elected councils in Ontario’s 444 municipalities after October 22.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Riley Peterson travels for three hours on the TTC from her home in Weston to school every day. She could be studying, but instead she’s stuck in an overcrowded bus. Commuters like Riley were looking forward to faster and cheaper commutes starting in January, when transit riders could pay a new low fare of $3 to ride the GO and the Union Pearson Express in Toronto. But now, the $3 GO fare program is in jeopardy because it was funded by Ontario’s climate plan, a plan that will cost $3 billion to cancel so the Premier can give favours to big polluters, a plan that funded cheaper transit fares so people like Riley could speed up their commute times and pay less.

Will the minister tackle congestion by moving forward with the $3 fare program for GO and the Union Pearson Express in Toronto?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for the question. As she knows, we have made it crystal clear on many occasions in this chamber how committed we are in the Doug Ford PC government to making the transit experience better, more efficient and more enjoyable for people all across the GTHA and, in fact, all across this great province of Ontario.

On the issue of the cap-and-trade, we also made a commitment in our campaign to cancel that Liberal cash grab and return that money to the people of Ontario, the $1.9 billion a year that was being taken out of the pockets of the people of the province of Ontario. We’re giving it back.

But I want to assure the member that we are absolutely committed to continuing our job of making transit better all across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Toronto is a world-class city with a world-class transit problem. Our region has the longest commute times in North America and transit fares are now the highest in Canada. Instead of improving congestion by giving commuters fast and affordable transit, this government is taking us from bad to worse.

I’m going to ask the question again: Are you going to move forward with the $3 fare program for GO and Union Pearson Express, starting January, in Toronto?

Hon. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for that question. Again, I also want to remind her that we have a world-class hockey team in this city as well.

When we’re prepared to make an announcement on any fare adjustments for GO or the TTC, I will let the member know. But we’re in the process of examining all of the costs, line by line, item by item, in this province to see just what kind of mess and how big a mess the previous Liberal government left us, and also to re-evaluate all of those promises that they made in a last-ditch effort to try to get re-elected earlier this year.

We’re examining everything right across the board, and I can assure the member that when we’re ready to make an announcement on transit fares across this province, she’ll be one of the first to know.

Government’s record

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the government House leader. I’m proud of the work our government has done over its first 100 days. The constituents in my riding appreciate all the work being done for them and for Ontarians all across this great province.

I know our government has done a lot to protect our communities and keep Ontarians safe. Can the government House leader inform the Legislature on why it was so important to move quickly to deliver real results for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Two days in a row we’ve got an excellent question from the government whip, and I’m pleased to answer it.

You know, as I was going door to door over the constituency week and people were thinking about turkey dinner over Thanksgiving, they were thankful that in the first 100 days, they didn’t have a government like the previous one that wasted their money. They were thankful that they didn’t have a government like the previous Liberal government that raised gas prices, hydro rates and taxes across the province and took money out of their pockets. They were thankful about that. They were thankful that they had a government that respected their tax dollars, that was trying to put more money back in their pockets, Mr.

Speaker. They were thankful. They were thankful that they had a government that was making key investments in transportation, all-day GO trains, health care—over 6,000 long-term-care beds. And we’re just getting started. What an—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. That concludes the time we have for question period this afternoon.

Member’s privileges

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m prepared to listen to the point of privilege by the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I’m rising on a point of privilege to address an incident which occurred at the end of debate yesterday. It’s my understanding as a new member that in order for a point of privilege to be found, certain criteria have to be met. Having provided you with notice this morning, as well as the opposition and g