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

November 21, 2017

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2017-Nov-21 (PDF)

L123 - Tue 21 Nov 2017 / Mar 21 nov 2017

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 21 November 2017 Mardi 21 novembre 2017

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Introduction of Visitors

Earthquake victims

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

College students

Labour dispute

College students

Hydro rates

Nuclear power facilities

Pharmacare

Children’s mental health services

Financial literacy

International trade

Diagnostic services

Appointment of Chief Scientist

Doctor shortage

Correction of record

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ Statements

Wind turbines

Precarious employment

International students

Caledon Parent-Child Centre

Mary Johnston

Diabetes

Consideration of Bill 174

Buddha’s Light Vegetarian Gala

Bill Thake Memorial Award

Introduction of Bills

Flood Avoidance, Insurance and Recovery Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 / Loi de 2017 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la prévention des inondations, les assurances et la reprise après une inondation

Jetterance Canada Limited Act, 2017

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Albanian Heritage Month

Hindu Heritage Month

Albanian Heritage Month

Hindu Heritage Month

Albanian Heritage Month

Hindu Heritage Month

Petitions

School bus safety

Student loans

Elevator maintenance

School bus safety

Pharmacare

Bruce Power

Hospital funding

Domestic violence and sexual violence

School bus safety

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Employment standards

Opioid abuse

Opposition Day

Energy policies

Adjournment Debate

Home care

Pharmacare

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Once again, please; I didn’t hear it.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? I heard a no.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Hon. Bill Mauro: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Cannabis Act, 2017, the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, to repeal two Acts and to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting alcohol, drugs and other matters, when the bill is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 29, 2017, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on Thursday, November 30, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of public hearings on the bill; and

That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the committee Chair, be authorized to arrange the notice of public hearings; and

That the deadline for requests to appear be 10 a.m. on Monday, November 27, 2017; and

That if not all requests can be scheduled that the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee and their designates with the list of requests to appear by 11:30 a.m. on Monday, November 27, 2017; and

That the members of the subcommittee and/or their designates prioritize and return the list to the Clerk of the Committee by 2 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2017; and

That the Clerk of the Committee distribute a draft copy of the agenda to the committee members and their designates by Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 11:30 a.m.; and

That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2017; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 2 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2017; and

That the committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, December 7, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

On Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 4:30 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. At this time, the Chair shall allow one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, December 11, 2017. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, two hours of debate shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, notwithstanding standing order 81(c), the bill may be called more than once in the same sessional day; and

The votes on second and third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The minister has moved government notice of motion number 42. Back to the minister.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I believe that the parliamentary assistant will be making our remarks later in the debate.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Point of order. I recognize the member.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split Bill 174.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The member is seeking unanimous consent. I hear a no.

Further debate? I recognize the member from Lanark-Frontenac—continue, sir.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Kitchener–Conestoga this morning, and the member from Kawartha-Haliburton-Brock.

Never before have we seen so few people—the Premier and her cabinet—attempt to subvert and destroy our democracy that benefits so many people. Bill 174 began debate a week ago in this House. It’s an omnibus bill that has substantial and significant unrelated public policy provisions in that bill. It has the creation of a new cannabis retail corporation. It has the framework to complement the federal legislation to permit legalized recreational cannabis use. It also has a

schedule for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which will have significant ramifications on tobacco harm reduction.

It also has a

schedule for school bus safety and other unrelated Highway Traffic Act amendments that have nothing to do with cannabis. Nothing, nothing at all do these very disparate subjects have—it is unwarranted for them to be in the same piece of legislation, and it is unprecedented that a government, in a Western democracy, in a country that is held in the highest regard around the world, is acting like a tin pot authoritarian.

We have seen so often that this government has taken a path, a path that we have never seen the likes of before in this country. A 30-minute time allocation debate on very substantial labour legislation, Bill 148: They’ve limited debate at third reading to 30 minutes between the three parties on that one.

Now we see them coming in with an omnibus bill and time allocation. A week after we began debate in this House, a week after the very first day, I tabled a motion in this House to split Bill 174.

I’ll read the motion, Speaker, that we didn’t get unanimous consent on earlier by the Liberal members: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should separate Bill 174, Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act ... and reintroduce the legislation as three distinct pieces of legislation as follows: ... the Cannabis Act, 2017 ... the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act ... Smoke-Free Ontario Act ... and amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.”

That’s a proper way of doing legislation in a proper democracy. Bundling these things up into an omnibus bill and then having the gall to bring in a time allocation motion a week after the introduction—I don’t think I have to tell anybody in this House that legalizing recreational cannabis and creating a cannabis retail corporation are new steps in our country. These are transformational steps, Speaker. They require the robustness of a full debate to safeguard the public interest when we are taking on such substantial new policies.

Six and a half hours of debate, and the government brings in a time allocation motion. It is offensive. It offends the very purpose of this House. It offends every member who ever sat in this House. It offends democracy when this government thinks that the safeguards of debate are unimportant and that they can dismiss at will.

Speaker, the time allocation motion also diminishes and only permits, by my count, up to 28 individuals in Ontario to make a presentation to the standing committee after this motion gets passed.

Mr. Michael Harris: Twenty-eight?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Twenty-eight people will be permitted to express themselves for five minutes each at this standing committee. Do you not believe that a bill of this nature ought to have a number of different perspectives brought to our attention, to have those perspectives examined, to have them analyzed, to have them investigated so that we can develop good policy?

Speaker, I find the very notion that this government believed that it was warranted to bring in the time allocation—I just find that that is something that we would see from an authoritarian government. This is not something that we would ever expect to see in our country. There’s a reason our country ranks highest in the world. It didn’t get to that ranking because of authoritarian steps by majority governments. It got there through robust public discussion and debate and a respect for our parliamentary and representative democracy. These guys—

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The member from Northumberland is certainly one that should be talking about, as he’s facing actions from the falsehoods that he put forward about his constituents, another authoritarian type of action.

Speaker, I said last week that the actions of this government were bordering on the criminal. I was wrong. They are acting as criminals.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I cannot withdraw on the fact that this government are acting as criminals.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order.

Again, I’ll ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I apologize for having to use that sort of—

Interjections.

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

All I’m asking is that you withdraw. If you don’t withdraw, then you know the consequences of that. What you said was unparliamentary. So again, I ask the member: For that one comment, will you withdraw?

Mr. Randy Hillier: This government ought to withdraw—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I take that as a lack of withdrawal. Therefore, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is named.

Mr. Hillier was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order, please. I don’t need any commentary from the government side.

Further debate? I recognize the member from Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Thank you, Speaker. I’ll try to keep the morning theatre to a minimum.

This morning, I was prepared to speak to Bill 174, the Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statue Law Amendment Act. Many of my constituents in Windsor West have come forward and expressed concerns about the bill. There are some provisions in this bill that aren’t clear to the people in this province, and they want the government to explain exactly what they mean in these provisions. But instead of being able to actually debate the bill, here I stand debating the fact that the government doesn’t want to talk about the bill. They want to shut down the debate and not talk about the bill.

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: And now we have a member on the Liberal side saying it needs to go to committee. Well, we all know how that works. The Liberals use their majority in committee to do whatever they want. They don’t really listen to the people who come to committee to share their concerns. They have their set of talking points and their set of questions that they go back to. They use leading questions when they’re talking to the presenters in order to get the response that they want.

Speaker, I have one constituent in particular who would love for all of us to have the opportunity to continue debate on this bill, to have a fulsome discussion on this bill, before it gets to committee. By the time it gets to committee—well, frankly, the fact that the government wants to shut down debate shows that they’ve already made up their minds and are not interested in listening to the people of this province. But I know that my constituent Jon Liedtke would love to have an opportunity to have some of his questions and concerns around this bill answered, and he is not the only one.

I know that he is once again going to be incredibly disappointed in this Liberal government—because this is not the first time this government has used the tactic of shutting down debate and then claiming that in committee they are actually listening to the people of this province.

Another thing they like to do is say, “Well, it should go to committee. We’re trying to move it through quickly. We want it to go to committee to hear the voices of the people in this province.” And yet, more often than not, committee time is limited, the amount of time you have to actually put forth your name to be heard at committee is limited, and they only hear people here in Toronto.

Maybe they’re not familiar with Windsor. They should be. They had cabinet ministers for decades in Windsor. They should be well aware of where Windsor is located, but apparently they’re not.

Speaker, I know that you realize what a task it is to get from our area of the province to Toronto, how cumbersome that can be for some people. Some people think it’s only a four-hour drive—a four-hour drive, a long drive at that. Some days it can take six or seven hours to travel.

Speaker, I’m sure you’re well aware that down our way—actually, in your area—there was yet again an accident on the 401 that shut down that highway, that very dangerous stretch of highway, Carnage Alley, as it’s referred to, because they don’t have the barriers that they should have had years ago to protect the people from Chatham–Kent–Essex and Windsor. But people are tasked with getting on the road, especially this time of year, when weather can be—

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Unpredictable.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Unpredictable, thank you—when it can be unpredictable, and it can be a very dangerous drive to get here; or they have the cost of airfare, or they take the long train ride to get here. It’s unfair that the government wants to shut down debate in this House, in the chamber, and say that they want to move this into committee really fast so they can hear from the people of the province and, yet, often, they don’t travel the bills. They don’t take them down our way. They don’t take them down to Windsor to hear from people. They don’t take them down to Chatham to hear from the people down that way.

They don’t travel up north to hear from the people up that way. They put it on the people of the province to come here, and then say that they’re open to hearing from people.

So Speaker, I think it’s, frankly, shameful that we stand here yet again with the Liberal government trying to shut down debate on some incredibly important legislation that many people have some very serious questions and concerns over.

One of the things I want to talk about that that constituent of mine, Jon Liedtke, had brought forward was a piece in the bill that talks about cannabis dispensaries and the transportation of cannabis. He is a medical marijuana user. He has a licence; he has a prescription to be able to consume cannabis for some health concerns. An interesting piece that he brought to my attention is that there is a piece in the bill that is not entirely clear. It talks about how you cannot transport a prescribed substance.

It doesn’t say “cannabis.” It doesn’t say “prescribed cannabis.” It doesn’t say “medical marijuana.” It just says “prescribed substances.” You cannot transport those in your vehicle. His concern is not just that he won’t be able to go to a legal dispensary and pick up his medication, but does that mean that you and I can’t go to our pharmacy and pick up the prescriptions that our doctor has prescribed for us? This is a question he has, and yet we’re not going to get it answered here because the government wants to shut down debate. I’m not going to have an opportunity to bring forward all of his concerns.

When it goes to committee, if they limit committee, if they limit the amount of time people can actually put their name forward—we’ve seen it many times before, where it’s a very truncated process; there is very little time. By the time the government makes the decision of when people can actually put their names forward—that can happen in days; sometimes not even days, sometimes hours. It gets out to the public and they only have a very limited time to actually put their name forward.

So that information isn’t really out there broadly, and by the time people see that they can present, the window of opportunity has already closed. So people like John and others who have concerns about this bill won’t have an opportunity to come to committee and actually ask their government the questions that they have.

The other questions that have come out of my riding of Windsor West and the broader Windsor area are around the announcement that we will have a dispensary. The elected representatives in Windsor—the city councillors, the mayors and the council members in surrounding municipalities—weren’t really talked to about this; they weren’t really consulted about this. They didn’t know we were going to have a dispensary. They don’t know what it’s going to look like or where it’s going to be. How many dispensaries are we going to have? What is the delivery of that service going to really look like?

People in my riding want to know. When we’re talking about cannabis dispensaries, what is taxation going to look like on this cannabis that’s being dispensed through these dispensaries? They want to know. How do you get chosen to work? What’s the screening process to work in one of these dispensaries? Again, they want to know. How many are we going to have and where are they going to be located?

Without proper consultation with the elected representatives in a municipality, it really is a slap in the face to those that were elected to represent that particular municipality. It’s a slap in the face of the democratically elected city councillors, mayors, MPPs and MPs to not have those discussions, to not give them a heads-up: “Hey, we are looking at your city as possibly having a dispensary.” It’s a slap in the face to not have conversations with those municipalities and say, “Where exactly do you think the best place would be for this dispensary or for multiple dispensaries in your community? What do you think it should look like as we roll these particular dispensaries out?”

Once again, the government has made sweeping decisions without consultation, and now we find ourselves in a position where they have said their piece but they don’t want to consult with those of us that have been elected to bring the voice of our constituents to this House. This is something we’re seeing far too often. It’s not democratic. To say, “I have said my piece and now I’m going to shut down debate because I don’t want to hear from you”: They may as well put their fingers in their ears and go, “Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah; I’m not listening,” because that’s exactly what has happened.

We see it far too often. We just went through it yet again with back-to-work legislation. The government drops the ball. They don’t do their part when it comes to having a conversation, those tough conversations, and consulting and finding out how to make things better. They just come in and say, “We are all-knowing; we are all-seeing.” We should call the Liberal government the Wizard of Oz, because they hide behind a curtain, pretend to be something that they’re not. They pretend to be all-knowing and all-seeing. They know better than anybody else.

The sad thing is, it’s not just my constituents that have questions and concerns. It’s not just my colleagues here in the NDP caucus whose constituents have questions and concerns. It’s not just the Conservative caucus who have constituents that have questions and concerns. It’s the constituents of the Liberal government, the Liberal caucus. But what they are saying to their constituents is: “Your opinion doesn’t matter. Your concerns don’t matter. They only matter come election time, when we want your vote. But once we’re here, we don’t want to hear from you because we know better.” And that is wrong.

Here I stand talking about the fact that, yet again, the government wants to shut down debate on a very important piece of legislation. Once again, they’ve rolled something into that legislation—

Interjection.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yes, no pun intended—that they think they can go out to the public and say, “We’ve done something good”—and that’s the issue of cameras on school buses—“so just look at that. Don’t look at the fact that we don’t want to talk about the other pieces. Don’t look at the fact that we are shutting down debate and we don’t want to hear from you. We’ve done good.” That will be the spin. That will be the spin coming from this government: “We did something good, and the other parties, well, they had questions and concerns about that. Shame on them for questioning us.”

They like to do that. They like to point fingers over at this side of the House and say, “Shame on you for having questions and concerns.” Well, shame on them for trying to shut down the voices of our constituents by bringing forward time allocation motions like they have today and shutting down debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Well, thanks, Speaker. I was going to thank you for the opportunity to address Bill 174, but that’s what I would have said if this government didn’t pull the plug, preventing all but a handful of PC speakers from joining the bill debate.

Speaker, I want to tell you—and I don’t expect you to reply to me, because you can’t—guess how many PC caucus members were able to speak to Bill 174? Any guesses out there? Three. Guess how many NDP caucus members got to speak to Bill 174, any guess? Three. How many government members? A few more, because there are more of them, obviously—until, hopefully, June of next year—five. So we’ve got a total number of 11 MPPs who had an opportunity to speak to Bill 174, a massive, omnibus bill: three, six, and five—oh, and Jack just spoke, so that’s 12. Around 10% of Parliament here in the Legislature actually had an opportunity to speak to Bill 174 at second reading.

Now, if not for the government’s move to choke off debate, I would have told you that as transportation critic, I’m disappointed to be debating these serious Highway Traffic Act measures as part of a larger omnibus bill to usher in an era of pot sales at the CCBO. You see, I was already disappointed with this government’s approach. Today, I’m insulted at this government’s complete manipulation and corruption of legislative conventions and protocols. So instead of what I wanted to say, I will—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’ll withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continue.

Mr. Michael Harris: So instead of what I wanted to say, Speaker, I will tell you now that the Liberal government’s game plan to shut down debate is completely undemocratic and unacceptable.

Here is the Liberal government celebrating Bill 174 as its response to federal cannabis legislation and drug-impaired driving—this is serious stuff—and yet they won’t let the transportation critic speak to it, when they have crammed it full of Highway Traffic Act measures. The fact is, the government had already failed to provide a platform to properly debate and consider cannabis distribution in Ontario when they gave us a bill that they jammed full of Highway Traffic Act and other measures that should have no place in cannabis distribution and legislation.

Speaker, now that the time has come up, I would seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split Bill 174.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Order. The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has asked for unanimous consent to split Bill 174. I heard a no.

Please continue.

Mr. Michael Harris: Well, that’s a shame, Speaker. They have had multiple opportunities to do this, and it is unfortunate. But let’s be clear: The Liberal attempt to cloud the issue is to prevent proper focus and debate on important measures that have nothing to do with the production or distribution of cannabis. Today, we don’t even a chance to discuss the fact that the Liberals have crammed this bill with careless driving and distracted driving penalties and, of course, school bus camera legislation that we on this side of the House have been pushing for years.

I want to commend the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex on his multiple attempts to keep kids safe across the province. We’ve had multiple school years that started in September where we could have had this legislation already in place. I’ll tell you, when I pick up my kids, Murphy and Lincoln, from the bus, when I get a chance, there have been times when people have blown by that bus. It’s scary—scary—to think.

We can’t even call for the separation of key Highway Traffic Act measures the government failed to move forward on or support when proposed by, of course, PC opposition members, amending previous legislation, legislation that clearly dealt with the opening up of the Highway Traffic Act; we needed to insert these same measures in cannabis legislation that has little connection with the Highway Traffic Act. What in the world does school bus camera safety legislation—measures that should already be in place, by the way—have to do with the sale of cannabis? I’m hoping that the members opposite answer that question.

What in the world does school bus camera safety legislation have to do with the CCBO? I want to know. The answer—I’ll answer for them because they won’t—is pure politics. It was an obvious attempt to force our support without debate and politicize issues that have no business being politicized.

Today, we have an even further step towards shutting up the opposition before we even get a chance to be heard. Again, we are debating within a totalitarian regime where all opposing voices are silenced before they can be raised. It’s offensive, it’s disgusting, but you know it’s hardly surprising, as this has been about politics all along for them. It was politics when they failed to support these same measures at committee back in May, and it’s politics today.

Back in May, when I introduced an amendment to Bill 65, legislation that clearly already dealt with the opening of the Highway Traffic Act, the safe schools act, the Liberal members pulled every trick in the book to ensure we couldn’t talk about school bus cameras. Today, they’re pulling out all the stops to silence debate on Bill 174.

Not much, of course, has changed. I recall the member from Kitchener Centre immediately opposing my school bus camera motion—a motion that came from, of course, the bill put forward by the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex. I recall the member from Kitchener Centre immediately opposing my school bus camera motion, stating: “What Mr. Harris is discussing, school bus cameras, is outside the mandate, outside the scope, of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I would recommend that we say that this motion should not be submitted.”

That said, Speaker, I’m pleased to say that the Chair did not share her opinion, noting that “I did look very, very closely at the scope of the bill, and I found that there are similarities in the technology that is being proposed in this particular bill—the technological advances that have been made. I believe that it’s worthy of being discussed here.”

And then, before the debate had a chance to be completed, there was the member again trying to end the discussion. She went on by saying, “I’d like to suggest that we move on” before voting, both that day and in the subsequent committee hearing against these same school bus camera measures.

It’s hardly surprising, Speaker, as this was our fourth attempt—and you know that all too well—to instill the student safety that could be realized through the support of school bus cameras. Two private members’ bills they failed to move forward at committee and two separate amendments that they also failed to support. I can’t believe we’ve missed these opportunities to enhance student safety, only to have the Liberal members turn around and insert the measures in cannabis legislation that has little evident connection with the Highway Traffic Act.

Speaker, the safety of our communities, our students and our roads should never be used as a pawn to move the government’s agenda forward. The fact is that we’ve said from the start that we agree with many of these important measures, but jamming them all together on the omni-canna-bus prevents the proper due focus, consideration and debate that they deserve, and certainly that is deserving of the discussion surrounding pot distribution here in the province of Ontario. And now we don’t even get to have that discussion. It’s wrong, it’s undemocratic and it’s a contravention of proper procedure.

Instead of time allocating, we should be ensuring that we actually get this right. The fact is that this is a huge concern for all Ontarians. They’re depending on us to get it right. They see the potential for the oncoming wave of impaired drivers once the windows open at the CCBO and they want to know that government is there to ensure the safety of motorists, pedestrians and all who travel on our roads and sidewalks.

Recently, we were honoured to have a chance to be joined in the House by our safety partners, the CAA, and had a chance to discuss our concerns with the potential oncoming of cannabis legislation and drug-impaired driving. They too have done a lot of digging on this file. They’ve gone to their members, the motorists of Ontario, and from what they’re hearing, there is a growing and very serious concern as to what we have in store.

While these numbers haven’t been finalized yet during our meetings, the reps were noting that over 75% of those they spoke to were indicating road safety as a serious concern for them once cannabis is legalized, with around two thirds believing that cannabis-impaired driving will, in fact, become more frequent.

Speaker, that concern seems well warranted when you consider that two in five current marijuana users claim to have driven under the influence. Two in five, or basically 40% of those using marijuana climbing behind the wheel after ingesting cannabis: Those kinds of numbers only further underline the need for those of us in this House to ensure we get it right, to ensure we give these issues the focus and debate they deserve, to ensure the continued safety of motorists right across the province.

Anyone questioning the need for increased measures need only look south of the border, where the cannabis legalization route has meant increased accidents and further concerns over the impact of drug-impaired driving.

That’s why we have been calling for the separating out of key sections of this bill to give them the proper consideration they deserve. If you look at the federal government, they have separated Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, the legalization and the Criminal Code aspects of cannabis. New Brunswick: They get it. With their cannabis legislation, in that province, for example, they have five pieces of legislation to deal with the separate aspects of distribution, retail, use, impairment and awareness. That’s the way to do it: Separate the bills to give each aspect the focus and attention it deserves.

The Liberals should be doing the right thing: Quit the political game-playing and separate out the sections of the bill that have nothing to do with the production/selling of cannabis. But they don’t do the right thing. They don’t. In fact, this is completely the wrong thing, the wrong direction, the move of a dictatorial government that fails to respect the principles our democracy was in fact built on.

Speaker, again, I can’t express the depths of my frustration that we’re not given the opportunities to discuss these issues, as the Liberals have chosen to silence the debate. It’s completely wrong and it goes against the principles of informed debate on which all legislation should be formed.

I know I’ll be sharing the rest of our time with my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. I want to thank you, Speaker, for my shorter period of time that I had today, but I also want to note how very disappointed I am with what has gone on here. Shame on the Liberals.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a great privilege to stand here in my place and voice the concerns of the great people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

Unfortunately, today I stand here once again when the Liberal government is time-allocating and shutting down debate.

For those back home, what that basically means is—a lot of people have asked me in my riding, “Why do certain bills really get speedy movement, get into committee, versus the proper discussion that they rightfully are entitled to?” My explanation to them is: “Depending on what the issue is, and whatever suits the government of the day, they will time-allocate, which is what they’ve been doing.” What that does is, it really limits the opportunity for us as opposition members, as MPPs, all of us within this House who take our role as representatives of all of our communities and the people across this province in order to bring their voices and their views here across at Queen’s Park, in order to make the legislation better, in order to make it work, in order to enhance it, in order to make the right decisions so that we get it right when we roll it out.

I’m one of those individuals, as I’m sure are the other 105 who are with us, who takes their role as an MPP quite seriously. I enjoy the engagement that I have with my constituents back home in order to come in and have discussion. Often, I have stood in my place, or come to my desk, prepared to deliver those comments or bring those views in order to enhance legislation, only to be told that the axe was coming down and there was going to be no further debate on the legislation. I think it’s very important that I bring some of the concerns that have been brought through many discussions that I’ve had.

Let’s talk about this particular issue. Our critic gave the lead on this particular piece of legislation on Thursday of last week.

Interjection: Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thursday afternoon; thank you. Thursday afternoon. And here we are, Tuesday morning, axing the debate in order to rush this into committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about you, but this discussion has been going on for a heck of a long time. This is not something that just came out of the blue. We’ve been talking about legalizing this.

I personally know of instances where family members have actually benefited from having cannabis available to them. I can tell you of a loved one who was tragically suffering with cancer. With the treatment they were getting, they were having extreme difficulty absorbing the nutrients within their food. They were very nauseous. This wasn’t that long ago. We were successful in getting the cannabis product and we made them some foods. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Unfortunately, I lost that family member, but fortunately, his last dying days were a little bit more empathetic, were a little bit better, were a little bit more comfortable for him while he passed away.

There are, indeed, big benefits. Often, I go into classrooms and talk to students about this. I have been doing this for a very long time, especially when the federal government made the announcement about legalizing pot. Jeez, I remember the last provincial election; I was going door to door and people were wondering when it was going to get done then. Even prior to that, they were hoping. “If you’re going to legalize pot, put your sign on my lawn,” is what they would say.

It’s a greater discussion, especially with the students. A lot of them, when you’re sitting in their classrooms and you’re talking to these students, look at you and they say, “It’s an exciting thing.” All right, well, the exciting thing is now, yes, let’s have an adult conversation in regard to how we’re going to do this and the benefits. Let’s not just look at the recreational use of it, but let’s make sure that we get the utmost health benefits of it.

Ce qui fait que, nous voici ce matin. On est ici en train de discuter de la répartition du temps sur un projet de loi dont on parle depuis des années dans nos écoles, dans nos classes, dans nos villages, aux cafés. Juste jeudi passé, on a fait une décision. Notre critique a actuellement donné son discours sur le projet de loi. Nous voici déjà, ici aujourd’hui, et la répartition du temps est limitée. Mercredi, on va envoyer ça au comité et puis au comité on est supposé de faire de l’ouvrage dynamique. On est supposé d’améliorer le projet de loi. On est supposé de donner nos idées. On est supposé de tout faire.

Mais ce qui arrive c’est que le gouvernement libéral, avec la majorité, va prendre le projet de loi. On sait, d’après ce qu’on a vu par expérience, que les suggestions qui viennent des partis d’opposition ou du public ne sont pas nécessairement acceptées. Elles sont entendues, mais on n’agit pas sur les idées qui sont données. Ce qui fait que le gouvernement va prendre son rôle. Les discussions vont se passer relativement bien. Puis, deux jours : le 29 novembre de 4 h à 6 h, deux heures; le 30 novembre de 9 h à 10 h 15 et puis de 2 h à 6 h. On parle d’un sujet qu’on cherche à implémenter depuis des années, et on ne se donne que cette période de temps-là?

Je veux vous laisser savoir que dans ma région, il y a plusieurs communautés qui cherchent à avoir le service. Comme je disais dans mon discours, il y a beaucoup d’améliorations, il y a beaucoup de bénéfices qui peuvent venir de la vente de cannabis. Mais voici la réalité pour les gens du Nord : peut-être qu’un centre va venir à Sudbury; peut-être qu’un centre va venir à Sault-Sainte-Marie. La réalité est que si tu es à Manitouwadge, à Hornepayne, à Meldrum Bay ou à Gore Bay, tu es à quatre heures des centres où tu peux recevoir le cannabis—quatre heures. Ça, c’est la réalité dans le Nord.

Attends un peu, là, monsieur le Président : il y a eu une suggestion pour améliorer la situation. On va rendre les produits disponibles sur les services Internet. Voici une autre réalité de la vie dans le Nord : il y a plusieurs communautés qui n’ont pas Internet, qui n’y ont pas accès.

Coudonc, je le sais, moi : j’ai une communauté à Dubreuilville où les étudiants qui sont encore à l’école pour faire leurs devoirs n’ont pas accès à un service fiable. Ils n’ont pas accès pour simplement faire leurs devoirs. Pourquoi? Parce que le service est inondé et puis les améliorations qui sont nécessaires ne sont pas en train de se faire. Pourquoi? À cause du fait que la compagnie qui donne les services détermine que : « Non, on n’a pas assez de services ou d’allocations, ce qui fait que ça ne justifie pas les investissements qu’on a besoin de faire pour vous donner l’Internet nécessaire. »

Ça, c’est la réalité dans le Nord. Est-ce qu’on a eu des discussions avec les communautés autochtones? Je peux vous dire, monsieur le Président, qu’il y a beaucoup de « concernes », beaucoup de problèmes, et des suggestions, aussi, qui sont sortis des communautés autochtones. Les chefs des communautés autochtones sont tous ici à Toronto cette semaine pour avoir des discussions sur la santé de leurs communautés, leurs besoins, la santé mentale et puis tout ce dont ils ont besoin pour leurs communautés, et est-ce qu’on a pris les étapes nécessaires pour avoir les discussions avec eux?

Encore, je reviens au point que j’ai dit : pourquoi est-on en train de fermer la porte à la discussion sur un sujet sur lequel on a tellement besoin de temps pour discuter?

C’est vraiment désastreux et puis c’est vraiment un problème qu’on a du point de vue du gouvernement libéral. On doit faire certain de prendre toutes les chances qu’on a pour que tous les coins de la province aient la chance de participer dans le débat et de donner leurs idées, et que le projet de loi soit amélioré.

Speaker, I just want to come back to a point that I had made earlier. It was just on Thursday of last week that our lead was given on this bill, and this morning, we hear from the Liberal government that debate will collapse—or they will shut down debate, I should say—and we’re going to get two days to debate a piece of legislation on which a discussion has been going on for years in this province with regard to how we should be doing it and if we want to do it.

And let me be clear: We’re very much in favour of doing this. That bothers me even more: Why are we rushing this? There is no obstruction that is being done by the opposition members. We want to see this bill move forward. I highlighted some of the benefits of having cannabis available in a personal situation that I alluded to earlier in my speech, Mr. Speaker. The benefits are there, but there are also some concerns in regard to how the access is going to be made, where it’s going to be made available, how it’s going to be available, how many of these stores, where these stores are going to be, and what you’re going to do when you travel with it.

We need that time, but two days is what we have: Wednesday, November 29, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and then on Thursday, November 30, from 9 a.m. to 10:15, a whole hour and 15 minutes, and then again in the afternoon from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., another four hours.

Next week—we talked about this last Thursday. We’ve been talking about this for years and now, today, we’re going to shut it down and we’re going to shove it down Ontarians’ throats. Why? Because the Liberal government knows best.

What I alluded to also earlier is that my constituents who are in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin have some great concerns. Maybe in this legislation we’re going to get a dispensary centre in Sudbury. Maybe we’re going to get a dispensary centre in Sault Ste. Marie. We’re not sure yet, but maybe.

Here’s the reality that a lot of my constituents who want and know and need access to cannabis face. If you are in Hornepayne, if you’re in Manitouwadge, if you’re in Gore Bay, you are not going to travel four hours—if not five, depending on the winter road conditions that we have, and that’s a whole other discussion that we’re going to have another day—to get access to this cannabis, to get access to the product, to get access to a better way of life in order to ease the pains that you have.

Again, I am very much in favour. I know I’ve experienced it personally. I have seen it with family members who have gone through so much pain when they are on their last days suffering from cancer treatments and how cannabis can actually enhance and help people retain their foods so that they can get some type of energy and move on. I have seen the benefits of it. I have personally witnessed it and many of us in this room have as well.

Why are we rushing this? Why are we not given the opportunity to have a greater discussion about this?

I know that when I go into my schools and talk to students across this province and engage with them—this is an exciting thing for those children, for different reasons. They heard from the federal government campaign four years ago, “We’re going to legalize pot.” It’s a funny discussion to have among students in the classroom, but then you sit down with them and take the time to have a serious adult discussion with those students, their eyes and their minds opened up, especially when you share a personal story of the benefits that could come from this.

But then there are the important issues that you need to deal with: the legalization, the access, the procedures, the dispensary centres. How are you going to tax this? How is that going to help? Where do we go? How do we get it?

These are all questions that a lot of people have, and they’re giving us two days to figure that one. We’ve had a discussion about this for years, and in two days they’re going to ram this down our throats and, “We think we know best, and we’re going to get it done.”

When I talk from my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin—and I wish we would have had more time. I wish I wouldn’t be talking about shutting down debate on this particular piece of legislation, because there are a lot of people who have a lot to offer and a lot to say about this. Unfortunately, here we are. Here we are, once again, where the Liberal government has decided to shut down debate on an important issue that affects not only some but all Ontarians. That’s very disappointing.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: I was so wanting the government to stand up and tell us the reason why they’re bringing in time allocation on Bill 174, the Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, one week after they introduced it and debate began in the Legislature. That is undemocratic. That is so wrong on so many levels.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Hear, hear.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, we have to tell more people because they should be revolting at this government’s lack of consultation and lack of democracy on two very important statutes. It’s really inconceivable what they’ve done. I am just beginning to hear from my constituents in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock on a lot of the pieces of this bill. This bill is not a small bill. It involves a lot of pieces of legislation. I’m going to speak later about the number of situations that they’re going to force people to be in, especially the community safety people within our communities, to protect the general public on the cannabis laws that are so quickly being rushed through this Legislature.

The first thing that bothers me on this side of the House, besides the jamming through of so many measures in the bill that go way beyond the scope of cannabis, is the community safety issue. Building on this omnibus bill is very, very cynical. “Omnibus” means that there are a whole bunch of changes to pieces of legislation crammed in a bill that is not going to be debated properly and thoroughly. It’s actually disrespectful to the Legislature and to us who are trying to represent the people of our ridings and the citizens of Ontario in general.

Our front-line officers, for example, have been screaming about the fact that they’re rushing legislation through, both federally—I know that the feds have mandated that the provinces bring in cannabis legislation—

Hon. Bill Mauro: There you go.

Ms. Laurie Scott: But you’ve known this for a little bit of time, the minister I speak to over there. You’ve known this for a little bit of time. You need to listen to what the police are saying about how this is going to be rushed through so quickly. They’re not going to be able to train their members that fast.

Mr. Speaker, I know you, as the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex, had brought in a bill that aims at establishing serious consequences for drivers who pass school buses with stop signs and flashing lights. It includes the installation of cameras on school buses to crack down on dangerous drivers. It’s a great bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What has that got to do with cannabis?

Ms. Laurie Scott: It’s a great bill. In fact, there was another bill, I believe earlier this year, that your bill could have been brought into. It was school transportation safety or a transportation safety bill.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They wouldn’t put that in there?

Ms. Laurie Scott: They wouldn’t put that in that bill. It made sense for that to be enveloped in there. But they didn’t do that.

Instead, they are tucking it into this piece of legislation about cannabis, about the Highway Traffic Act—talk about inappropriate, talk about mismanagement of government legislation. That is a glaring example of how—the private member’s bill for school bus safety could have been folded in and brought in earlier. How many school seasons have passed since it was first introduced? They’re neglecting the safety of students.

This bill, with changes to both the Highway Traffic Act and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act—obviously, unrelated to the distribution and sale of recreational cannabis. They deserve to be debated on their own. The fact that this bill is even dealing with one of these issues would be a lot to handle. Now we have two major pieces of legislation thrown into an omnibus bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice to split—

Interjections.

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

This question with regard to unanimous consent has already been dealt with in this House.

I’ll refer back to the member for further debate.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, we’ve had so much concern, and all of us on this side of the Legislature should try to have this bill split. I don’t agree with your ruling, but I appreciate the fact of your ruling, and I will abide by it and continue on.

I’m going to talk a little bit about electronic cigarettes, which is a new policy area. The science around e-cigarettes is still developing. It would be wise to listen to a wide array of experts on this topic.

I spoke to two of my constituents on Friday—talk about upset; they’re having a great deal of concern. They’ve been working with the federal government on Bill S-5.

The federal government separated sections in the Tobacco Act. This government is trying to treat the vaping

section as part of tobacco, but it is completely different. The feds have recognized vaping products to be completely different, and they’ve been working with Health Canada for a long time to get this right. They’ve actually built businesses—and here’s the thing: We want vaping. We want people to leave tobacco. Is that not the healthy thing that we’re trying to do?

The government has spent an inordinate amount of money in trying to do smoking cessation. Vaping has great opportunities there, and you’ve seen the results already.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, actually, we haven’t.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Actually, there has been some—

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, I’ll send it over to you when I get it. I don’t have it right here in my written notes—as I was talking to them.

Health Canada spent a lot of time and they separated it.

The fact is that with e-cigarettes, they have to go into a store, they have to get a flavour that matches their taste—this is a very appropriate approach. They need to test, they need to pick the flavours. If they have a product they like, that helps them stay off tobacco, stay off smoking. Stores that want to do that will probably have to close, and the manufacturing to go with this will probably have to close.

They mentioned that Manitoba actually got it right. So I say to the minister, why don’t you look at other provinces that are doing that? Right now, both my manufacturers and my stores feel like they’re going to close down, and they’re there for harm reduction for people who want to stop smoking.

The most common age group is 40-year-olds who have smoked for a while and who want to get off smoking. They feel it actually goes against their charter rights for harm reduction.

The NHS have great studies over in England. They want regulations; they don’t disagree with that—but not to be considered like tobacco.

I thank those constituents for the education that I received in that on Friday. I know the member from Huron–Bruce just got an email from Alex Dunn—

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Well, I say to the minister: Let them have a chance to go to committee, through the process. You’re giving them only seven and a quarter hours to come into committee, and that’s everybody: That is the police. That is the CAA. That is everybody that has concerns with these two big pieces of legislation—

Mr. John Yakabuski: All across Ontario—14 million people.

Ms. Laurie Scott: —and yes, as my colleague says, everyone from across Ontario. How are they going to travel in so quickly because you are ramming this legislation through on time allocation? Seven and a quarter hours isn’t even a full working day.

It is unconscionable that this government, on this type of legislation which should be separated to start with, is cramming this through in such a very tight timeline. But the government likes their legislative tricks, and they won’t give the people of Ontario the chance to express their opinions on so many issues. And they should listen to them because we don’t believe they have this legislation right—not even close—and it is huge. So it’s all about politics. They’re pushing it through. The people of Ontario—no question—deserve better.

My colleague from Lennox and Addington already tabled a motion to split the three schedules into separate bills, because what possible reason is there to consider changes to the Highway Traffic Act in

schedule 4 and the changes to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act alongside cannabis? It doesn’t make sense. As I mentioned before, we’re being forced to rush this legislation through.

The simple truth is, there’s no way this government can be trusted to get the cannabis control issue right in a way that protects community safety. I want to give you an example here. I hosted a press conference last week where the Ontario Convenience Stores Association presented a 10-year study showing an alarming and consistent increase in the use of contraband tobacco, which is distributed by organized crime. What that shows us is that the government is failing to protect Ontarians and to control illegal distribution of this unregulated product that is harmful to health and is spreading among our youth.

Today, contraband tobacco products are more accessible than ever. The Wynne government has been totally ineffective in enforcing our laws. If they can’t even manage the contraband tobacco issue properly, how can we trust them to properly implement the new cannabis regime?

That was brought out quite clearly in the press conference. They’ve seen an increase in contraband use. They don’t know what chemical products are in those cigarettes that are made somewhere and then sold—and I know that, in all our communities in Ontario, there’s somebody’s trunk that’s open and they’re selling contraband tobacco, which is not regulated with guidelines, as I said—the chemicals that are in it. It’s affecting our young people. The increase in smoking in young people is increasing.

If they won’t deal with that major issue—and that’s a huge issue for tax revenues and it’s a huge issue for convenience stores’ viability. Seven stores a week are closing. It is horrific. I have been here speaking about this for over 10 years, and still this government has not done appropriate management of contraband tobacco. They even gave the example of the province of Quebec and what they are doing and what a difference that has made. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are examples out there that this government can follow on contraband tobacco.

I’m especially troubled, as community safety critic, to hear the warnings from our police forces about their lack of resources to meet the July 2018 deadline for legalization of cannabis. As OPP Deputy Commissioner Rick Barnum recently told a federal committee hearing, “If legislation is ready to go July 2018, policing will not be ready to go August 1. It’s impossible.” I repeat, “It’s impossible.” So why is it that this government insists on pushing forward in such an irresponsible way when our police are so clear in their opposition? As I said, this legislation—the debate started last week, for heaven’s sake.

We have hardly had a chance to debate. There are so few members—I have the list: only three of us on the PC side, three on the NDP, five government and one independent have spoken to this massive bill.

Deputy Commissioner Barnum estimated that the police will need six to eight months from the time the provincial legislation is in place before they’ll be ready to enforce the new laws. He also said that the OPP has only 83 officers who are trained to recognize drug-impaired driving, and estimates they will need up to 500 officers to properly enforce the law. How does the government intend to close this massive gap? You can’t ignore what they’re saying. Are they just going to throw our police services under the bus, as they so often like to do? They so often like to throw the police under the bus, so we see this repeated again.

They just don’t get how serious the public safety risks are around this approaching deadline. They’re clueless about the resources our police officers will need to tackle drug-impaired driving, which will impose huge new costs on police forces and municipalities.

Why has the Premier so far been silent on this issue? Why won’t she commit to supporting policing in dealing with this heavy financial burden? The deadline is coming, whether we like it or not, but the least the government could do is to reassure police that they have the funding they need for training and an essential roadside test for impaired driving.

Unfortunately, this government showed us with Bill 175, the police services act—which is also on the order paper, which I fear they may bring time allocation on also and speed it through—that they simply do not have respect for our front-line police officers. It’s shameful. We shall wait to see next week, because the police services act, although they just introduced it a couple of weeks ago and we just started debate last week—will that be under the same cloud of time allocation—rush debate, rush committee, get it through before the middle of December without listening to the consequences of that bill?

Another major concern I have in this bill is the lack of public education focused on our youth. I’ve heard from many parents who are concerned about the increased availability of cannabis and how it will affect their children.

Mr. John Yakabuski: With no corresponding education for youth.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Where’s the education? It is so important to be proactive and to educate our youth so that they can make informed decisions regarding cannabis use. New Brunswick’s legislation, for example, establishes a stand-alone fund to promote youth education, to ensure they are well-informed on use and abuse, and the effects of cannabis on health. There’s nothing like that here. I don’t hear the government speaking about that. I hear lots of parents concerned about it.

There has been study after study about the brain’s development and how we have to be very cautious. The brain is still developing up to 25 years of age, so—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Mine’s still developing.

Ms. Laurie Scott: The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has some questions about his brain development still ongoing—so maybe you shouldn’t approach the cannabis topic. But the government is simply failing Ontarians, parents and youth.

The government has been very irresponsible in their approach to Bill 174. Each of the topics in the bill is complex, in many cases completely unrelated to others. Each deserves to be properly debated. It’s always a very sad day when the government abuses its majority to bundle together a bunch of unrelated measures into a single bill—and now to end even the limited amount of debate we have. It’s opportunistic. It’s undemocratic.

Yet again, copying another colleague’s private member’s bill and stuffing it into a bunch of unrelated legislation just adds to the cynicism for this government. As I said, how can they be denying school bus safety, Mr. Speaker? It’s so inappropriate. The least they can do if they have any respect for this Legislature and for the people of Ontario is to support our motion to separate Bill 174 into three separate bills, so the measures can be properly and thoroughly debated in this place. I won’t be holding my breath, and I should probably stop speaking because I know another couple of members—oh, I’ve only got a couple of minutes anyway, I guess, Mr. Speaker, before you call the deadline.

There were lots of opportunities that the government could have used to make this legislation better. They needed to take the time. I realize that the federal government is mandating the provinces for a July 1, 2018, implementation of cannabis, but this topic was coming. They knew it in the federal election over two years ago. They could have been doing more to consult with people. Obviously other provinces have. When I gave the examples of New Brunswick, Alberta and Manitoba—they’ve done it, and Quebec is starting to put out implementation.

I didn’t agree with the federal government that they should download to the provinces to make a patchwork—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time, unfortunately, is now 10:15. This House will stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would the members please join me in welcoming a special guest in the Speaker’s gallery, the former MPP for Niagara South during the 36th Parliament, MPP for Erie–Lincoln during the 37th and 38th Parliaments, MPP for Niagara West–Glanbrook during the 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments, and leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s the first time, in my almost seven years, of heckling for introducing somebody.

Interjection: But it was friendly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wow. Let’s continue with the introduction of guests. The member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to welcome the Ontario Real Estate Association to Queen’s Park, and a special welcome to realtors who are here representing the great riding of Oxford. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome realtors all the way from Timmins. Imagine that, being such a far distance and coming down here to meet with us. Good friends all, we meet on regular occasions: Michel Blais, Marc Leroux and Anne Marie Vaillancourt.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I, too, want to acknowledge people here from the Ontario Real Estate Association today and all the realtors who were here this morning for the MPP breakfast meeting with a number of members. I just want to give them a big welcome and thank them for being at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like welcome a couple of realtors as well from the Bancroft and District Real Estate Board: Cheryl Budarick and Dana Yonemitsu. Welcome, all the way from Bancroft.

Miss Monique Taylor: I had a wonderful meeting this morning with the Ontario Real Estate Association and I would like to welcome some guests. We have George O’Neill, Louis Piriano, Kathy Della-Nebbia, Valerie Webster and Nicolas von Bredow. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’d like to welcome Roger Bouma and Wendy Giroux, who are here today with the Ontario Real Estate Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome realtors from Parry Sound–Muskoka—Debbie Gilbert, Crystal Henderson, David Reid and Debbie Vernon—who are in the members’ west gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome as well from the Ontario Real Estate Association three people from Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario: Barry Lynch, Randi Cameron and, Speaker, a gentleman who is a great, great friend to both of my parents, who are both former realtors from Thunder Bay, Bob Pfaff, in the members’ east gallery. Thanks for joining us.

Mr. Ross Romano: I too want to welcome a couple of members of the Ontario Real Estate Association here from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Those are Kimberly Clouthier and Andrea Gagne. Kimberly actually was one of our pages not too long ago as well, I believe I heard. Thank you very much for being here today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: From the London St. Thomas real estate association I’m really pleased to welcome Costa Poulopoulos, John Geha, Jeff Nethercott, Eavan Travers and Chad Lovell. Welcome to you all.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today some former staff members of mine and some former PC staff members: Matt Thornton, Adam Yahn, Jamie Hofing, Larissa Smit and Chris Dacunha. They are joined by their OREA colleague Lindsay Stevens.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I would like to welcome Henry Spiteri and Mike Douglas from my riding of Barrie who are hear today with the Ontario Real Estate Association.

I would also like to welcome my constituency assistant, Brian MacKay.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I too want to recognize a realtor from my hometown of North Bay and a good friend of mine and my wife, Patty, Steve Kotan.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us today in the east members’ gallery are Devranie, Michael and Farah Persaud, the family of Arianne Persaud, who is my legislative assistant. I would like to welcome them to the Legislature and also thank them for raising such a great young lady who works every single day to make sure that this Legislature is in good hands.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome Glenn and Lucy Thorel, who will be joining us later during question period. They’re not here yet, but they will be here soon.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to welcome from the Ontario Real Estate Association, from Milton, Oakville and Burlington, realtors Aziz Kanjee, Jack McCrudden, Tamer Fahmi and Stephanie Lai. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming the provincial director for central Ontario for the Ontario Real Estate Association, Bradley Mayer-Harman.

I would also like to congratulate Chris Dacunha, who has recently gotten engaged.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a warm welcome to Barb Guiden, Christianne Elizabeth Newton, Sylvie Marie Deshaies and Colleen Marie Emmerson from the Ontario Real Estate Association board; as well as a warm welcome to Tim Hudak and Lindsay Stevens, the government relations person for the Ontario Real Estate Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce William Ballard and Stan Reljic—who also met with Jim Wilson—Karen Cox, Dawn-Lee McKenzie, Mike Revell and Gail McCartney.

I heard Tim Hudak was in the House. Welcome.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’m pleased to introduce this morning, in the east gallery at the lower level, the president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, Patrick Daly. At the same time I’d like to introduce the director of legislation and political affairs for the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, Stephen Andrews.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Patrick Daly is perhaps the longest-serving president/chair of a school board, having done that for 23 years now.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome today Mike Gibbons and Barb Phillips. They are here representing the Chatham-Kent real estate board. Congratulations for being here, and thank you.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am also pleased to welcome realtors from my area of Durham region. Roger Bouma and Wendy Giroux are here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome grade 5 students from my riding. The school is the St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School. Welcome here.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I, too, wish to welcome representatives from the Ontario Real Estate Association who are here representing our great riding of Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Grant Crack: Good morning. I’m pleased to rise today to welcome Mark Brock, who is the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario.

On behalf of Minister Leal, I would like to invite all caucus and staff from all three parties to join us at a special reception hosted by the grain farmers, to take place this evening in committee room 230 at 5 p.m. to celebrate 150 years of grain farming here in Ontario. Hope to see you there.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Corporal Kylie Peterson from CFB Borden. Corporal Peterson has been granted leave for the day to watch the proceedings in order to complete a class she is taking. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I would like to welcome her and thank Corporal Peterson for her service to our country.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to ask members to join me in welcoming the students of Bayview Glen in the west gallery today. They’re incredible students, and I look forward to seeing them at their school on Friday. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Grant Crack: I would be remiss if I didn’t wish my seatmate a very happy birthday today. She won’t tell me how old she is; I can only guess.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Happy birthday.

Hon. David Zimmer: Today Olivia McCormick, whose parents are constituents in Willowdale, is the page captain. Olivia is here with her mother, Carmelina, and her sister Norah.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Ajax–Pickering.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I said your riding.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to mention this morning that page captain Emma Fischer’s father, David Fischer, is here in the audience. We welcome him back one more time.

I should correct myself at the same time: The gentleman who is chair of the Catholic board has been that for 26 years.

Earthquake victims

Hon. Reza Moridi: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence before question period as a sign of this House’s condolences for the victims of the devastating earthquake in Iran and Iraq this past week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Are we finished with introductions? Seeing that we’re finished with introductions, the minister is seeking unanimous consent for a moment of silence for those who have perished and suffered under the earthquake. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all people to please rise in respect for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): May God rest their souls. Thank you.

I would also like to thank real estate agents from the riding of Brant for joining us. I appreciate their input.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report on the nuclear refurbishment plan from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Research completed by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers really shines a light on the mismanagement of Ontario’s electricity system. They pored over data issued by the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board.

What was revealed was wildly disappointing. It showed that the province exported electricity at a net financial loss of up to $1.25 billion—with a “b.” That’s $1.25 billion.

Mr. Speaker, yes or no, will the Premier confirm: Did the Liberal government lose almost $1.25 billion exporting power?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s look at the facts. The fact is that all jurisdictions import and export electricity to the benefit of their ratepayers. That’s actually how the system works. Ontario is no different, with the IESO estimating that electricity exports reduce costs for Ontarians by hundreds of millions of dollars—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It sounds to me like I’m going to have to pick up where I left off, and I will.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just reinforce that: that the IESO estimates that electricity exports reduce costs for Ontarians by hundreds of millions of dollars every year—so those are cost savings. This net benefit to Ontario was $236 million last year. That’s a net benefit to the people of Ontario because of taking

part in importing and exporting electricity to the benefit of their ratepayers.

On top of regular trade, we also pursue firm agreements wherever it makes sense to ratepayers in the province. I know that the Minister of Energy will want to speak more to this in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: The government is saying that the experts, the engineers, are wrong, and they know better. This Liberal spin is ridiculous. It’s like costing $20 to make a pizza, selling eight slices at $1 apiece and saying you’re making money. It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd. You’re not making money.

We just wanted the government to come clean here this morning and start to tell the truth on this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Careful of how you word making an accusation.

Mr. Todd Smith: Okay, so sure, the government found an export partner, but OSPE’s numbers here are staggering. The numbers from the engineers are staggering. We’re subsidizing power for Michigan, New York and other neighbouring jurisdictions, and to make matters worse, they’re poaching our jobs because they’re taking our electricity at a low cost.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier admit that this government lost over $1 billion exporting power?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. We’re now in warnings. You got what you asked for.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: It is important to note that today Ontario is a net exporter of power. In 2016, the net benefit of those exports to ratepayers was $236 million, as estimated by the independent system operator. These benefits translate into reduced costs to the ratepayers—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Since 2013, the net benefit of our exports has been over $1 billion in savings to Ontario ratepayers. Before, back in the early 2000s, Ontario used to be an importer of electricity. What was the result? That was when our system was dependent on unreliable and expensive electricity from neighbouring jurisdictions, often forcing us to overpay for electricity. Now, Mr. Speaker, we’re making money, and we’re making sure we put that back into the system to keep costs down for the ratepayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, this political spin is absurd. These numbers don’t lie. They come from the engineers here in Ontario. In 2016, the province exported a total of 21.9 terawatt hours of electricity at a net financial loss of more than $500 million. Most of this was clean, green energy, spilling over the dams at Niagara Falls and other hydroelectric facilities across the province.

The engineers noted that over the last few years, the total exports represent nearly enough electricity to power every home in Ontario for an entire year. That’s the legacy of the mismanagement on the electricity file from the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, how can this government continue to gouge electricity customers at the same time they’re exporting enough electricity, at a loss, to power every home in the province?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I know that the member opposite used the word “legacy,” so let’s talk about their legacy when it comes to electricity. In 2002 and 2003, Ontario paid $900 million to import electricity. From 1996 to 2003, overall installed—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: From 1996 to 2003, overall installed generation capacity fell 6%. That’s like running Niagara Falls dry. At the same time, demand grew by 8%. That’s their legacy.

Our legacy? Rebuilding a system, making it clean, making it reliable, and bringing forward the fair hydro plan, which makes it affordable. We’ll continue to make sure that we keep the best interests of Ontario ratepayers in hand. They’ll continue to misinform those ratepayers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: You’re going down, down, down.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’d better not make eye contact with me.

The member will withdraw.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’ll withdraw.

Energy policies

Mr. Todd Smith: Again my question is for the Premier. The bad-news stories on the electricity file come as fast as the water flows over Niagara Falls. The Ontario PCs believe in green, clean, renewable power. What we don’t believe in is selling it to Michigan and New York at a loss.

Let’s be a little more specific. We have great made-in-Ontario power: hydroelectric. But last year, the Liberals allowed 4.7 terawatt hours of hydroelectric power to be wasted in Ontario, including the station at Niagara Falls. It’s the equivalent of powering nearly 500,000 homes for a year. Mr. Speaker, how did the government mismanage the system so poorly that we’re letting green hydroelectric power, made in Ontario, be shipped across the border at such a significant loss?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Let’s talk about what they’re claiming, Mr. Speaker. They like to claim that power is wasted when water is spilled at hydroelectric generating stations. This just shows how little they know about the system. An advantage of our clean, reliable and flexible system that we have built is that we’re able to procure energy on an as-needed basis. This means that we only use the electricity that is produced at the cheapest cost at that time. Any time a generator is not producing electricity, it is because there were cheaper options available at that time.

This means that a hydro facility will generate power when it can offer it into the market at a low price, and it is not used when it offers too expensive power—

Interjections.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker—which begs the question, do the PCs really think we should be running these generators at a higher cost to Ontario ratepayers? Probably so. Maybe they’ll do that this weekend when they come up with—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, what we really need to do here is take the cookie jar off that minister’s desk, because he has made a mockery of our electricity system in Ontario. It has made a complete mess of our Ontario electricity system.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Education is warned.

Mr. Todd Smith: Speaker, to make matters worse, I just want to reiterate that Ontario exported 21.9 terawatt hours of electricity at a net financial loss of up to $1.25 billion. That number represents more than two million homes’ worth of electricity that Ontario has sold to neighbouring jurisdictions for a price less than what it costs to produce.

What does the Premier say, what does the minister say to those two million electricity customers in Ontario who have to overpay so you can subsidize power to our neighbouring jurisdictions that are poaching our jobs at the same time?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: What do I say to all of the two million customers that he was talking about? They voted against reducing their rates by 25%. That’s what I would say to them. They have no plan on actually helping them, Mr. Speaker, and we do.

When it comes to net benefits of the export system, every jurisdiction imports and exports electricity. We did so at the net benefit of $236 million in 2016. We did the same in 2015, the same in 2014 and the same in 2013. Go back and talk about their legacy. They were importing power at the cost of $700 million a year and doing it at the same time when we actually saw our use increase 127% on coal.

We’ve actually shut down coal. When it comes to a legacy, we’ve got clean air, we’ve got a reliable system, and we’re working on making this system more and more affordable. On that side of the House—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Once again, Speaker, we have a Minister of Energy ignoring the advice of the experts in the energy sector for his own political spin, his own political messaging. If any other company or business sold their excess product at a loss of $1.25 billion, do you know what would happen to them, Speaker? They’d be fired. They’d be out of a job immediately. There’s no way they would keep their job, yet this government has the audacity to tell everyone how great they are. Everybody can see through this. They’ve made a mockery of our energy sector. This waste in the system deserves an apology.

Speaker, will the Premier apologize for signing energy contracts that we don’t need and selling energy at a loss for up to $1.25 billion at the same time?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, let’s look at the facts. The facts are—and they still matter in Ontario—$236 million in net benefit to Ontario ratepayers, which since 2013 have been a net benefit of our exports of over $1 billion in savings to Ontario ratepayers.

Let’s talk about our trade with our electricity system. It’s managed by experts, by our system experts, our system operator. It’s the market that determines the price of electricity, and we only export electricity when the trade is of benefit to Ontario ratepayers.

Our government will continue to participate in the electricity market, increasing the reliability and the cost-effectiveness of our system. We’ll continue to work with all of our partners, all of our neighbours, all of our system operators and the experts to make sure that we have the best—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

New question.

College students

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, this Liberal government said students who decide to withdraw from college because of the strike will receive a full tuition refund. This has created confusion for students about whether they have to withdraw from college completely or just from the semester.

Students have lives outside of class. They may work full-time; they may have kids. They need to know whether getting a tuition refund and restarting the semester in January is an option.

Speaker, can this government assure college students that they can withdraw from the semester, get a full tuition refund and be guaranteed a fresh start in January?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Throughout the strike, I have spent time talking to student leaders, talking to students, understanding what issues they were facing. Getting a tuition refund was an important priority for students, and that’s why I was very pleased to announce that students who withdraw as a result of the strike are entitled to a tuition refund.

Interjection: Very fair.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think that’s fair. In fact, it goes above and beyond what many considered to be fair.

To answer the member opposite’s question: This applies to students who withdraw. They of course can come back. Not every college program has a January re-entry, so it will depend on the program and the college.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): . Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: For a student going to college anywhere in Ontario, but especially in Toronto, a $500 hardship rebate doesn’t even cover a month’s rent. Add rent onto additional child care cost, lost hours of work, textbooks that may barely be used, penalties for cancelling flights home and the many other—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is warned.

Finish, please.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: —and the many other out-of-pocket expenses that students have incurred in over the last five weeks, and $500 becomes more of a joke than a solution for some students.

Why is this Premier not offering effective help for Ontario college students?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say, this is a rather bizarre question coming from a party that rejected every opportunity to get students back to school more quickly. In fact, that’s the party that said that if they had been in power, the strike would go on for as long as it took. So that’s a pretty bizarre question, to now be concerned about students’ expenses when last week they were not concerned about students one little bit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, $500 is not nearly enough to compensate students for what they have lost during the five-week strike. For some, cramming five weeks of missed content into two weeks is just not possible.

Imagine a busy working mom going to college part-time to get a better life, balancing kids and a 9 to 5 job. She hardly had enough time for course work before the five-week strike, and now, with the holidays approaching, the Premier is asking her to find even more time to cram five weeks of learning into two.

Instead of creating more confusion and chaos for students, why isn’t this Liberal government offering a program that actually responds to the financial hardships, the personal realities and the emotional stress that students have experienced over the last five weeks?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I absolutely acknowledge the stress that students were experiencing during the strike and will continue to. We are very happy students are back at work today and we are stepping up to support them as they do complete their semester.

So, Speaker, every college has established a dedicated fund to support students for additional costs that they incur as a result of the strike; for many students, those courses will go into January. There will be additional costs borne by students, and this fund has been established. In certain circumstances, colleges have discretion to grant more than that.

In addition, for students currently receiving OSAP, OSAP will be extended to help them if the course goes longer—if the program goes longer into January. Thirdly, we very much want to support students to complete their semester, but those who choose to withdraw will have a full tuition refund.

Labour dispute

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Premier: Despite her minister’s assertions, it is the Premier’s inaction that prolonged this strike for five weeks. Last night she told students who were angry that she did not get involved sooner, that “she was acting on advice that she was given.”

Well, I’m not sure where the Premier gets her advice, but sections 4 and 5 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act give the Premier every right to involve herself in college business if it’s in the public interest.

Maybe the Premier can tell us: What was it about a five-week strike coming to a fair resolution that wasn’t in the public interest?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, it’s interesting that the NDP is continuing to refer to that

section of legislation. What they have failed to understand is there is another piece of legislation that overrides that, that does not allow government to interfere with the collective bargaining process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once it became clear that the parties could not reach an agreement, that they were at a deadlock, Speaker, we did commit to act. We used every opportunity to quickly pass legislation that would get students back in the classroom, but the NDP blocked it every single time they had the opportunity. On Thursday, we sought unanimous consent to introduce legislation; that was denied by the NDP. On Friday, we introduced legislation, and then required unanimous consent to debate the legislation the same day. Again the NDP blocked the motion over and over; they repeatedly—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The Premier also told students last night that she will be looking into whether or not she had the authority to intervene earlier. Let me spell this out for the Premier:

Section 4 of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act allows the minister to make binding directives to Ontario colleges as to how they conduct their affairs.

Section 5 of the act allows the minister to intervene in the affairs of colleges if it’s deemed to be in the public interest. I find it hard to believe that neither the Premier nor her minister knew that they had this authority.

Why didn’t the Premier exercise her legislated authority and direct the colleges not to force a contract vote that everyone knew they would lose, unnecessarily prolonging this strike for as much as two weeks?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, as I said earlier, there is overriding legislation. We had very solid legal advice that the order would have been challenged had we moved the back-to-work legislation too early.

But let’s be really clear what this is all about. The NDP are hearing from people that they are not happy that the NDP blocked the legislation, and they are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I will finish up by saying that the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act does not equal the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act. There are two pieces of legislation. The NDP should be aware of that, and they should understand that we pushed as hard as we could.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Last night at the Premier’s town hall, students were upset. Some were in tears as they described the effect that this five-week strike has had on their learning. Instead of comforting these students, the Premier defended her decision not to intervene. She said, “I had an understanding of what” my authority was, “and I”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Trinity–Spadina is warned.

You may finish.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: She said, “I had an understanding of what” my authority was, “and I acted in good faith on that.” These are empty words for a young person in tears trying to figure out how to recover from five weeks of uncertainty.

Again I ask: Why did the Premier not use her legislative authority to order the colleges to reduce the number of precariously employed faculty early in negotiations, thereby removing one of the most significant issues that led to the strike in the first place?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that no one, no Premier ever in the history of this province, has cared more about students than our Premier, Kathleen Wynne. It is thanks to this Premier that one half of college students have free tuition—210,000 students, who say thank you to this Premier for ensuring they have free tuition.

We are committed to students. We are committed to equity of access to post-secondary education for people across the province. We have 50,000 more students applying for OSAP this year than last year, thanks to this Premier and her concern for students.

College students

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Premier. After the Liberal government allowed the college strike to drag on for five weeks, 500,000 community college students are finally returning to their classrooms today.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier if the Liberal government would commit to matching the college student support fund dollar for dollar. As expected, the Premier did not provide an answer.

Because the Premier failed to show leadership for five weeks during the strike, 500,000 college students at the very least deserve a concrete answer. Will the government commit today to matching the college student support fund dollar for dollar?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, of course we all understand that the PCs’ protection of collective bargaining is weak, to say the least. We let the process play out; we engaged ourselves as we could to try to find a resolution. One of those things is that we’re setting up a task force to look at some of the big issues facing the future of our colleges.

We have really listened to the voice of students, and I want to say thank you to the students who took the time to work with government to identify issues that students were facing and to help us develop those solutions.

Let me repeat, Speaker: We have got a dedicated fund for hardship, and the colleges have discretion to go above the $500 cap in exceptional circumstances.

Students who choose to withdraw will have their tuitions refunded, if they choose to withdraw as a result of this strike. In addition, students who are on OSAP will be able to get additional support if the semester goes long.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Premier: For five weeks, the Premier let the strike drag on. Students weren’t in class and were put through immeasurable financial stress, some forced to sell their personal belongings to make ends meet.

It’s time for the Liberal government to finally stand up for students and take tangible action to address their financial hardships.

Will the Premier do the right thing today and commit to matching the $500-per-student support fund dollar for dollar?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m happy to see that the PCs are standing up for students, but I have to ask the question: Where were they when we made the changes to OSAP—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Where were the PCs when we made the changes to OSAP that expand access to people from all income groups in this province? Where were they when we found a way to get free tuition to 210,000 students? The sad reality is that they voted against it. They voted against it. They weren’t there for students; they weren’t there for changes to OSAP that have made Ontario an international leader in student financial assistance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question? The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: We’re a very eager and energetic group here, Speaker, as you’re well aware.

Hydro rates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, to the Premier: Yesterday, I was listening to the Minister of Energy respond to questions about Hydro One’s two rate increase applications. The minister praised Hydro One for finding savings, but Hydro One is not passing any savings on to ratepayers by decreasing rates. Instead, Hydro One wants a 20% distribution rate increase.

The minister said Hydro One is “doing a great job as a company,” even though Hydro One is currently taking the Ontario Energy Board to court in order to keep 100% of a $2.6-billion tax break that rightly belongs to ratepayers.

Why does the minister think his job is to praise Hydro One and not to defend the interests of ratepayers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: We were very pleased to bring forward the fair hydro plan, which actually defended ratepayers by reducing their bills by 25%. That member and that party voted against it. It’s this party that is actually defending ratepayers. It’s this party that’s actually working with companies to make sure that we can continue to find ways to reduce bills for ratepayers.

When it comes to Hydro One, in R2 and R1 designations, they’ve seen their bills drop by 40% to 50%—and it had nothing to do with that party; it had nothing to do with that member. It had to do with the company, the government and ratepayers all working together to come up with solutions.

That’s what we have done on this side. On that side, they’ve done nothing. They have a plan that is pie in the sky, that didn’t even talk about helping low-income individuals, and that is something that we have done with all organizations to help all ratepayers in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: The Minister of Energy cheered when Hydro One applied to buy Avista, even though this $6.7-billion purchase will do nothing to improve service for Ontario ratepayers. This purchase will divert resources away from improving the reliability of the grid toward the cost of building an empire for Hydro One.

The Ontario Energy Board said Hydro One was making poor use of its existing funds for capital improvements and told it to reduce its revenue requirements. Hydro One basically refused.

The privatized Hydro One is putting private profits ahead of the public interest. Will the minister stop cheerleading for Hydro One and start protecting the interests of Ontario families and ratepayers?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Again, it’s this party that actually protected ratepayers by bringing forward the fair hydro plan. It’s that party that voted against ratepayers by making sure they didn’t support the plan.

When it comes to Hydro One, the acquisition of Avista benefits customers, employees, shareholders and ratepayers. It’s important to say rates will not be impacted. It won’t even affect local jobs.

Similar acquisitions are increasingly common. Fortis purchased Michigan-based ITC and EPCOR purchased two US water utilities.

When it comes to making sure that the government is on the side of the ratepayers, it’s this Premier, it’s this government that will continue to work with our stakeholders, will continue to work with the OEB, will continue to work with the IESO to have a clean, reliable and affordable system, unlike the opposition parties that have no plan to do that.

Nuclear power facilities

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is also to the Minister of Energy. Minister, in my riding, I often hear from constituents on the work of this government on the energy file. The constituents in my riding know how critical a clean and reliable energy system is to Ontario being a great place to live and work.

Refurbishing the Darlington and Bruce nuclear generating stations will ensure that we have affordable, reliable and clean energy for years to come. However, my constituents sometimes worry that the projects may go over the set-out budget or will be delayed.

Today, the Financial Accountability Officer released a report about the province’s refurbishment project. Could the minister please update the House and my constituents on how the refurbishment project is going?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member for that question and, of course, for the hard work that he does each and every day for his constituents and his riding.

I also want to thank the Financial Accountability Office for providing their important analysis of the refurbishment project. The FAO report confirms that our government has carefully considered the financial risks of nuclear refurbishments and has built in strong protections and oversight measures to prevent cost overruns.

The FAO report also makes it clear that there is currently no alternative clean generation which could replace nuclear generation at a comparable cost for Ontario ratepayers.

Additionally, the report notes that refurbishment is the most cost-effective, low-emissions generation source available to meet Ontario’s baseload requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member and his constituents that the refurbishment of our nuclear fleet remains on budget and on time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister. Not only will the refurbishment of Ontario’s nuclear fleet ensure we have safe, reliable, clean energy where and when we need it; it will also bring our province and our communities, like mine in Northumberland–Quinte West, significant economic benefits.

When it comes to providing a boost to Ontario’s growing economy, the refurbishments at Bruce and Darlington will support Ontario’s globally recognized nuclear supply chain, with more than 180 companies and 70,000 jobs across the province. This will have a significant positive impact in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, being just adjacent to Darlington.

A few weeks ago, our government released our 2017 long-term energy plan in which we committed to a major mandate letter objective: namely, refurbishing 10 nuclear units in Ontario—both Darlington and Bruce. Minister, what measures are we taking to ensure this project remains on time and on budget?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: In order to prevent cost or

schedule overruns, our government has implemented strong protections and oversight measures.

Bruce Power has invested approximately $13 billion of its own funds and has agreed to take the full risk of cost overruns on refurbishment of their nuclear units.

The unit 2 refurbishment at Darlington is progressing very well and is on track to be completed on time and on budget.

In any case, the government has established off-ramps that may be used in the event of OPG or Bruce Power failing to adhere to the approved

schedule and budget. We’ve been very clear, Mr. Speaker, that we will not proceed if there are significant cost or

schedule overruns.

While we continue to monitor these two projects, nuclear power will continue to be the backbone of the safe, clean, reliable and affordable electricity system we’ve built here in Ontario.

Pharmacare

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday, during committee, the member from Kitchener Centre announced that the drug for cystic fibrosis, Orkambi, would be covered under OHIP+, even though there haven’t been any negotiations for the drug at the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance in two years.

Speaker, this government and its members continue to make announcements about OHIP+, giving hope to many who are suffering from rare diseases and cancer. Unfortunately, those statements aren’t always correct.

Can the minister confirm right now if Orkambi will be covered under OHIP+? Or did the member from Kitchener Centre mislead the committee?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to stand up and talk about OHIP+. By now, I think most Ontarians understand that come January 1 every single Ontarian, up to their 25th birthday, preceding their 25th birthday, will have access, absolutely free of charge, to more than 4,400 medications; medications like insulin, EpiPens, puffers for those with asthma and cancer drugs.

In fact, I was with the Canadian Cancer Society yesterday, and I was with the Canadian Organization for Rare Diseases, CORD, yesterday as well, to talk about the availability for the first time of free-of-charge cancer drugs for children and drugs for rare diseases. This is an incredible advancement and expansion of medicare in this province, one that I think we all should be very proud of.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Again, there was no direct answer to my question. But, Speaker, when you write policy on the back of a napkin, statements like those made from Kitchener Centre appear to happen. Either the government has no idea what will be covered under their plan, or they’re promising drugs they know will not be covered in an effort to gain support.

Speaker, will the minister stop stringing the people of Ontario along and admit right now that their back-of-the-napkin OHIP+ plan will cover nothing new, nothing more than what’s covered for the seniors, nothing more than what’s covered for the Trillium patients of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I hope what the member is saying is not that he opposes the biggest expansion of medicare in this province’s history since medicare itself: 4,400 drugs will be available.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: He’s a pharmacist. You’re a pharmacist. You know about this.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Particularly given his professional background.

We’re working with pharmacists. We’re working with pharma companies—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll accept that.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We’re working with important stakeholders like the Canadian Cancer Society, with pediatricians across this province, with specialists in adolescent diseases and illnesses. There will be 4,400 drugs available. There is no upfront payment, no copayment, no annual deductible; all you need is your prescription and your health number, and 4,400 drugs will be available.

If the member opposite can’t support that, I’m deeply concerned about how he approaches health care in this province.

Children’s mental health services

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. A report released last week by Children’s Mental Health Ontario outlines the serious problems caused by wait-lists of up to 18 months for mental health services for children and youth. The media reported that Shannon Nagy told her mother at five years old that she wanted to die. In grade 6, she missed the entire school year. Now 20, Shannon says her struggle to get help throughout her childhood did more harm than good.

Kim Moran, now the CEO of CMHO, had to take a four-month leave of absence and then work part-time when her 11-year-old daughter tried to die by suicide while waiting on a year-long list for help. When will the Liberal government finally act to significantly reduce wait-lists?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member for the question. Mental health, when it comes to young people here in the province of Ontario, is a huge priority for this Premier, this government and the Minister of Health.

A few years ago, we invested $100 million into mental health here in the province of Ontario, and as we made that investment, we also started another process called Moving on Mental Health. What we’ve been able to accomplish over the last few years is quite remarkable. We’re really rethinking the entire system here in the province of Ontario. We’ve set up 31, almost 32, of the 33 lead agencies across the province of Ontario to better coordinate services on the ground.

This is about system transformation—the same thing we’ve done in education, the same thing we’ve done in health care, and the same thing we’ve done in the energy sector. This is a system transformation. I assured members that I met last week at the conference that we are looking for massive system change here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: The minister knows that everything he just talked about did nothing to do anything to reduce the wait-lists. Children’s Mental Health Ontario has been saying for years that the underfunding of services is putting a huge strain on our hospitals because these kids have nothing else, and they reach crisis situations.

Last week’s report shows the impact 18-month wait-lists have on education and on the ability of families to be able to continue to earn a living. One third of parents have had their child miss school due to anxiety. A quarter have missed work to care for their child. The stress continues to mount up and adds to already very difficult situations.

I ask again: When will this government act, so that children with mental health problems can get the help they need when they need it?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The reason we are looking for a system change is to make sure that young children get the help when they need it.

The member says that we’re not doing anything to address the issue. I’ll let the member know that, as a province, we’ve invested almost $4 billion in mental health. Almost half a billion of those dollars goes to help young people here in the province of Ontario. Currently in the province there are 130,000 young people getting services.

The member says we’ve done nothing. Well, here are a few things that we’ve done in the last few years. We provided funding for mental health leaders in all 72 school boards, and provided funding to hire an additional 770 community mental health workers across the province of Ontario, 144 additional nurses working in schools to identify students who need help and more than 80 new mental health workers and addiction workers working in indigenous communities. We’ve also expanded our online mental health directory.

We set up Bill 89 here in the province of Ontario, which the Progressive Conservatives voted against, to do exactly what we are doing: system change.

Financial literacy

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Education. November is Financial Literacy Month. Financial literacy is an important part of learning and living in the 21st century. Being financially literate ensures that we know what is happening with the finances in our homes so that we can plan for the future and weather any unexpected expenses.

During this Financial Literacy Month, our government is taking action to ensure that students in Ontario can develop a solid foundation of financial literacy skills. This means having the knowledge to make informed financial decisions with confidence and care.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How is our government revamping the curriculum to further the development of financial literacy skills in Ontario’s schools?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to recognize November as Financial Literacy Month. This is a life skill that everyone can benefit from.

Our government is committed to preparing students for success in a rapidly changing economy and a technology-driven world. Earlier this November, I was at Parkdale Collegiate Institute in Toronto to announce that we are making financial literacy a mandatory part of the grade 10 careers course, starting in September 2018.

We know that our young people are better off when they can understand basic money management, budgeting or credit. Our plan for education is preparing Ontario students for the jobs of today and tomorrow. This is an important part of our plan to create jobs and grow the economy, and of our renewed vision for education. We remain committed to achievement, equity and well-being for all students in Ontario, including financial well-being.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you, Minister. Financial literacy is a skill that is vital to the success of our students. Our government is doing more to equip students with the skills they need to compete in an integrated global economy. We have never wavered in our commitment to student achievement.

Just this year we launched 29 pilot projects across the province to inform the recently announced enhancements to the career studies course. During the pilot projects, education partners participated in the process, providing important input about new mandatory learning on financial literacy.

Minister, can you tell us more about how the new and improved careers studies course will prepare grade 10 students with financial literacy skills?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member from Davenport for this very timely question.

Students and teachers felt that the pilots were so successful that we will be expanding the new careers course to all schools across the province, starting in 2018. We will be refreshing the careers course to include:

—budgeting, so students can map out their pathways plan and then itemize its components to create a personal budget;

—credit, so students can explore issues related to credit card debt and collaborate on suggested solutions for acceptable use; and

—OSAP, so students can use the new OSAP calculator tool to plan for post-secondary education.

Ontario students are among the top performers worldwide in financial literacy education, but we are not stopping there. We’re making this a mandatory part of Ontario’s curriculum. We remain committed to investing in our most valuable resource: our students.

International trade

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, this weekend the Premier will be heading to Asia on a trip to China and Vietnam. It was in Vietnam where, under two weeks ago, the Prime Minister failed to show up at a meeting with 10 other world leaders and jeopardized Canada’s position in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Given how important the TPP will be for Canadian agriculture, including Ontario’s grain farmers, has the Premier raised concerns with the Prime Minister over what has been interpreted by other TPP nations as a snub at the APEC summit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On the second part of that question, I would just assure the member opposite that we are in regular communication with and work very closely with our federal counterparts on all of the trade negotiations, as we did on CETA, as we are doing on NAFTA and as we are doing on the TPP conversation. As the member opposite will know, none of those provisions have been finalized, and we will continue to work very closely with the federal government.

I will say to the member opposite that I’m very pleased to be able to take about 100 companies with us to China and Vietnam, companies that want to develop partnerships that will mean more jobs in Ontario and more investment in Ontario which will, again, continue to help our economy to grow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: The Premier actually has totally lost the point of my question, and that is that the TPP—I agree—presents a great opportunity for Ontario’s agriculture sector to break into new markets. The Premier’s government website advertises her upcoming trade mission directly and references Ontario’s and Vietnam’s participation in the TPP as a key business tie.

So I have to ask the Premier: Why is she not pushing back at the Prime Minister to get the TPP talks back on track so that Ontario farmers and agri-food businesses will not miss out on a tremendous market opportunity?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The TPP talks are on track. We’re very pleased that there was a preliminary agreement in principle, and we will work very closely with the federal government.

As we have done and as we are doing now in the NAFTA conversations, I’m acutely aware of two things. First of all, the opportunities for markets and the expansion of markets: That’s why I am travelling with companies to China and to Vietnam. It’s why I’m so engaged with businesses here to make sure that they understand what the opportunities are abroad. Second is to make sure that in these trade negotiations, in these conversations, we protect our industries, that we protect and stand up for workers here in Ontario and make sure that when there is a negotiation of a trade deal, Ontario and Ontario’s workers benefit.

Diagnostic services

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Sudbury has waited eight long years for a PET scanner. In December 2015, this government promised to change that. Our community raised the money. We did our work; we’ve done our part. Actually, the first PET scan in Sudbury should have been happening right now, but instead we’ve learned that this government is holding up the process. It could be 2019 before PET scans are done in Sudbury. Why is this Premier letting us down again? Why is she delaying the PET scanner that we should have had eight long years ago?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First of all, I would like to thank the MPP for Sudbury for his strong advocacy for both his community and for northern Ontario, because it was his hard work that resulted in the government providing two sources of funding for the PET scanner.

We announced $1.6 million in annual operating costs for the PET scanner once it’s fully operational, but that wasn’t sufficient because we were, quite frankly, overwhelmed by the level of community support and the fundraising coming forward on the capital side. We wanted to make sure that those capital improvements necessary for the PET scanner were able to proceed. Again, with the support and hard work from the MPP for Sudbury, we were able to make a substantial capital investment—in the millions of dollars—towards that purchase and towards the necessary capital improvements.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, the good people of the northeast have been calling for equity of access to PET scanning technology since 2009. The Sam Bruno family—Cheryl, Frank, Mary, Lori and Sam’s mother, Rosina—a grieving family that knew nothing about fundraising, went on and raised $4.1 million to purchase the scanner. Health Sciences North has done everything that they need to do, but today, my constituents still can’t get a PET scan done in Sudbury. We still have to drive five, six, seven, eight hours on icy roads to get the health care we need.

Frankly, we feel like t