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

February 20, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Feb-20 vol. Array (PDF)

L144 - Thu 20 Feb 2020 / Jeu 20 fév 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 20 February 2020 Jeudi 20 février 2020

Notice of reasoned amendment

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Members’ Statements

Employment services

Albert Kim

Road safety

Kids with Incarcerated Parents

Correctional facilities

Hockey 4 Youth

Black History Month

Municipal development

GO Transit

Infrastructure funding

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Education funding

Education funding

Employment standards

Public transit / Transports en commun

Licence plates

Education funding

Infrastructure funding

Education funding

Equal opportunity

Public transit

Tenant protection

Human trafficking

Education funding

Infrastructure funding

Education funding

Birth of member’s nephew

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Human Trafficking Awareness Day / Journée de sensibilisation à la traite des personnes

Motions

Private members’ public business

Committee sittings

Petitions

Automobile insurance

Food safety

Education funding

Food safety

Affordable housing

Fish and wildlife management

Veterans memorial

Taxation

Long-term care

Access to justice

Private Members’ Public Business

Public Accountability and Lobbyist Transparency Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la responsabilité envers le public et la transparence des lobbyistes

Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Journée des terroirs du Canada en Ontario

Public Accountability and Lobbyist Transparency Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la responsabilité envers le public et la transparence des lobbyistes

Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Journée des terroirs du Canada en Ontario

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Notice of reasoned amendment

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before asking for orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 74(c), the member for Timmins has filed with the Clerk a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 171,

An Act to enact the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 and make related amendments to other Acts. The order for second reading of Bill 171 may therefore not be called today.

Orders of the Day

Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la protection contre l’entrée sans autorisation et sur la protection de la salubrité des aliments

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 18, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 156,

An Act to protect Ontario’s farms and farm animals from trespassers and other forms of interference and to prevent contamination of Ontario’s food supply / Projet de loi 156, Loi visant à protéger les fermes et les animaux d’élevage en Ontario contre les entrées sans autorisation et d’autres actes susceptibles de les déranger et à prévenir la contamination de l’approvisionnement alimentaire en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Bon matin, monsieur le Président. Ça fait plaisir de me lever pour parler du projet de loi 156. Ce projet de loi met le monde contre le monde. C’est ça qui nous concerne.

For one, we all need to know that the food our families and friends and neighbours put on their table is safe to eat. But on the other hand, people have a constitutional right to express their views, and no government should ever, ever try to take that right away. Again, yes, we all want to ensure that the food that we feed our families is safe and safely grown.

Il y a quelques années, mon beau-frère du Québec était propriétaire d’une ferme porcine au Québec. Comme vous le savez, moi, je viens d’une communauté du Nord. Je peux vous dire que je n’ai jamais été élevé sur une ferme. Quand j’ai eu l’opportunité d’aller voir mon beau-frère—puis aussi, il faut comprendre qu’il élevait 1 600 porcs. C’est une somme assez grande. Puis moi qui étais vert dans ça, qui ne connaissais pas grand-chose, je prenais toutes les opportunités possibles pour essayer de comprendre c’était quoi être un éleveur de porc.

À mesure qu’il m’expliquait comment ça fonctionnait, puis que j’apprenais—il m’expliquait, grosso modo, les mesures de sécurité qu’on doit suivre pour assurer la santé des porcs, parce que, vous le savez, chaque animal est sensible à certaines maladies ou à certaines situations qui peuvent arriver. Il m’expliquait que si j’arrêtais dans une autre ferme, j’aurais été obligé de faire certain que j’étais décontaminé ou j’aurais pu emmener des maladies dans sa ferme porcine, ce qui veut dire qu’il y a de gros impacts économiques pour lui.

Ça, ç’a été une éducation pour moi. Les microbes, les maladies : je trouvais que c’était fascinant. Puis que ce n’est pas juste une question d’élever des animaux, c’est une question que ces fermiers-là sont obligés de prendre en considération toutes sortes de maladies et toutes sortes de données qui sont envoyées pour garder les fermes saines ou pour faire certain que les animaux sont sains, parce que ça peut dire avoir des animaux que tu ne peux pas vendre. Pour eux autres, c’est un désastre économique qui les affecte gravement. Plus ou moins, j’essaye de dire qu’il faut faire attention quand tu vas à une porcherie.

C’est pour ça, même, quand on voyage, ils nous demandent : « Avez-vous été dans des fermes? » Pourquoi? Si tu viens d’un autre pays et vous avez été autour d’une autre ferme, pour ne pas emmener les maladies qui existent dans d’autres pays, puis qu’on n’emmène pas ça dans notre pays, qui peut affecter toute une économie dans notre province.

J’ai écouté aussi mon collègue de Timiskaming– Cochrane, qui disait—il me contait, lui, que même pour les poulets, c’est la même situation. S’il y a quelqu’un qui rentre, puis qui s’ingère sans permission, les poulets ont tendance à aller tous se cacher dans un coin, puis ça cause une suffocation, puis ils perdent beaucoup de poulets. Ce sont des situations de même qu’il faut arrêter.

Je pense que c’est une situation qu’il faut prendre en considération pour protéger les fermiers. Je pense que les fermiers ont des droits. Je suis le premier à reconnaître ça. Il faut qu’on protège les fermiers dans des situations où il y a du monde qui s’ingère dans leur milieu de travail—pour eux autres, c’est un milieu de travail—sans autorisation, ou bien donc sont là pour pas les bonnes raisons, ou qui viennent et se présentent pour travailler sur une ferme, mais qui ont un agenda différent. Je pense que ces fermiers-là, ils ont des droits. Puis il faut comprendre la situation qui met le produit en danger.

This bill just leaves way too many questions unanswered and multiple issues are vaguely worded. For example, the bill defines its purpose as: to “eliminate or reduce the unique risks that are created when individuals trespass on those properties.” Nothing to add there.

Comme je disais, comme je mentionnais à M me la Présidente, c’est une propriété privée. Il faut que ça soit traité comme ça. On n’acceptera pas personne qui viendrait chez nous ou dans notre domicile sans être accueilli ou sans raison d’être là. Je pense qu’il faut prendre ça en considération quand ça vient à la question des fermiers ou des personnes qui « trespass », comme on dit en anglais.

But then the bill notes that no person may enter an animal protection zone, or interfere or interact with animals or carry out a prescribed activity within the zone, without the prior and explicit consent of the owner or occupier. “Interact” is not defined anywhere in the bill. It includes that no person may interfere with a transport truck carrying animals, or interfere or interact with the animals, without the prior and explicit consent of the driver.

Le projet de loi interdit l’interaction avec des animaux, mais on ne dit rien au sujet de ce qu’on veut dire par « interaction ». Il est important de définir « interaction ». Je crois que c’est important. Est-ce que ça veut dire, par exemple, que si j’arrête sur l’autoroute, moi, puis je décide que j’arrête avec ma famille puis qu’il y a des vaches ou des animaux dans un pâturage, que je ne peux pas arrêter puis faire l’interaction avec ça? Il n’y a pas de définition.

Même si un journaliste veut prendre des photos sur le bord du chemin, il n’aurait pas le droit, alors, de s’exprimer librement? Je pense que c’est pour ça que c’est important de définir « interaction ». C’est quoi que ça veut dire, « interaction »? Parce que ça peut mettre des situations assez précaires qui peuvent venir de ça.

What’s most troublesome and what causes true concern about this bill is the citizen’s arrest provision. Briefly, the bill would allow an owner or occupier or another authorized person to arrest the trespasser using reasonable force, and it is an offence to interfere with the arrest. Fair enough. The bill also acknowledges that the police must be called promptly after the arrest.

Let me say two things about the citizen’s arrest provision, probablement trois. First, I simply cannot see how an owner can reasonably assess a situation as “interaction” and then promptly utilize reasonable force. Even worse, it leaves it up to an individual owner to determine what is reasonable and what isn’t.

You may not have read it in a while, but the German sociologist Max Weber coined what’s now the accepted definition of the modern state. In his Politics as a Vocation lecture in 1918, Weber observed that the modern state is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” In other words, the state alone has the right to use physical force and can legitimately authorize its use. What this bill does, contrary to what Max Weber rightly notes, is to allow the right of violence and police to individual citizens.

This bill, also, I believe, did not have consultation with First Nations. When I consulted with my First Nations community, a chief in one of the northern communities—le chef me disait, « Guy, ça, est-ce que ça veut dire que—nous, comme Premières Nations, on a nos territoires ancestraux. Est-ce que ça veut dire qu’on va pouvoir faire des “citizen’s arrests”, nous aussi? » Comme c’est, là, dans plusieurs territoires ancestraux ou dans le Nord, il y a des prospecteurs qui vont prospecter sans consultation avec les Premières Nations.

Ils voient des prospecteurs—le monde des communautés du Nord, les chasseurs, les Premières Nations qui sont dans les territoires—qui n’ont jamais consulté avec les Premières Nations. Ils sont sur le terrain et ils voient même des sites où il y a eu des terrains d’atterrissage pour les avions. Est-ce que ça veut dire qu’ils vont pouvoir—aussi, on va ouvrir, si je peux utiliser le terme, le « floodgate ». On va ouvrir la porte et eux aussi vont pouvoir faire des « citizen’s arrests »? Que tout le monde qui va sur le territoire sans permission vont avoir le droit de faire la même chose? Pourquoi pas?

Si on donne ce droit-là aux fermiers, je vois mal comment on peut dire non aux Premières Nations qui sont sur leurs territoires ancestraux, puis qu’on a des individus qui vont sans permission ou sans consultation avec les Premières Nations et font ce qu’ils veulent sur leurs territoires ancestraux. Je pense qu’on ne peut pas avoir deux poids, deux mesures quand on fait un projet de loi comme celui-ci. C’est pour ça qu’on est concerné.

C’est pour ça qu’on dit : « faisons la bonne chose », parce qu’une fois que le projet de loi est mis en force, il est dur de reculer, puis il est dur de dire non à quelqu’un d’autre, madame la Présidente. On ne peut pas avoir deux poids, deux mesures dans une situation comme ça.

In other words, my second concern about the citizen’s arrest is that access to police services is taken for granted. I come from a region where you can drive a long time without seeing another person. We have to realize that. There are areas in my riding where there is simply no local police force. Imagine yourself in an isolated, northern rural farm and having to (1) determine whether an individual interacts with an animal of your ownership; (2) enforce reasonable violence to detain the individual or multiple individuals; and (3) call and wait for local authorities to come to your aid, if any enforcement authorities are available in your vicinity.

Ou que des policiers—veut, veut pas, la police provinciale a un grand territoire. C’est vaste, le territoire de Mushkegowuk–Baie James. C’est grand. La police est obligée de couvrir beaucoup de terrain. Combien ça va prendre de temps avant que la situation arrive? Puis si la situation dégénère? Ça peut dégénérer très vite.

Je viens d’une région où, vous savez, il y a un gros monument. Ça s’appelle Reesor Siding. Vous allez voir, je vais essayer d’attacher ça avec ce dont je parle. C’est un conflit syndical qui a eu lieu dans ma région en 1963 où une coopérative—on parle qu’il y a eu trois morts et huit blessés. Ce qui est arrivé, ç’a été reconnu comme un des plus grands conflits syndicaux du Canada. Trois morts, huit blessés pour des cordes de bois.

Ce qui est arrivé c’est qu’il y avait la coopérative, qui était les fermiers qui travaillaient dans l’industrie forestière pour subvenir à leurs besoins, puis il y avait des syndiqués, qui étaient des opérateurs forestiers. Mais si on prend la logique de ce point-là, mettons des fermiers—la coopérative—le bois devient des animaux, que ce soit des vaches ou que ce soit des poules. Puis tu as ceux qui protègent les animaux. Puis ça dégénère comme ça a dégénéré là. Personne ne s’attendait qu’il était pour avoir trois morts et huit blessés.

Il n’y a personne qui s’en allait là pour dire qu’on va tirer du monde puis il va avoir une dégénération au point de ce que la communauté vit encore. C’est tellement un sujet qui est sensible dans ma région. Quand vous réalisez qu’il y a des cousins qui ont tiré sur des cousins, qu’il y a des personnes qui ont été obligées de vivre—des familles qui ont été déchirées. C’est juste qu’il ne faut pas mettre le monde dans une situation où ça peut dégénérer. Le point que j’essaye d’amener c’est de ne pas mettre le monde dans une situation où ça peut dégénérer et où il est trop tard pour faire de quoi.

C’est pour ça que c’est important de traiter ce qu’on vous propose dans ce projet de loi et de considérer les recommandations qu’on vous fait, pour que ça ne dégénère pas au point que ça peut dégénérer.

Je ne pense pas qu’il y a un fermier, et qu’il y a un activiste qui va dans quelque chose, que c’est ça son intention. Mais on ne sait pas comment ça peut arriver. Puis, ça dégénère. Ça prend une étincelle dans des situations de conflit—ce qui est dangereux, très dangereux. C’est pour ça qu’on demande au gouvernement de reconsidérer les propositions qu’on vous fait, parce que dans ma région, je peux vous dire, c’est une situation qu’on a vécue et qu’il ne faut jamais répéter. Que ce soit pour une corde de bois, en passant, ou que ce soit une situation d’animaux, il ne faut pas se mettre dans des situations.

C’est pour ça que la police est importante. Puis, prenant en considération les régions éloignées comme la nôtre, la personne qui a fait le « citizen’s arrest » est mise dans une situation de maintenir ça pour une période d’une assez longue durée. C’est sujet à dégénérer assez vite.

The citizen’s arrest provisions give immunity to individuals to determine what is right and what is wrong about other people’s acts. It leaves it up to the good faith of the owner to determine what “reasonable violence” is, and takes it for granted that police forces are available in all corners of this good province.

Again, that’s what I was trying to say. In our region the police officers do a great job, but unfortunately they have a big territory to cover. It’s an hour between Hearst and Kapuskasking. We don’t realize how vast my riding is or how far we have to travel. Three hours is normal driving for us, but for you it makes no sense. When we go for hockey tournaments, it’s six hours, eight hours, nine hours. Families do that on a regular basis. For us, it’s not far. It gives you some perspective of how vast the distance is in our riding.

Je vais finir en vous disant que nous voulons tous assurer la qualité de nos aliments. Nous voulons tous assurer le bien-être de nos fermiers et de nos transporteurs. Si vous voulez encourager l’industrie fermière, il faut alors investir dans le domaine. Ça fait trop longtemps que les revenus dans l’industrie sont en déclin, depuis des années, à cause des coûts de la machinerie et des intérêts.

Si le gouvernement veut faire la bonne chose pour l’industrie, on devrait investir dans les fermes et donner aux propriétaires de fermes les moyens financiers pour qu’ils puissent avoir une meilleure vie sur leur ferme et aussi se protéger adéquatement. Si on veut faire cela, je crois que c’est là qu’il faut viser.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Nina Tangri: I’d like to thank the member opposite for his comments.

It’s clear from Bill 156, Security from Trespass and the Protecting Food Safety Act, under the Trespass to Property Act, that there was never, ever a time that it was legal to trespass onto a farmer’s property. I’d just like to get your comments on whether you believe that such laws shouldn’t be enforced. It’s very important to allow farmers, or whoever, to not allow people to trespass onto their properties. I’d just like to have your comments on that.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je remercie la collègue pour sa question. Écoute, je crois que la question du projet de loi—c’est important de réaliser que le gouvernement doit aussi prendre en considération les Premières Nations. Quand j’ai parlé des Premières Nations, que si on fait ce projet de loi et on dit que c’est bon seulement pour les fermiers et non pour les Premières Nations, je pense qu’on ouvre la mauvaise canne de vers. Je ne pense pas que c’est la direction qu’on veut. Je pense qu’il y a des projets de lois qui existent comme c’est là. On doit vivre avec ça. Mais de là, d’aller dire qu’on met une personne contre l’autre, qu’on donne ce pouvoir—je pense que ça devrait rester aux autorités.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I listened intently to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay. What he did very well was describe the difference between northern Ontario and southern Ontario. Some will think, “Well, there’s no agriculture in northern Ontario.” Actually, northern Ontario is the area where agriculture is growing the fastest. Also, northern Ontario is actually where we work mostly with First Nations, and he explained that as well.

I would like the member to just elaborate a bit on how serious an issue it is that the government did not consult with the First Nations in our area on that bill.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci à mon collègue de Timiskaming–Cochrane. Sur la question des Premières Nations, je peux vous dire que c’est très important. Je mets l’emphase sur « très important ». J’ai fait le commentaire à la collègue qui m’a posé la première question. Il faut prendre le temps de consulter, parce qu’ils ont des droits ancestraux, puis il faut les respecter. Trop souvent, on a brimé les droits ancestraux des Premières Nations.

Quand j’ai dit que le chef, quand j’ai consulté avec les Premières Nations, il m’a dit : « Guy, est-ce que ça veut dire qu’on va avoir le droit dorénavant de faire, nous aussi, des “citizens’ arrests” sur tous nos territoires ancestraux? » Parce que je peux vous dire, ils vont en faire, parce qu’il n’y a rien qui se fait, puis leurs droits ancestraux sont brimés. Il n’y aucune consultation qui se fait pour des mineurs qui vont sur leurs territoires. Je pense que la consultation est primaire quand ça vient aux projets de loi qui affectent les droits ancestraux des Premières Nations.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: We talked about the PAWS Act just before the break. If anyone out there suspects abuse is taking place on a farm, they have every opportunity to call the new PAWS line, 1-833-9-ANIMAL. It’s not for you to go on someone’s property. If you suspect abuse, that number is there to be called. I really do encourage people to call that line.

But does the member opposite still believe that unacceptable trespassing—should you still be able to access someone’s property when you have this line to call?

M. Guy Bourgouin: Si vous avez entendu mon allocution, je ne pense pas que j’ai dit que c’est acceptable que quelqu’un passe ou « trespass » sur un terrain privé. Ce n’est pas ça qu’on dit, sûrement pas. Mais j’essayais de vous faire comprendre, puis avec les recommandations qu’on fait de notre parti, qu’il y a bien des fois que dans les—puis, en passant, il y a bien des places où on n’a pas de service de cellulaire. On a bien des places où il y a encore des « party lines » dans notre région. On est d’un comté où l’accès à la police—ce n’est pas accessible.

Les policiers n’ont pas le temps de s’y rendre dans un temps raisonnable. C’est pour ça qu’on dit de prendre des considérations que notre parti vous fait, puis d’essayer de comprendre la situation économique du Nord et aussi la grandeur de la région.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Regarding the PAWS Act, that was passed unanimously, and we are fully in favour. What the member is describing about northern Ontario is—I hope someone in the next round can answer this for the government. If someone calls the PAWS line for an issue in Hallebourg, how long is it going to take before someone gets there? How long does it take, on average, for the police to get, right now, to an incident involving human interaction? Could the member elaborate on that, on the distances involved in northern Ontario?

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci encore pour la question du membre de Timiskaming–Cochrane. Encore, on semble oublier, puis je comprends que les personnes du Sud ne comprennent pas ou ça n’a jamais été exposé—ou il y en a qui ne sont pas venues dans notre région.

Mais la distance est tellement grande, puis le territoire est tellement grand que les personnes—les personnes officielles ou les policiers ou les personnes qui sont là pour nous aider, que ce soit un ambulancier ou que ce soit la police, dans ce cas-ci, ils ont tellement un grand territoire à couvrir qu’ils ne sont pas capables de réagir aussi vite que dans le Sud. Il faut réaliser qu’ils ont tellement un grand territoire, puis il faut prendre en considération nos routes—l’hiver, les routes hivernales. On en a parlé. Vous avez voté contre, mais on en a parlé.

Ça nous met dans une situation—je vais vous donner un exemple. Des fois, les ambulanciers ne sont même pas capables de partir à cause de l’entretien des routes. Même chose pour les policiers. Ça nous met dans des situations précaires.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: This bill doesn’t give farmers any more rights than someone else.

Section 25 of the Canadian Criminal Code gives everyone the ability to make a citizen’s arrest. You have suggested in your speech that farmers shouldn’t be able to do this. Farmers are protecting their livestock. Farmers are protecting their livelihoods. Are you suggesting that a farmer in northern Ontario should have less rights and less abilities than someone who lives in southern Ontario who may not live on a farm—because everyone in Canada, as a private person, has the ability under

section 25 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je pense que mon collègue a manqué mon point quand j’ai essayé d’expliquer la situation. J’essayais de vous faire comprendre que les fermiers ont des droits. Je suis le premier à reconnaître qu’ils ont des droits. J’ai même mentionné dans mon allocution que c’est inacceptable parce qu’il y a du monde qui vont « trespasser » sur leur propriété. J’essayais de vous faire comprendre, aussi, que les Premières Nations ont des droits aussi, puis ils demandent la même chose.

Si on est pour ouvrir cette porte-là, les Premières Nations devraient avoir le même droit de faire un « citizen’s arrest », comme vous le mentionnez, le même droit que n’importe qui, de faire ça sur leurs territoires ancestraux.

Quand il y a du monde qui va sur leurs terrains sans permission, ce n’est pas différent de ce que tu dis s’il y a quelqu’un qui va sur une terre ou sur une ferme. Pas de différence. Prenez en considération ce qu’on essaye de vous dire puis les recommandations que notre parti vous fait pour essayer de trouver un terrain d’entente sur ce projet de loi.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We have time for one quick question and one quick response.

Mr. John Vanthof: The member spoke quite a bit about citizen’s arrest. We’ve never been opposed to the

section that allows citizen’s arrest. This bill focuses very much on citizen’s arrest and says that reasonable force can be used. The question that has to be answered is, what is reasonable force, and who is responsible for training farmers in what is reasonable force?

M. Guy Bourgouin: Mon collègue a absolument raison. On n’est pas contre. Mais c’est quoi, puis comment est-ce que ce monde-là va être, comme on peut dire, éduqué ou entraîné pour être capable d’utiliser « reasonable force »? C’est juste que ça peut créer des situations qui peuvent causer beaucoup de problèmes. Merci, madame la Présidente.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: It is my distinct honour to stand here today for second reading of our government’s Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act. This bill, if passed, would better protect our hard-working farmers, their families, their employees and their farm animals by addressing the unique risks associated with on-farm trespass.

The proposed legislation would also, if passed, establish new rules surrounding the interference of the transportation of livestock, as well as take steps to improve the security around food processing facilities to better protect our province’s food supply.

I’m happy to stand behind the efforts of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ernie Hardeman, who, with the rest of the Ontario government, is committed 100% to the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety.

This bill will go a long way in requiring the government to protect the food supply chain and farm animals, the safety of farmers, their families and persons working in or on farms, the transportation of livestock—as well as animal biosecurity risks.

Furthermore, the people of Ontario should be assured that their food is produced in a safe and controlled environment. People have the right to participate in legal protests, but this does not include situations where they are trespassing on farms and interfering with livestock transportation. Unauthorized people who enter a farm are often unaware of the farm’s biosecurity protocols, and they may unknowingly introduce risks, such as disease, for both the animals and themselves, as well as create undue stress to the animals that they seek to protect.

Not only do such risks have the potential to make our food less safe for consumption; farmers end up having to incur extra expenses to safeguard their properties and reduce any possible risk of contamination. Farmers and food processor owners have already spent many millions of dollars to ensure food, livestock and worker safety. They shouldn’t have to spend even more time and energy to stop unwanted persons from trespassing on their private property.

Madam Speaker, now it is our turn. Our farmers and food processors have done their part to modernize their operations, so I am proud to support and stand by the many measures this government has already taken to support the agriculture sector. This includes reducing red tape and supporting farming innovations.

Failure to address the safety concerns that Bill 156 seeks to remedy would send the wrong message, particularly to those in rural Ontario who feel they did not have strong advocates for them over the last 15 years, when the Liberals were in power. They entrusted us with their votes to serve their best interests, and so it is our duty to do so. This legislation is our government’s response to be proactive. We want to avoid an issue that could escalate, as we have seen worldwide.

Farmers and agri-food producers feel frustrated that not enough is being done to stop unauthorized trespassing and other interruptions. This government has received hundreds of letters that detail the problems caused by unwanted and unnecessary intrusions on farms, disruptions and obstruction of farm livestock transportation.

If I may, Speaker, I’d like to read into the record one of the letters from a concerned farmer from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, sent to my office as well as to the Attorney General:

“As an Ontario farmer, I am very concerned about the well-being of my family and business because of an increase in the harassment of farmers and livestock transporters by activists.

“Activists are even stepping in front of moving transport trucks and physically harassing livestock truckers.

“Police seem reluctant to lay charges. The crown has withdrawn charges before trial. Farmers and their employees are frightened and frustrated.”

I would like to pause briefly and repeat the word “frightened.” They have turned to us not because they feel let down or because they are losing money; it’s because they are frightened. As a person raised on an isolated, small farm, I can vouch for the real fear of unwanted trespassers who can harm animals and damage equipment. It’s well founded.

Now, Madam Speaker, let me return to my constituent: “Attacks on livestock farms and processing plants that go unchallenged open the door to more on-farm attacks and disruption at food suppliers.

“As I (

a) farmer, I struggle to understand how activists can enter into buildings illegally, even remove animals, without fear of prosecution.

“I am worried that this disregard for the law will escalate to the point of serious harm to farmers. My farm business is also” the “home of my family. I need to know the legal system will protect us from the risk of invasion.

“I am writing to you today on behalf of farmers, our farmers and agricultural workers across Ontario to ask for stronger action against activists.

“I’m asking you to work together with fellow MPPs and agricultural leaders to find a better way forward to ensure stronger enforcement of existing laws—or new legislation—to ensure the safety of Ontario’s farm families and employees.”

This letter is a call to action for this Legislature to do something to help our farmers across Ontario.

Furthermore, if I may, Madame Speaker, let me state this message from Rob Dougans, president and CEO of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario: “Ontario chicken farmers follow high standards of animal care. Those standards of care include biosecurity protocols designed to protect animals from disease. Anyone entering barns or farms, handling animals or moving between barns without following proper biosecurity protocols puts the health of animals, the safety of food and the livelihood of farmers at risk.”

These pressing issues have been brought by farm operators to the attention of dozens of municipalities, looking for support to rectify these concerns. These municipalities are also directly impacted by illegal activities which drain resources, such as police officers who are required to respond to a complaint from land and plant owners. Municipalities, in turn, have passed or supported council resolutions that call on the government to strengthen protections for these targeted operations.

These municipalities represent all areas of the province, from the southwestern county of Lambton, to my hometown, the township of South Glengarry in eastern Ontario, to the town of Rainy River in the furthest part of northwestern Ontario. In fact, Speaker, over 60 municipalities across Ontario have passed resolutions asking our government to take serious action on what is a serious matter. This geographical fact is another measure of how important agriculture is to the well-being of farmers and their neighbours—fellow ratepayers—who are directly impacted.

Let me also share a message from Allan Thompson, chair of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, ROMA. He says, “Biosecurity is critical to the success of rural communities and the protection of Ontario’s food supply. The Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) is concerned about trespass activities on private farm properties that pose a safety risk to the public, farm families and animals. We appreciate this effort to provide new tools to help keep our communities safe.”

Mr. Thompson points out that those would-be trespassers could be exposed to diseases that can be transmitted to humans from animals. A few years ago, there was the issue of the global outbreak of avian influenza, a virus that can be extremely contagious among birds, which can result in significant illness and even death in certain poultry species, including chickens, ducks and turkeys. More recently, there are stories about the African swine fever affecting hogs and wild boars in different parts of the world. Luckily for us, there have been no known cases of the African swine fever here on our shores.

It is important that our government takes the steps required to ensure that we are not faced with yet another outbreak that could potentially be fatal to our farm animals. For Ontario, taking the necessary steps to prevent such outbreaks started in the small township of Warwick, out in Lambton county, which passed a resolution that I will now remark upon.

First of all, it points out the importance the agricultural sector plays in Ontario, contributing more than $47.7 billion annually to Ontario’s GDP, feeding millions, not just here for our citizens but also south of the border and around the world.

Farmers and their families feel unprotected by the Ontario legal system, and they are afraid for their families’ welfare and that of their employees and the animals they care for. For the vast majority of our farmers, their place of work is also their home, and they deserve to feel safe at home. I support the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and of our government, to respond vigorously to these concerns.

To better understand the need for more protection, we consulted widely throughout the fall of 2019. We held more than 20 round tables, meetings and conference calls with various key stakeholders on their experiences with trespass. The consultations included commodity groups; accredited farming organizations; enforcement bodies, including police and crown attorneys; municipalities; meat processors; livestock transporters; Indigenous groups; special interest groups with an interest in accessing land, such as trail groups and hunters; and animal rights groups.

The government has received more than 900 letters from stakeholders asking us to take concrete action. I would like to thank everyone involved in providing important input. I want to also applaud Minister Hardeman for taking the time and effort to engage with all of these stakeholders and individuals from across the province.

In fact, earlier this month, I joined Minister Hardeman in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry to meet with livestock farmers and livestock truckers on this important legislation. We then went into the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to meet members of the UCFO to hear directly from our strong francophone farming community.

Madam Speaker, we heard over and over again that this legislation is needed to protect and support our thriving agriculture industry. This is a great opportunity to come together as individual farmers, agri-food producers, trucking companies, agriculture sector representatives, municipalities and this government to protect and support Ontario farmers and the integrity of our food supply.

I would like to point out that the farm trespass and transportation disturbances have been condemned by all major parties nationally. At the national agriculture leaders’ debate on September 24, 2019, four federal party representatives were asked to state their positions involving entry to a farm without permission as a form of protest. The unanimous answer was a resounding no.

From the Green Party: “People can express their views, but no one is allowed to damage property or trespass.”

From the Liberal Party: “First, it’s illegal. Second, we need to respect the work of our farmers, who are working tirelessly.”

And from the New Democratic Party: “There are complex biosecurity requirements, and they have to understand that farmers often live where they work, and so invading their personal space causes a lot of stress and in fact it’s probably causing a lot more harm to the animals that these protesters are purporting to protect.”

In addition to the Progressive Conservative government, three provincial representatives of those parties have seats in this Legislature.

I implore that this legislation will also receive the same universal support from all parties in this Legislature as well. No less—it would be a big letdown to our hard-working farmers.

We need to do more than rely on the current federal Criminal Code of Canada or the provincial Trespass to Property Act. What we hear from our farmers is that we cannot rely on what we have at present. So, Madam Speaker, I strongly endorse this new legislation that, if passed, would provide additional enforcement tools and deterrents to trespassing and obstructing the transportation to livestock, including:

—increasing fines of up to $15,000 for the first offence and $25,000 for subsequent offences;

—allowing the court to consider aggravating factors when determining the appropriate fine;

—allowing the court to issue a restitution order requiring the trespasser to pay restitution for damages caused during the trespass;

—increasing protection for farmers, owners, occupiers or drivers against civil liability from people who are hurt while trespassing, provided there’s no intent of doing harm to the trespasser;

—expanding the limitation period at which charges can be laid to two years from the day of the offence, or two years from the day when evidence of the offence was uncovered.

I’m glad to read into the record the positive reaction from Ed Benjamins, chair of Chicken Farmers of Ontario, after Minister Hardeman tabled Bill 156 last week: “On behalf of the 1,300 family-run farms across the province, CFO thanks Minister Hardeman and the Ontario government for taking action to address trespassers on farms. The proposed legislation is a fair and balanced approach, and we appreciate the extensive consultation undertaken by Minister Hardeman, OMAFRA, and the Ontario government to find a path forward that is agreeable for everyone.”

Madam Speaker, it should be pointed out that, if passed, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act would make exceptions to allow persons with legal standing under other acts to continue to have access to these prescribed areas in the legislation. These include animal health and welfare officials working under the recently passed Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, or PAWS, police and provincial officers, anyone who is executing a civil matter, a municipal employee such as a bylaw officer, firefighters, ambulance attendants, paramedics or other emergency personnel.

This new legislation, if passed, would also expand jurisdictions by adding new provisions that are currently not covered under the Trespass to Property Act. These, I believe, are necessary if we are to resolve the negative ramifications that are caused by farm trespassing.

It recognizes that farmers, employees and animal welfare are key components of Bill 156. It takes into consideration the transportation of farm animals. Consent cannot be implied. Consent can be voided if obtained under false pretenses. It protects the owner-occupier from civil liability if a trespasser is injured. It provides farmers with a stronger chance of the recovery of monetary damages caused by the trespasser.

The government is also taking into account the activities of Indigenous communities, recreational hunters, anglers and trappers. Speaker, it is important to note these measures. If the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act were to pass, it would not have any impact on Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, or any other implications to population groups with special consideration under the law.

The proposed legislation would narrowly apply to specially designated animal protection zones. These areas are around on-farm enclosures, food processing facilities and animal transport vehicles.

The provisions introduced in this bill last week show the government is trying to be as thorough as possible as it considers the many facets of this issue. In particular, it demonstrates the government has listened closely to the concerns of farmers, agribusiness and the transportation sector who are looking for regulations that answer specific topics.

This legislative process will continue to gather input from the public to formulate regulations into the future. I am confident that Bill 156 will, if passed, provide the necessary protections for our agriculture sector while allowing for freedom of speech and assembly.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in this Legislature and represent my constituents, but to speak on behalf of this important piece of legislation is truly an honour, and I know that it has the support of many hard-working farmers and their organizations, as well as municipalities. It is a privilege.

It is my belief that Bill 156 merits the support of all members of provincial Parliament in this Legislature, and I hope that members from all parties join our government in supporting Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and responses?

Mr. John Vanthof: I listened very intently to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. I’ve had many conversations with him regarding our shared agricultural roots and I believe in his sincerity.

Having said that, he said that he has constituents who are frightened in their homes. I share that too. So my question is, under this act, those constituents are allowed a citizen’s arrest using reasonable force. What is reasonable force, in the member’s opinion, for that constituent who is frightened in her home?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Of course, reasonable force will be judged by the courts. In my opinion, which carries no legal significance, it comes upon force up to, but not causing, any harm to the individual. I think that the courts would likely play favourably upon that.

All we’re asking for is a picture. You need to prove that the person was there. You don’t have to prove what the intent was. I think this is a big step forward. It can de-escalate a lot of these situations just by the fact that an activist knows that now, by being there, he’s breaking the law and can be charged and will likely be—

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: The courts will be successful.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and responses?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the member for his remarks. I know he just mentioned, “Don’t commit the crime.” But he also mentioned in his speech how he was raised on an isolated farm and some of the experiences that came out of that. I was wondering if you can talk about the importance of those experiences you had mentioned in your speech and the importance it has to this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Stop the clock. Just a reminder to all members, as we’re getting used to this new process, to please direct your remarks to and through the Chair, so that I can hear but also so the folks at home can hear your questions and responses.

I return to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for his response.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Of course, that was a letter from a constituent of mine, but I can tell you, from my life on a farm, we had a very long lane, and neighbours were half a kilometre away. This is very normal and certainly not very extreme. I remember my days on the school bus, seeing farm lanes that were almost a mile long, so of course, there’s that feeling of isolation. While we’re a well-policed area, the police are not minutes away, generally. They are generally some time to get there.

I think just the establishment of this law and actually giving some teeth to the law will now make people think twice before they show up and break the law, really. Now we’re giving it some teeth. In the past, we’ve seen how these regulations were not enforceable.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: In my previous question, I asked what the member would think would be reasonable force. Again, this is going to be a highly charged situation between a farmer, or a farm family, and activists. He responded that it will likely be judged by the court. It could very well be the farmer being charged for using what the activists deem unreasonable force. So again, what does the government believe to be reasonable force? Farmers need to know.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I can tell you that I have a lot of experience, as I know the member opposite has, with farmers. I think that we have a society that believes in the law. The farmers are subject to the same provisions under

section 25 of Canada’s Criminal Code as anyone else in Canada. Those provisions state that anyone who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law as a private person, or a peace officer, or public officer, in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or by virtue of his office—so there are regulations around it. They will be decided. But I think this de-escalates a lot because all the farmer needs now is a picture, and I think once the person realizes that, that should de-escalate.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’m listening to the member and he’s very passionate about this bill. I’m proud to say that I’m also a farmer’s son. This bill is important for our farmers and farming industry.

My question is, what have you heard from farmers in your riding about this bill? I’d like to get more explanation from the member.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the deputy government House leader.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Madam Speaker, we wish for the debate to continue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

I return to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for his response.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I was very privileged to attend a meeting we had in our riding. Of course, we’ve had many meetings over the years that have talked about this issue, and I’m sure that everybody has read about a lot of these issues in the media. We entertained something like over 30 different stakeholders on this bill in Bonville, at the Lions Club, and the farmers, the producers, were very thankful for the legislation. They see this as a real threat.

We’re seeing a major potential pandemic in China now. Those are real-life things today.

We have farms in my community where the animals had to be put down because of disease, and that disease is generally spread by unauthorized entry.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m going to go back to reasonable force. I think we’re on the same side on this. We have security people here who are very well trained on how to de-escalate and what reasonable force is. I’m a farmer; that’s not my thing. Again, in a very stressful situation, when animal activists are in your face, what is reasonable force? You need to tell farmers. You need to educate farmers. They don’t have

section 25 on the farm wall, and they don’t understand

section 25. What is reasonable force?

Mr. Jim McDonell: The same “reasonable force” applies to everybody in this country; if somebody enters your property without permission, it’s the same rules. People have to interpret that as they see fit. The final judge will be the courts. That’s an issue that comes up from time to time, not just on farms but on property and in people’s homes. Farmers are just like everybody else. They’re intelligent people. They’ll interpret this law to the best of their knowledge, and the courts will decide if they’ve overstepped or not, and I think they’ll also decide if the activists have overstepped. I think that’s where we’re going with this.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: Madam Speaker, through you, my question is: What are some concerns rural communities in your riding have expressed to you about trespassing on farms?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you for that question.

As I said, in the past, in our area and right across the country and across the province, for sure, there have been herds put down because of disease. There has been damage done by activists who come in.

You have to realize that in the transportation of produce, if somebody has contact with that, if somebody for whatever reason walks up and is supposed to give something to one of the animals, they have to guarantee that they know that that food is still safe. They don’t know what interactions are going on. They don’t know what has been given to the person. When people enter barns, they don’t know where they’ve been before.

Anybody who has come back from a foreign country knows that you have to swear that you haven’t been on a farm in another country. It all goes to biosecurity and the fact that we don’t want to endanger one of our major employers, if not the major employer, in our country and in our province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There’s not enough time on the clock for further questions and responses.

Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. I can see that I don’t have much time left; I believe I have about 10 minutes. I just want to touch on some of the things that have been raised. We’ve been talking about the citizen’s arrest provisions and some of our deep concerns with that.

A

section of the bill that has generated a lot of debate is the consent portion. Previously, in this House, I’ve warned the government about the impacts of their legislation that they don’t consider beforehand. It seems that what has really characterized this government over the first year and a half is that so much of their legislation either gets walked back or gets challenged in court. That really speaks to, I think, a lack of good planning when they consult and when they put together their legislation.

Back in May of last year—just an example of this—I warned the government about the potential consequences of the More Homes, More Choice Act. That legislation allowed a person to be expelled from their home because a family member, a visitor or even someone in the building engaged in illegal marijuana sale. It was an example of an unintended consequence of poorly worded legislation.

This government didn’t heed my warning, and one month later, a gentleman named Jeffrey Brodie, a young man, was expelled from his home and his possessions were seized, because the police said the downstairs unit—Jeffrey rented the upstairs unit—was being used as an illegal dispensary. Jeffrey was a painter, and had no opportunity to access the things he used for his work and, as a result, he was forced to sleep on a park bench. It was in the newspaper. He’s currently challenging that law as unconstitutional.

These are examples of unintended consequences of poorly thought-out, poorly worded legislation that is not properly consulted on.

It has been brought up a few times in this House, the difficulties that this legislation may have constitutionally, and the issue of freedom of expression. That is something that, as New Democrats, we feel very strongly about, particularly the

section on false pretenses. The false pretenses provision could also capture a regular worker who discovers a problem at a facility but then is accused by the owner of being an activist who obtained consent under false pretenses.

The bill also prohibits interacting with animals, and “interacting” is not something that is really defined well.

The debate over the constitutionality of this bill isn’t solely based on the results of other jurisdictions. As one of my colleagues has pointed out, there are 38 Canadian law professors and constitutional criminal law experts who wrote to the Attorney General and the Minister of Agriculture regarding Bill 156. It is unprecedented that 38 Canadian law professors from across this country, who are watching Ontario right now, have said that aspects of the bill would infringe on individual rights, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In other jurisdictions, at the time that this was new, there was no pattern of unconstitutionality. The first attempts we’ve seen are as early as 1990, with a larger push in 2012. Eight years later, we have all these experiences that we can reflect on to ensure that we get the legislation right on the first try.

Speaker, it seems this Conservative government has a history of putting forward legislation that leaves the province vulnerable to challenges and, therefore, vulnerable to spending even more taxpayer money on lawsuits and court costs.

Currently, this government is in court for a myriad of items. As I have mentioned, it seems they’re either walking back legislation or being challenged in court. They’re currently in court with the federal government on carbon pricing. Two of three Ontario Superior Court judges determined that this government acted illegally when it killed the cap-and-trade program in Ontario, and this is headed to the Supreme Court.

This government is presently in court with student unions on the issue of student union dues. Just this past November, an Ontario court unanimously struck down the so-called Student Choice Initiative, writing that the policy’s directives “are not authorized by law and are inconsistent with the autonomy granted to universities.”

It’s not even the first time there have been concerns regarding free speech and freedom of expression. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is challenging this government that the Federal Carbon Tax Transparency Act—or as we like to call it, the sticker act—violates free speech provisions of the Constitution. We’ll see how that court case plays out.

There are other examples. They’re in court with teachers on Bill 124; with green energy companies, with businesses where contracts have been ripped up—and there are many others. It seems this government is either always in court defending poorly worded legislation, or apologizing or walking legislation back.

One has to wonder: Is it fiscally responsible to consistently be using taxpayers’ money to defend decisions in court and then appeal that legislation, and in more than one instance ask the Supreme Court to weigh in? Do we have clear numbers accessible to the people of the province who pay for all of this to understand why they’re seeing cuts to their kids’ education and to their health care, but spending is higher than ever?

It’s kind of a hollow statement when this government talks about caring about farmers when we all know that they cut the agriculture ministry’s budget by 25%. Actions speak louder than words, and this government isn’t showing through its actions that it cares about farmers; it’s showing that what they want to do is employ wedge issues to try and pit farmers against animal rights activists.

We all know the quote, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” The history is this: Ag gag laws like the one we’re discussing here today have been found unconstitutional in numerous jurisdictions for nearly a decade. Experts in the field are telling us there’s a constitutional problem, and we know this government, as I’ve mentioned, has a sordid history of going to court to defend its actions and decisions.

Those three things together create a result we cannot ignore as responsible legislators. Why pass this bill, as drafted, only to be stuck in a costly legal battle later on?

We’ve heard from the government that this bill will protect farmers, protect biosecurity. We’ve already discussed the history of ag gag laws many times—many of my colleagues have discussed it—and of biosecurity, so I’d like to discuss farmers.

A 2016 study from the UBC found that when the public learns of so-called ag gag laws, it erodes the trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. In 2013, Farm and Food Care Ontario and the egg farmers said that they opposed ag gag laws because, as they put it, “The Canadian agriculture sector is strongly committed to opening the barn door, not closing it”—transparency is important for farmers so that the public has trust—and “such laws risk inflaming determined animal rights activists, not deterring them.” That’s something that came from farmers, Speaker.

The experience in the United States supports these quotes. Ag gag laws attract opposition from a broad cross-section of the public and ultimately undermine trust in farming and the food system. We can support reasonable changes to improve biosecurity and the safety of farmers, animals and the food supply, but we cannot let this government send a harmful message to the public that the hard-working and responsible farmers in this province have something to hide.

We heard from the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. He was a proud dairy farmer for 32 years. We understand the concerns of farmers. But we have to ensure that legislation that passes through this House is responsible, thoughtful and, at the very least, constitutional.

It’s a democratic right to be able to protest for something that you believe in. It’s common in all civil societies. Freedom of expression is a core value in Ontario and across this country. There are people who come to this place on a regular basis to view this House in all of its democracy, but they also come here to protest. Just this week, there were 1,000 people on the front lawn. This weekend we have protests down in my neck of the woods, in Niagara, which I’m fortunate to call home. Niagara is no stranger to protests. Just this past weekend there was a protest at the Rainbow Bridge. A few years back, there was a series of protests—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. I thank the member, and his time will continue the next time this bill is called.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Employment services

Miss Monique Taylor: Today I want to talk about the Conservative government’s misguided plans to privatize employment services.

It was recently announced that the Conservatives have started hiring private companies to provide employment services for those receiving ODSP and OW.

In my community of Hamilton, a private American company will provide these important services. Under the new private model, the company only gets paid when a job placement is made. That means that these companies have an incentive to connect ODSP and OW recipients to any job, and fast. We’ll see more people in inappropriate jobs, and more people who aren’t ready for jobs moved into them anyway.

When a community-based non-profit or municipality provides these employment services, they work with the individuals to meet their needs, and they have the local knowledge to best serve their communities. Now, instead, in Hamilton we’ll have an American company trying to get paid.

This experiment in privatizing social assistance is just the beginning, and it’s doomed to fail. It already did in the UK and in Australia. It must be stopped before it damages the lives of Ontarians. Our social services should not be a cash cow for American companies.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I will remind all members to please come in quietly, so that we can enjoy members’ statements.

Albert Kim

Mr. Stan Cho: I rise today to remember and pay tribute to a great Willowdale community leader and a friend who passed away suddenly at the age of 45. Albert Kim was an incredible human being: a caring father, a proud member of the Korean-Canadian community, a relentless friend and an unapologetic champion for Willowdale.

Albert loved politics and was a passionate member of the Liberal Party. While we didn’t always agree—in fact, we almost never agreed—he approached politics with humour and humanity. He put the people around him above everything else, often volunteering for candidates of all political stripes, myself included, simply because he wanted to help, because he wanted to be heard. He was always kind.

Albert ran for Toronto city council in 2018 and was a long-serving member of the Willowdale Rotary Club and the Korean Canadian Cultural Association, a Salvation Army volunteer and a naval reservist. He led a life of service and dedicated his time to bettering our community, our province and our country. He was an inspiration to me and to many in Willowdale.

Albert, Willowdale will not be the same without your voice and the incredible energy you brought wherever you went. You will be sorely missed, my friend.

Road safety

Mr. John Vanthof: My statement is for the Minister of Transportation, regarding École St-Michel in Temiskaming Shores. It’s on Highway 11, and has over 400 students plus a daycare, and the speed limit in front of École St-Michel is 80 kilometres an hour. This is a school. They have signed thousands of signatures on petitions. I’ve spoken to the minister several times, spoken to the ministry several times and warned them. In January, there was an accident there. A transport pushed a car off the road that was entering École St-Michel. Luckily, by the grace of God, no one was killed, but we’ve warned and warned.

But what is most galling is that in front of École St-Michel, it’s 80 kilometres, but in the town just north, Englehart, Highway 11 is 70 kilometres. In the town just south of École St-Michel, Latchford, it’s 60 kilometres. Go a bit further south and it’s 50 kilometres. But what’s most galling to me, Speaker, is when I drive from northern Ontario and I come down Avenue Road, for the schools there, it’s 40 kilometres with flashing lights. They care about the schools here and about the children here.

It’s time to lower that speed limit and put in a turning lane, but please, lower that speed limit now. What they did do was put a big, bright yellow line, brighter than the licence plates, but that doesn’t stop anybody.

Kids with Incarcerated Parents

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I rise today to bring the attention of the House to an important charitable organization in Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Today, I am joined by Derek Reid, who’s in the gallery, from Kids with Incarcerated Parents. KIP Canada is dedicated to empowering and supporting children whose parents are incarcerated.

KIP Canada not only provides mentorship for the children that includes fun and educational excursions; they also help children across the GTA visit their parents who are incarcerated in both federal and provincial detention centres, providing them with free transportation along with healthy snacks, healthy conversations and entertainment for their journey.

Recently, I was thrilled to announce that the Ontario government, through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, has granted KIP Canada funding for a new bus. This bus will allow families across the GTA to stay connected under very trying circumstances.

I would like to congratulate Derek; his daughter, Jessica; and the team at KIP Canada on the amazing work they do.

I would encourage all of you to check out the work that KIP Canada does in supporting children who face adversity.

Derek and team, thank you so very much for looking after our vulnerable youth.

Correctional facilities

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Delays, delays, delays. Correctional officers have been calling for changes at the aging Thunder Bay jail. Many members had big smiles on their faces when this government announced it would be building a new jail in Thunder Bay.

The ability to do anything inside the jail is so limited because it is 100 years old. It was built back in the 1920s for a capacity of 60 people at the time. We’re now at 150 to 160 inmates at all times.

However, Infrastructure Ontario’s latest market update reveals an indefinite delay to the Thunder Bay correctional complex, meaning the safety of Thunder Bay families, correctional workers and inmates is being kicked down the road again. The request for proposals for the Thunder Bay correctional complex was recently slated to be issued by spring of 2019. In an update from Infrastructure Ontario, the date was changed to “to be determined.”

My colleague the local MPP from Thunder Bay–Atikokan stated, “The previous Liberal government neglected this problem for years, and now the Ford government is doing the same. It’s not safe for our community, for the corrections staff, and for inmates to have the government to keep ignoring the issue of dangerously outdated corrections facilities.”

The project in question would address long-standing safety and security problems by combining the Thunder Bay jail and the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre into a single complex and qualified update. It is time now to put the shovels in the ground.

Hockey 4 Youth

Mr. John Fraser: Last week in my riding of Ottawa South, Hockey 4 Youth hosted a first skate event. Hockey 4 Youth is an incredible non-profit organization that provides youth who are new to Canada with an opportunity to play hockey. The Ontario Trillium Foundation recently awarded Hockey 4 Youth a $27,500 grant to help purchase hockey equipment and launch new programs in the Ottawa area.

Fifty-three girls new to Canada, between the ages of 14 and 18, from Gloucester and Ridgemont high schools, will be invited to learn to play hockey at no cost. Through the 10-week program, they will be provided with free ice time, where they will learn the fundamentals of the game and how to skate.

Thank you to Hockey 4 Youth, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the city of Ottawa, and Gloucester and Ridgemont high schools for making this life-changing initiative possible.

Black History Month

Mr. Stephen Crawford: It’s a pleasure to be speaking here, back in the Legislature.

In the spirit of Black History Month, it is important that we take time to learn about the contributions of Black Canadians in our communities and society at large. To that, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the chamber today some unique history in Oakville and how our community commemorates this important month.

We should all be familiar with Canada’s role in the Underground Railroad, that provided so many enslaved African Americans a chance at freedom. What some of my colleagues may not be aware of is that Oakville was, in fact, a terminus for the Underground Railroad, which saw hundreds of American slaves brought safely into Canada for freedom. At that time, Oakville was a very small town. Many of the individuals moved to more populous towns throughout Ontario.

From this time, there was one individual story that speaks to the kind of heroism that I think we should remember. That is of a gentleman by the name of James Wesley Hill, an escaped slave who crossed the border in a packing box in the late 1840s, settled on a farm in Oakville and went on to help an estimated 800 African Americans brought to Oakville, and generously gave them work on his farm. James Wesley Hill earned himself the respected title of “conductor” by those he aided. A house he built still remains to this day in Oakville.

Mr. Speaker, it’s not just this kind of history that makes me proud to be from Oakville, especially during times like Black History Month, but it’s how this history is preserved in our community. Organizations like Sheridan College, the Oakville Museum and the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton bring this history to us every day.

Municipal development

Ms. Jill Andrew: Today I want to start by acknowledging the life of Evangeline Lauroza, which was tragically cut short by a cement truck at Erskine and Yonge just a few months ago. This speaks to the importance of responsible and safe development.

It’s hardly a new discovery that midtown Toronto is suffering from irresponsible development. In fact, today we’re joined by over a dozen residents of St. Paul’s who have been fighting for more responsible development in our community for years. Out of their advocacy came a plan known as Midtown in Focus, which laid down some simple ground rules for how to get it right: lowering the height density limits and mandating that there be enough services in midtown to serve our communities—schools, infrastructure, community space, parks. It wasn’t about NIMBYism; it was about responsible development.

They invited the minister to tour the neighbourhood with them to discuss the plan. He didn’t do that. He toured without them, secretly, and brought the MPP from Eglinton–Lawrence on the tour, who isn’t even their MPP—I am.

Following this tour, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ripped the original plans to shreds. It is totally disrespectful of the residents of St. Paul’s.

Today, we have a very simple request for this government: Reverse your changes to official plan amendment 405, listen to communities, get it right—and not just your developer pals.

Mr. Speaker, I have dozens of letters signed by residents of St. Paul’s on my desk, letters that were delivered to Minister Clark, and there has been no response.

GO Transit

Ms. Lindsey Park: I rise today to inform this House that on February 13, I was able to provide an important update to my constituents about the GO train to Bowmanville. This project has been the topic of discussion for decades in our community.

Speaker, Metrolinx has officially finished its updated initial business case. I’m pleased that the recommended option would include all-day service instead of the four-train peak-only service announced by the Liberal government. Based on the updated initial business case, Metrolinx staff have recommended proceeding with option two. The recommended alignment services all major population centres along the extension, keeps the Oshawa GO station open and utilizes existing rail infrastructure to cross Highway 401 to bring down the project costs.

Let me finish by saying that today the board of directors at Metrolinx will be reviewing the updated initial business case report. If it’s approved by the board, Metrolinx will continue to work with our government to advance the recommended route option to the next stage of the planning process: developing the preliminary design business case.

I look forward to working with Metrolinx and our government to get this vital project funded and built.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask the House to come to order. There are a number of conversations taking place in the House, and it makes it hard for the Speaker to hear the members’ statements.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, this year Haldimand–Norfolk will receive close to $5.2 million for community infrastructure. The county of Haldimand will receive over $2.6 million, and the county of Norfolk will receive over $2.5 million. This investment comes from the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund, also known to our municipal partners as OCIF. OCIF is a $200-million fund that supports rural, small and northern communities across Ontario with populations under 100,000.

I’d like to thank Laurie Scott, our Minister of Infrastructure, and our Premier, Doug Ford, who made this announcement earlier this year, committing funding for the hard-working people in Haldimand–Norfolk.

This investment of over $5.2 million is greatly appreciated in Haldimand–Norfolk. This investment for community infrastructure goes directly to our municipal partners, and they can spend it where they need it most. That means both the county of Norfolk and the county of Haldimand have infrastructure funding—over $5.2 million this year alone—to fix our local roads, to repair our community bridges or to address the needs of water and waste water projects.

I look forward to the shovel-ready projects that both Norfolk and Haldimand will spend the almost $5.2 million this year on for our community infrastructure, and I really look forward to attending the events with our municipal partners that show how our hard-earned tax dollars are being put to work fixing, repairing and—

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

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It is now time for the introduction of visitors. I’ll remind the members that five minutes are allocated under standing order 34 for this purpose, and that members may introduce visitors by stating only their name, title, organization and/or riding. This standing order will be enforced this morning.

Mr. Jamie West: I want to introduce two members from RNAO: Erika Toth, a Nipissing University student who I met with this morning, and also Dot Klein, who has over 40 years’ experience in health care.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the privilege of welcoming to the Legislature today Nathan Kelly, from the town of Grimsby, with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, as well as his colleagues Mahoganie and Holly; I believe they’re here, as well.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’d like to welcome two constituents from my riding of Toronto Centre: Ellen and Mike Hodnett, who are the grandparents of our page captain today, page Owen. Welcome.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I would like to welcome my new intern, Max Reinker, from Ryerson University.

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I would like to welcome Angela Cooper Brathwaite, president of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario—welcome to Queen’s Park—and also Matthew Kelway.

Mr. Stan Cho: It’s my privilege to welcome students from Queen’s University who are visiting the Legislature today: Philip, Sydney, Nicholas, Alexandra, Derek, Roberto and Cyrus. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome to the Legislature a co-op student from Ryerson who is working in our office, Zeinab Hamadi, as well as Kieran Lawlor, with the OLIP program, who is here on his last day with us, unfortunately; and Roz Geridis, an Elementary Teachers of Toronto executive member.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I would like to welcome Dreyden Chatelain and Lacey Bennett from École secondaire catholique Élisabeth-Bruyère in Mattawa.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome some guests who are with us today from the Ontario Autism Coalition: Stacy Kennedy, Amy Moledzki and her daughter Ava, and Michau van Speyk.

I’d also like to welcome Hamilton nurses who are visiting us today on RNAO day.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature, from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Regina Elliott, Kathleen Pikaart, Alison Reavell-Roy, Melanie Kelly and Chajan Sathiyeswaran. A warm welcome to Queen’s Park today.

I also see many in the gallery from the federation of law associations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome two London West constituents who are members of RNAO and have joined us once again for the annual lobby day: Farnaz Macalski and Janet Hunt. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: I’d like to welcome my friend and mentor, CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Doris Grinspun, as well as all the members present today; and Alisha Arora, who is a grade 8 student from Mississauga Centre who is shadowing me today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jessica Bell: On behalf of the member for Spadina–Fort York, I’d like to introduce Michael Sims and Stephanie Hodnett from Spadina–Fort York. They’re the parents of Owen Hodnett, who is the page captain for today. Welcome to the Legislature.

M lle Amanda Simard: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue au Parlement jeunesse francophone de l’Ontario, tous les étudiants qui sont ici aujourd’hui. Bienvenue.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my friends Dr. Anita Stewart, Dean Julia Christensen Hughes, Maggie McCormick and Jeff Stewart from the University of Guelph; Chris Cossitt and Stacey Ash from Ontario Pork; and Lynn Siegal, from Hilite Fine Foods.

I also want to introduce my assistants, Christina, Cathy and Yvonne. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome Caitlin Cybulski. She’s a student from Ryerson. She will be joining the Stevens team from St. Catharines.

As well, Kenneth Gogo came today to his House, our House, from the riding of St. Catharines.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I’m pleased to introduce a long-time member of our riding association in Ottawa West–Nepean, David Young. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I’m very proud to welcome the Republic Residents’ Association, the Quantum residents association, the Eglinton Park Residents’ Association, the Oriole Park Association, the South Eglinton Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Associations, Ashok Kittur, Lata Kittur, Maxine Haigh, Sasha Milenov, Seboua March, Andy Gort, Thomas Cohen, Lancelyn Rayman-Watters, Richard MacFarlane, Meraj Ahmed, Elizabeth Gordon, Miria Ioannou, Geraldine—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. I apologize to the members who weren’t able to introduce their guests. On their behalf, I would like to welcome all of the guests who are here today at the Ontario Legislature. The standing orders are clear: five minutes.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is to the Premier. Tomorrow, parents, teachers and students from every single corner of our province will be standing up for our children’s future. The Premier continues to stick his head in the sand and pretend that parents are on his side, while every day they tell him to reverse his cuts to education. Why is he ignoring parents, Speaker?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the leader of the NDP that what she’s calling cuts, we’re actually increasing by $1.2 billion. That’s $1.2 billion. They have a tough time with math.

We believe that parents want us to increase investment in the schools and in our children who go there. What they do not—and I’ve heard it right across this province—believe in is increasing compensation. They’d rather have that money—which we’re doing—back into the classroom, Mr. Speaker. We don’t put it in some vault in the back of Queen’s Park. We’re putting it back into the children. We’re putting it back into the classrooms.

These strikes are impacting families. When you impact a family, just imagine how many people have to find child care or take a day from work. That’s unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s ironic that the Premier can’t cite any parents who are in favour of his agenda of cuts, because we are sure that he’s hearing from parents who oppose it, just as we are.

Selby Public School is in the riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington, and their parent council wrote to the Premier an open letter stating, “Educators are some of the most important people in our children’s lives. Members of our parent council, as well as our community at large, stand behind our educators. We will continue to support them now and into the future....”

Why does the Premier think he knows better than those parents, Speaker?

Hon. Doug Ford: I never know more than the parents. The only difference between myself and the leader of the NDP—I travel right across the province. There’s probably no one in the chamber who travels to more towns, to more areas than I do. I speak to the parents.

But guess what, Mr. Speaker? I speak to our great teachers. I support our front-line teachers, who work hard day in and day out. They’re just as frustrated. They want to get back in the classroom and do the job that they do best. That’s teaching our kids. We want our kids back in the classroom.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I invite the Premier to come and speak to 25,000 or 30,000 of them around Queen’s Park tomorrow. I invite him to do that.

The Premier and the Conservatives say that their plan to fire thousands of teachers is reasonable, but parents are telling us that the reasonable thing to do is absolutely the opposite of what this Premier is suggesting.

Justin from Oshawa told us that he supports teachers. Why? Because, and I quote, “You can’t threaten to burn a house down and then threaten to only burn their garage down and say you are being reasonable in the negotiations.” That’s what Justin from Oshawa has to say.

Why does the Premier think he knows better than parents like Justin?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I find it so ironic listening to the Leader of the Opposition who voted to close, with their Liberal buddies, 600 schools. They didn’t burn them down; they just closed them and kicked the kids out. That’s the difference. We’re building new schools right across the province. That’s our priority.

We will continue to invest in more priorities that parents want. Parents want us to focus on math, on STEM and on mental health, and that’s exactly where the money is going: to the classrooms, to the students. That’s what they want.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I talk to numerous teachers, and I can assure you that not all the teachers want to be out there. They want to be in the classroom teaching the kids. They understand we have the parameters because we were left with a $15-billion deficit and a $346-billion debt. They appreciate just going back in the classroom and teaching the kids.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. But I would submit, then, that the Premier needs to take the cuts off the table so those teachers can get back into the classrooms across our province.

Look, Speaker, parents are very, very frustrated and they’re feeling ignored by this government. Hilary wrote to us to tell us about her child’s experience with e-learning. In her words, that experience has been a “disaster.” She says students with learning difficulties like her child need face time with their teachers, and they still struggle through these courses with that face time—except now, thanks to the Conservative cuts, students like Hilary’s child have even fewer teachers in their schools and will only fall further and further behind.

Parents like Hilary need teachers to teach their child. Why is the Premier forcing their children into e-learning programs that just don’t work for them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: This government wants a deal that keeps kids in class. That is our commitment to two million young people in the province.

Parents are working harder. They give of themselves for their children. They pay significant amounts of their income to government, and they expect a better return on that investment. When 50% of students are not meeting the provincial math standard, how is it that this government and this Legislature are not united to expect better for the next generation of our province?

We’re building and modernizing our education system with a focus on ensuring every student is technologically fluent, financially literate, emotionally intelligent and ready for the jobs of tomorrow. That’s our positive vision for the next generation, and it starts with keeping kids in class.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, everyone knows this minister thinks he can talk well, but he sure doesn’t listen to his own words. How is the math standard going to increase when you have fewer teachers in the classroom teaching our kids? It makes no sense whatsoever. Parents know it, and they’re calling this government on exactly that.

The Premier is pretending that his cuts are going to have no impact. I’d like him to hear from Jessica, a mom from Petrolia, in the riding of Sarnia. Jessica’s daughter has special needs and needs extra attention in the classroom. She writes, “Even before these cuts, our school was so understaffed ... meeting after meeting after meeting I attended begging for the help she needed.... We are barely hanging on....”

Why is the Premier ignoring the pleas from parents like Jessica?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question of how we’re going to improve math standards in this province. It’s by going back to basics and eliminating the discovery math approach under the former Liberal government.

This government has a four-year math strategy. I am proud to report to this House that we will have financial literacy for the first time codified in elementary schools in this province. I am proud that we have a new curriculum that will be unveiled in September 2020. We have numeracy, now foundational competencies. We are expecting new educators in the province to be able to meet a grade 9 math standard, raising the bar of our teachers and raising the bar of our students. We expect our students to be better in numeracy, in financial literacy and in math. That’s why we’re making investments in STEM education.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the official opposition New Democrats would agree that the Conservatives are dragging us backwards when it comes to their changes to education. We agree with that.

But do you know what? The Premier can’t get away from stories like the ones I’ve been sharing this morning. Conservative classroom cuts are making life worse for families all across our province. Jessica is blunt when she writes about her daughter, “I am sick to my stomach about what will happen if Doug Ford wins this fight with teachers. I’ve had nightmares about it.”

Parents, teachers and students all want a government that works with educators to improve our kids’ education. Why is the Premier so determined to move in the opposite direction of where everyone else wants this province to go?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: If the aim of the Leader of the Opposition is to improve education, then I expect her to be the first leader of the New Democratic Party to suggest that she stand with the government to oppose regulation 274, which provides absolute seniority-based hiring when merit is not even a consideration, when qualification doesn’t guide the hiring of new educators. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition would accept that we could do better for teachers in this province, that we could hire candidates of merit, of qualification and of diversity in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, this negotiation—yes, we want a deal that keeps them in class. We want a deal that is good for our students, a deal that sees more investment in our schools, not in higher compensation. That is a priority of parents, and we’re going to stand up for that principle every day.

Employment standards

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. If the Premier thought the invisible licence plates were bad, we’re going to have to peel him off the ceiling after he hears this one because, as the Premier knows, the Minister of Labour investigates cases where employers fail to pay their workers.

One of those cases is from Oshawa in the 2018 election. The ministry found that the Treasury Board President’s own PC constituency association failed to pay an employee properly. The PCs only paid some of the wages of an employee that the Treasury Board had employed during the election campaign. They were so delinquent, in fact, that the ministry had to call in a collections agency to get this woman her wages, which, as of yesterday, she had still not been paid.

Can the Premier tell us why his party officials are not paying PC staffers, as is the law in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m allowing the question. It’s the enforcement of the Ministry of Labour.

Government House leader to respond.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Of course, this party will ensure that all Ministry of Labour standards are met. That’s something we’ve continued to focus on after 15 years of neglect through the coalition of the NDP and the Liberal Party.

I think what is a sad spectacle today, Mr. Speaker, is to have, after the leadoff question, something like this when this province and this country are faced with economic struggles, when we have two million—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: —when we have students who are going to be out of the classroom tomorrow. The NDP chooses to focus on slinging mud. I think it’s a sad spectacle of the NDP. It is a sad illusion of the party that they used to be. They used to be called the “conscience of Parliament.” All they do right now is sling mud, and that is why they have never been given the privilege of sitting on this side of the House after the one time they did, and the people will never go back to that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the government House leader for having to interrupt him.

The official opposition asked a serious question. I would have assumed that they would have wanted to hear the answer.

Supplementary question.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister establishes a pattern. Not only do they not want to pay the teachers of the province; they don’t want to pay their own staffers in their own party.

Speaker, I take no pleasure in this and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there’s actually more. Two weeks ago, CTV News reported that the same minister broke the rules when his staff tried to get the same constituency association to pay for “likes” on Facebook. It’s almost as if following the rules is difficult for this minister. On the minister’s constituency association financial statement, no mention of this woman’s salary can be found.

Today, I’ve written to Elections Ontario to ask for a full investigation into the Pickering–Uxbridge PC association’s financial returns as to why there appears to be such a glaring error in them.

Speaker, what will it take for this minister to simply follow the rules? Will he let Elections Ontario do their job and investigate why his financial statements are filed incomplete?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): President of the Treasury Board to reply.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Through you to the member opposite: I have seen this correspondence that you’re referring to. I will make sure that the CFO of the riding association complies fully with anything that the electoral office may do. I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Public transit / Transports en commun

Mr. Stan Cho: My question this morning is for the Minister of Transportation. It has long been known that political gridlock between levels of government has prevented big projects from getting built. We understood this when we promised Ontarians that we would invest in key transit infrastructure. We knew it was possible.

Last week, the province took another step with the city of Toronto towards building our four priority subway lines. Speaker, could the minister tell us about the progress that has been made between the province and the city of Toronto?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to thank the member from Willowdale for the question. I’m happy to bring everyone in this House up to speed on the progress that we’ve made to date with the city of Toronto.

Our partnership with the city of Toronto is a key milestone in our plan to build public transit in the GTA. It is truly historic. After years of discussion, we finally have one single unified plan for subway expansion in Toronto. Our four priority projects constitute one of the largest undertakings in North America.

Last week, the province and the city signed a preliminary agreement to deliver our unified transit plan. Today, I’m pleased to announce that the province of Ontario, Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and Enbridge signed memoranda of understanding to improve coordination of our four priority transit projects. Partnership and collaboration is the only way we continue to move forward for the progress that we have achieved to date.

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

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Creating one single unified plan that all three levels of government can agree on is no easy feat, but our government has managed to accomplish this. Our shared goal of addressing congestion and building better transit infrastructure has brought us to where we are today.

We agree that building the Ontario Line, the three-stop subway extension, the Yonge North extension and the Eglinton West extension will provide the most relief for the most commuters.

Can the minister tell us why our partnership and collaboration with the city of Toronto is so important to getting these projects built?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you again to the member for the question. I would like to acknowledge the Premier and Mayor Tory for their commitment to making this happen.

Toronto city council did not just endorse our subway plan with an overwhelming majority, but they also directed the city manager to work with us to “identify all opportunities to accelerate the delivery of the expansion projects.”

Il y a une urgence ici. Les automobilistes et les voyageurs sont pris dans la congestion dans la région. Les Ontariens ne peuvent simplement plus attendre pour un système de transport en commun qui est amélioré. Nous avons pleinement l’intention de travailler en étroite collaboration avec la ville de Toronto dans le cadre de la plus grande expansion du métro dans l’histoire du Canada.

Je voudrais également prendre cette occasion pour rappeler à nos partenaires fédéraux que nous attendons toujours leur engagement pour financer 40 % de notre plan.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take the opportunity to remind our federal partners that we’re still waiting on confirmation of their 40% commitment to our plan.

Licence plates

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians still want to know what the plan is to deal with this absurd licence plate fiasco. Yesterday, the Minister of Government and Consumer Services decided to dodge and ditch the media rather than answer questions about faulty licence plates. While the cameras were waiting and when the lights were bright, the minister disappeared—not unlike her licence plates.

This government is botching their exciting new Tory blue licence plates just like they are botching education, the Ontario Autism Program and everything else, quite frankly, that they touch.

Safety should always be a priority, even in the face of exciting new vanity plates. Ontarians deserve to know how this happened, what is being done about it and when it will be fixed. Minister, what is the plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I just have to say to the opposition member over there, in response to what we heard, that we are focused on getting the job done. That’s our number one priority. I’m telling you that I can confirm with you, Speaker, that Premier Ford has spoken to the president of 3M Canada on three separate occasions, and we are seeking an immediate solution to the issues that have been identified with their product. We’re extremely frustrated and, quite frankly, disappointed with 3M that we’re all at this point. But we are working together to remedy the issue.

The licence plates were designed and tested with key stakeholders in mind. We are not happy with the results, and we are continuing to work hand in hand with 3M.

Speaker, we have heard concerns, we are listening and we are making sure that we get this right. We are taking concerns very seriously. We’re frustrated and we’re disappointed—

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the Premier: This faulty-licence-plate muck-up is a glowing example of this government not taking accountability for its mistakes. The only thing that we have heard from the government is about their partnership with 3M and their technology—technology which, only a few days ago, was being celebrated by this minister.

It is dizzying to watch this government flip through damage control strategies. What is the actual plan going to be? Plan B could have been to use the reportedly 16,000 new white licence plates that were still in stock. However, those plates got sent back and scrapped. They had been bought and paid for by taxpayers, and this government decided to destroy them to get their blue vanity plates out fast—seemingly faster than they could be exhaustively tested.

This is a question that needs an answer. This kind of absurd test does not reflect well on this government or on its leadership. So what is the plan to fix these plates and keep people safe?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to share with the member opposite that we are continuing to work with 3M Canada. We’re going to absolutely continue to listen to concerns. We’re going to be continuously working diligently to remedy this situation. We’re as frustrated and disappointed as anyone, but we are going to work together on a path forward to make sure that we uphold the plates that have been designed and tested with key stakeholders in mind. But we’re also going to be taking into consideration the concerns that we have heard. Again, we’re moving quickly with 3M to remedy this situation.

Education funding

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. If I could take a moment, I want to wish the Premier a speedy recovery. By my count, I think this is the fourth time you’ve hit the roof in the last year. Speaker, it’s looking like he might get repetitive strain.

The licence plate fiasco is emblematic of the Premier’s record in government: a misplaced priority, bad decision, hastily implemented, bad result. Autism: same thing; climate change: same thing; public health: same thing. Education is headed in that direction. So my question for the Premier is: Will he listen to Ontario families and keep class sizes small?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education to reply on behalf of the government.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: In the last election the people of this province, in their wisdom, rendered a decision that they would not proceed with the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government that had doubled the debt, increased taxation—the highest child care spaces in the nation. We saw more schools closed under one party than any government in the history of Ontario since Confederation.

In their wisdom, they chose a government that’s focused on investing in what matters most to people in this province: more money in health care, more money in education, more money into social services that are consequential to the lives of working people.

Speaker, under our plan, we envision a positive commitment to education that sees students succeeding, getting jobs and being more productive in the economy. That is our plan, and it starts with keeping kids in class. That’s what we’re fighting for at the negotiating table.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, the licence plate is a 12-by-6 piece of metal. They can’t even get the word “Ontario” big enough for cameras to read it. So I get a little concerned when they start messing with things like education. They can’t get a licence plate right.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Parents are telling you, “We don’t want larger class sizes.” They’re saying, “We want to make sure that every child in the classroom gets the support they need so they can all learn—that child and my child, as well.”

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you to the NDP for a heckle too. I know she’s supportive of education. Thank you very much to the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you for your support.

Parents don’t want—

Interjections.

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

I apologize to the member who has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The government side will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The official opposition will come to order.

The clock will start. Member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t know why the official opposition is heckling a party that has six members and that’s not in government. I haven’t figured that out yet. Maybe they can explain after question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. John Fraser: Sorry; I’m having too much fun here.

Parents don’t want a half-baked plan for online learning.

My question to the Premier is this: Will you listen to parents and just keep classrooms safe, strong places for kids to learn?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you so much for the question.

I just want to remind the MPP that the reason you have six people in the House is because you destroyed this province; you absolutely destroyed it. You increased taxes more than any government in the history of Ontario. You ran up hydro bills more than any government—

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

I ask the Premier to recognize that I’m standing up, and I ask him to take his seat. I will ask the Premier to address his comments through the Chair.

Start the clock. I ask the Premier to conclude.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: They put us in debt and put every person in this chamber and everyone in Ontario in more debt than any other jurisdiction in the world—$346 billion of debt, a $15-billion deficit. And they sit back and wonder why they have six members? They’re lucky to have six members.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Infrastructure.

For years, I asked the Wynne Liberal government to listen to the concerns of our local municipal leaders and to provide funding to address the critical infrastructure needs of municipalities in Sarnia–Lambton. Instead, their concerns fell on deaf ears, with infrastructure in my riding left crumbling to a state of disrepair.

Minister, I know we have committed to investing a historic $144 billion in things like transit, roads and hospitals right across this great province over the next 10 years. I can say that this investment will have a strong, positive impact on the economic development of Sarnia–Lambton, improving our ability to attract investment.

Can the minister please tell this House what infrastructure investments the Ontario government is making in my riding and across this province?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to thank the member from Sarnia–Lambton for his important question.

I am very proud to stand in this place today and tell this House that under Premier Ford’s leadership and with this government, we have nominated more than 350 projects to the federal government under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program for final funding approval. This includes 144 road, bridge, air and marine infrastructure projects and over 200 public transit projects, for a total provincial investment of more than $480 million, through the public transit and rural and northern streams of the Infrastructure Canada program.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Liberal government that we just heard about, we are listening to the concerns of our municipal partners and are making significant investments in infrastructure, while working to maximize the federal funding dollars that are available. We’re building and improving infrastructure projects that are important to all of us in Ontario.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Minister, for that response. It’s reassuring to be able to tell my municipalities in Sarnia–Lambton that our government hears their calls for help loud and clear, and that we are actively delivering on long-awaited infrastructure investments in Sarnia–Lambton.

I was thrilled to announce recently that our government nominated 13 projects for final federal approval under the ICIP. Two of these projects were under the rural and northern stream, with over $2 million worth of provincial investments. The other 11 projects were nominated under the public transit stream of the ICIP funding agreement. I know these projects will attract investment and get people moving again.

Minister, Sarnia–Lambton is getting tired of waiting. When will the long-awaited federal approval finally arrive, so that the city of Sarnia and Lambton county can finally get their shovels in the ground?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I thank the member again for his question.

I understand the frustration of waiting that the member has and that his constituents have, as to why less than a third of the more than 350 projects that have been nominated to the federal government for approval have been completed. I remain optimistic that when the federal minister looks at these projects—that we hope she already has—the approval has to be in the mail. I’m hoping the mail comes soon, Mr. Speaker.

And the minute that I receive the formal written approval, I will personally ensure that the member and his constituents—for the $7.7 million that they have been awarded, from the provincial government anyway—can move forward and they can put shovels in the ground. They can build those projects.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, infrastructure is a marquee part of our mandate on this side of the House, and we understand how important it is to the municipalities—

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

The next question?

Education funding

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Premier. I recently heard from the York Region District School Board, which is concerned that mandatory e-learning is going to be particularly hard on students who already face systemic and institutional barriers to learning, including Indigenous, Black and racialized youth.

Mr. Speaker, students are already suffering, thanks to Conservative cuts to education. Now, this reckless plan to force even more kids out of the classroom is going to make things even worse.

Why does this government continue to believe that they know better than the teachers, the students and the parents who are all calling for the same—that this government stop this ridiculous plan?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Obviously, through the negotiations, the aim of the government, including on subject matter like online learning, is to get a deal. Right now we’re negotiating with two of our partners. The aim is to get predictability and stability in the sector. Our kids should be in school.

When it comes to the vision and when it comes to the mission of our negotiating mandate, it is to continue to see more investments under this Progressive Conservative government in public education than any government in the history of Ontario. But we expect better; we expect greater levels of accountability for the tax dollars in the system.

Right now, we have seen over 80 cents on the dollar spent on compensation. We want to see a strong return. We want to see more than 50% of grade 6 kids passing their math standards.

When it comes to online learning, we believe one of the critical skill sets our young people need in the job market is greater influence on technological fluency. We’re going to do that by providing online learning for students in this province.

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

Mr. Kevin Yarde: Again to the Premier: It’s not just students and parents in York and Peel region who don’t want mandatory e-learning. Parents right across the province are saying that this isn’t just a bad idea; it’s downright absurd. Two thirds of parents think mandatory e-learning will be bad for their kids, and we know that these cuts will have a disproportionately negative effect on racialized students.

Parents of Black and racialized students need to be confident that their children will get the education that they rightfully deserve. If the minister is truly listening to parents and students who are concerned about systemic racism in our schools, he would not impose mandatory e-learning courses.

Will the minister admit that his misguided e-learning program is a bad idea, and stop trying to make life worse for Ontario families?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. If we want to champion the interests of equity and diversity in this province, then we will stand together in opposition to a regulation that gives no consideration for equity considerations of new teachers in this province. We should speak with one voice, demanding that in this negotiation, regulation 274 sees some reform.

Right now, the system gives preference to union seniority. If we speak with a commitment to advance equity in the classroom, to see educators reflecting the diverse needs of their communities, then we will stand together, oppose this regulation and put students first in this negotiation.

Equal opportunity

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier, on the eve of International Women’s Day.

Our previous government made strides in supporting women and others who have traditionally been disadvantaged in the workplace. We raised the minimum wage. We enhanced employment protections, and we passed the Pay Transparency Act to promote women’s full and equal participation in the workforce.

Unfortunately, this government has rolled back these improvements to the labour force and to the advancement of gender equality in Ontario. The minimum wage increase was cancelled, paid sick days have been slashed, and the Pay Transparency Act, which has received royal assent, has been suspended indefinitely and without explanation.

Speaker, can the Premier explain why he decided not to enact the Pay Transparency Act, and will he commit to setting the date for the act to come into force by International Women’s Day, on March 8 this year?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for your question. Our government is committed to empowering all women and girls across Ontario.

While we live in a province that values inclusion and equal opportunity, we know that women and girls in Ontario still face many barriers. Women remain underrepresented in political and corporate leadership and in some key sectors of our economy.

We also know that racialized women, Indigenous women, immigrant women, and women living with disabilities tend to experience even greater barriers across our province.

We also know that women experience a disproportionate risk of violence as well, and one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime, Indigenous women being especially at risk.

We also know that gender stereotypes and gender biases develop early and affect the choices of girls and women, and often these biases follow women into the workplace.

Addressing these kinds of systemic barriers and gender biases is imperative for achieving full gender equality in Ontario.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I appreciate the member’s response and the awareness of the problem. My question is, what are you doing about it?

Women still earn 74 cents to every dollar a man earns in this province. Speaker, suspending this legislation fits in with a larger pattern that we have seen with this government. They have cancelled planned increases to rape crisis centres, cut funding to the Ontario College of Midwives, and slashed billions of dollars of funding from social services and children’s services.

In fact, the word “beer” was mentioned three times more in the last budget than the word “women”—50% of Ontario’s population.

Speaker, can the Premier name a single action that his government has taken to promote gender equality in our province, and will he and his Minister of Finance commit to putting the budget through a gender-based lens?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The minister to reply? The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Let me remind the member opposite that she was part of a government that was in power for 15 years. On the eve of the last election, in 2018, they decided to raise this issue. But for 15 years, do you know what this party did? Some 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the province of Ontario. I come from southwestern Ontario, where hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost. Many women’s jobs were impacted.

Our plan for everyone in Ontario is working. Some 300,000 jobs have been created in 18 months. For the first time in over 10 years, wages are going up in the province of Ontario for women and men, and for the first time in 30 years, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the province of—

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

The next question?

Public transit

Mr. Stephen Crawford: My question is to the Associate Minister of Transportation. Through you, Speaker: Transit is one of the biggest concerns of my constituents in the riding of Oakville. People have been clear to me that they want adequate access to public transit, so that they can get home and to work quickly and spend less time in traffic idling in their cars while they could be spending more time with their families.

I’m happy to hear that our government is making a commitment to build transit-focused communities which would add more homes and more jobs around transit stations.

Can the minister please tell the House why it is so important to build transit-oriented communities in the GTA?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Through you, Mr. Speaker: The greatest opportunity before the people in the GTA is building fast, reliable public transit and more housing. Transit-oriented communities are about providing housing where people want it the most: near public transit.

On Tuesday, we took a big step forward. The Minister of Transportation tabled new legislation to build subway infrastructure faster. As we make preparations to get shovels in the ground and build subways, it’s equally important that we seize this opportunity to build stations the right way.

On January 30, Toronto city council endorsed our memorandum of understanding for transit-oriented communities. Together, in collaboration with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we will be providing more transit and more homes.

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the minister. I’m glad the minister and the government are committed to delivering transit-oriented communities and getting them built the right way. Building new transit stations with appropriate density and amenities for those who already live in a community isn’t just good policy; it’s common sense, especially for large municipalities like Toronto. It’s good to see some leadership on this file, which will deliver more transit and more housing—two things that all of us in the House agree we need more of. There are many reasons as to why this approach should be taken.

Can the minister please inform the House of the great benefits that come when building transit-oriented communities around transit stations?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Traditionally in the GTA, stations have been built in isolation—a lost opportunity. Through our transit-oriented communities program, we will not only be bringing fast, reliable transit to new communities, but we will also be building communities around future subway stations the right way: one thoughtful, integrated approach.

Transit-oriented communities will increase ridership, reduce congestion, create jobs and a mix of housing, and build complete communities based on good planning principles. By living near transit, Mr. Speaker, you’re not forced to buy a car or pay high auto insurance rates. We are connecting people to places and making life easier and more affordable for the taxpayer.

Tenant protection

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: My question is to the Premier. Today, we are joined by Kenneth, who came all the way from St. Catharines. Kenneth is a 72-year-old senior who lives by himself in a one-bedroom apartment in downtown St. Catharines. He has lived in the apartment for over a decade, but Kenneth’s landlord is trying to evict him to undergo renovations. This is the second time Kenneth is faced with having to defend his home, after the same company dropped the first claim.

Throughout all of this, Kenneth has been dealing with terminal cancer. He just wants to spend the time he has left in his own home.

Premier, why does this government think creating anxiety and doing nothing to protect vulnerable seniors like Kenneth from losing their homes to renovictions is okay?

Interjections.

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I want to thank the member opposite for raising the concerns of constituents. We’ve heard concerns of the other constituents, Angela and Roland and Leonard and others, that they’ve brought up in the House.

We know that a house is more than a house; a house is a home. We know that’s important to people. There is a process in place. There are rules in place. There are rules to be followed and decisions to be made.

So without knowing the very specifics of that situation, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: When somebody is renovating, there are rules around when somebody can let the property be upgraded. The