Ontario Hansard — 27 November 2019 (42nd Parliament, 1st Session)
2019-11-27
Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">
November 27, 2019
42nd Parliament, 1st Session
< Previous sitting day
Next sitting day >
Hansard Transcripts
Votes and Proceedings
Orders and Notices
Hansard Transcript 2019-Nov-27 (PDF)
L132 - Wed 27 Nov 2019 / Mer 27 nov 2019
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO
Wednesday 27 November 2019 Mercredi 27 novembre 2019
Orders of the Day
Plan to Build Ontario Together Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le plan pour bâtir l’Ontario ensemble
Legislative reform
Introduction of Visitors
Wearing of pins
Death of member’s father
Oral Questions
Government contracts
Government contracts
Religious freedom
Seniors’ dental care
Education issues
Climate change
Renewable energy
Climate change
Opioid abuse
Firefighters
Tourism
Water quality
Firefighters
Legislative reform
Adoption
French-language education
Deferred Votes
Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les services provinciaux visant le bien-être des animaux
Plan to Build Ontario Together Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le plan pour bâtir l’Ontario ensemble
Legislative reform
Introduction of Visitors
Members’ Statements
Workplace safety
Seniors’ dental care
Conservation authorities
Claude Bennett
Water quality
Climate change
Future Possibilities for Kids
Arts and culture
Sledge hockey challenge
Scleroderma
Reports by Committees
Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills
Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills
Introduction of Bills
Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act (Vaping is not for Kids), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée (le vapotage n’est pas pour les enfants)
Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Journée de la sécurité et de la santé au travail
Long-Term Care Homes Amendment (Till Death Do Us Part) Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la
Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée (Jusqu’à ce que la mort nous sépare)
Petitions
Diabetes treatment
Access to personal health records
Diabetes treatment
Fish and wildlife management
Diabetes treatment
Fish and wildlife management
Diabetes treatment
Fish and wildlife management
Diabetes treatment
School bus safety
Diabetes treatment
Addiction services
Orders of the Day
Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur les bases nécessaires à la promotion et à la protection des services de santé mentale et de lutte contre les dépendances
Adjournment Debate
Retirement homes
The House met at 0900.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Let us pray.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Plan to Build Ontario Together Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur le plan pour bâtir l’Ontario ensemble
Resuming the debate adjourned on November 25, 2019, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:
Bill 138,
An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes / Projet de loi 138, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter, à modifier ou à abroger diverses lois.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 26, 2019, I am now required to put the question. Mr. Phillips has moved second reading of Bill 138,
An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact, amend and repeal various statutes.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.
All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
A recorded vote being required, this will be deferred until after question period today.
Second reading vote deferred.
Legislative reform
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.
Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that the order of the House dated October 22, 2018 amending the standing orders be rescinded, and that the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly be amended as follows:
The following new standing order is added:
“1.1 The Speaker may alter the application of any standing or special order or practice of the House, other than those that deal with number of times or duration of time a member may speak, the timing of proceedings or the time allotted to proceedings, in order to permit the full participation in the proceedings of the House of any member with a disability.”
Standing order 2 is amended by adding the following:
“‘Board of Internal Economy’ means the Board of Internal Economy established by the Legislative Assembly Act.
“‘Orders and Notices paper’ means the paper printed and distributed on any one sessional day.”
Standing orders 6(
a) and (
b) are deleted and the following substituted:
“6.(
a) During a Parliament, the House shall meet:
“(
i) In a spring meeting period from the Tuesday following Family Day to the first Thursday in June; and
“(ii) In a fall meeting period from the Monday following Labour Day to the second Thursday in December.
“(
b) During these meeting periods, the House shall not meet during the following Constituency Weeks:
“(
i) The week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act for the school holiday in March;
“(ii) The week in which Easter Monday falls;
“(iii) The week in which Victoria Day falls;
“(iv) The week in which Thanksgiving Day falls;
“(
v) The week in which Remembrance Day falls, except that if Remembrance Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, the House shall instead not meet the week preceding Remembrance Day, nor on the Monday immediately following Remembrance Day.
“(b.1) With notice, the government House leader may propose a motion to extend the hours of meeting during the last 18 sessional days in the fall and spring sessional periods provided for in clause (a), and during any extension thereof.”
Standing order 6 is amended by adding the following clause:
“(c.1) At any time prior to the commencement of an evening meeting scheduled pursuant to this standing order, the government House leader may indicate to the House that the evening meeting is no longer required, and it shall thereupon be cancelled.”
Standing order 8(
a) is deleted and the following substituted:
“8.(
a) The weekly meeting
schedule for the House when it is in session shall be:
Day
Time
Proceeding
Monday
10:15 a.m.
Morning routine:
Members’ statements
Introduction of visitors
Question period
Deferred votes
Following morning routine
Recess
1:00 p.m.
Afternoon routine:
Introduction of visitors
Reports by committees
Introduction of bills
Statements by the ministry and responses
Motions
Petitions
Following afternoon routine
Orders of the day
6:00 p.m.
Adjournment
Tuesday
9:00 a.m.
Orders of the day
10:15 a.m.
Morning routine:
Members’ statements
Introduction of visitors
Question period
Deferred votes
Following morning routine
Recess
3:00 p.m.
Afternoon routine:
Introduction of visitors
Reports by committees
Introduction of bills
Statements by the ministry and responses
Motions
Petitions
Following afternoon routine
Orders of the day
6:00 p.m.
Adjournment
Wednesday
9:00 a.m.
Orders of the day
10:15 a.m.
Morning routine:
Members’ statements
Introduction of visitors
Question period
Deferred votes
Following morning routine
Recess
3:00 p.m.
Afternoon routine:
Introduction of visitors
Reports by committees
Introduction of bills
Statements by the ministry and responses
Motions
Petitions
Following afternoon routine
Orders of the day
6:00 p.m.
Adjournment
Thursday
9:00 a.m.
Orders of the day
10:15 a.m.
Morning routine:
Members’ statements
Introduction of visitors
Question period
Deferred votes
Following morning routine
Recess
1:00 p.m.
Afternoon routine:
Introduction of visitors
Reports by committees
Introduction of bills
Statements by the ministry and responses
Motions
Petitions
Following afternoon routine
Private members’ public business
Following private members’ public business
Orders of the day
6:00 p.m.
Adjournment
Standing order 8(
b) is amended by deleting “and at 10:25 a.m. every day.”
Standing order 8 is amended by adding the following clause:
“(c.1) Following prayers on the first sitting Monday of each month, the Canadian national anthem and the royal anthem shall be sung in the chamber.”
Standing order 8(
d) is deleted and the following substituted:
“(
d) When the Speaker calls orders of the day the government House leader may indicate that no business, or no further business, as the case may be, is to be called, whereupon the Speaker shall recess the House to the next daily proceeding, or adjourn the House to the next sessional day, as the case may be.”
Standing order 8(
e) is amended by deleting “3:15” and substituting “4:00” and by deleting “10:30” and substituting “10:15.”
Standing order 9(
c) is amended by deleting the words “the House or.”
The following new standing order is added:
“20.1 The use of laptops, tablets and smartphones is permitted in the chamber and committee rooms provided they are operated silently, do not impair decorum and are not used as a telephone, recording device, camera or prop.”
Standing order 25 is amended by deleting the first paragraph and substituting the following:
“25. Following the speech of each member, 10 minutes will be allotted for members to ask questions on matters relevant to the speech. A member may ask a question for up to one minute and the member originally speaking will then have up to one minute to reply, in the following circumstances:
“Standing orders 25(a), (b), (
c) and (
d) are amended by deleting the words ‘and comments’ in each clause.
“Standing order 28(
i) is amended by deleting the words ‘for closure’ and substituting ‘subject to standing order 9(c), for closure.’”
The heading of
Section VIII is renamed “Daily routine.”
Standing order 30 is deleted and the following substituted:
“(
a) The proceedings in the morning and afternoon routine shall be conducted at the times and in the order set out in standing order 8(a).
“(
b) The time allotted for the afternoon routine each day shall not exceed 90 minutes. At the end of that time the Speaker shall interrupt and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the proceeding currently occupying the House, and thereafter immediately call orders of the day.”
Standing order 33(
c) is amended by deleting the second line.
Standing order 36 is deleted and the following substituted:
“36. Up to five minutes shall be allotted during both the morning and afternoon routine for members to recognize guests. Members may introduce visitors by stating only their name, title, organization and/or riding. No member shall seek to introduce a visitor at any time by way of a point of order.”
Standing orders 37(
e) through (
i) are deleted and the following substituted:
“(
e) Any member of the executive council or any parliamentary assistant may respond to any question during question period and may, in their discretion, decline to answer any question.
“(
f) Parliamentary assistants may direct questions only to ministers other than their own.
“(
g) The Speaker has the discretion to permit an independent member to place a question and one supplementary question during question period. In exercising his or her discretion, the Speaker shall have regard to the opportunities that members of recognized parties, other than the leaders of opposition parties or members who place questions instead of the leaders, have to place such questions.”
The following new standing order is added:
“38.1 Any divisions deferred under standing orders 9(
c) or 28(
h) shall be disposed of consecutively during this time and the bells shall be rung for five minutes prior to each division.”
Standing order 40(
b) is amended by adding at the end, “and such distribution may be done electronically”.
Standing order 42(
a) is deleted and the following substituted:
“(
a) There shall be 12 hours allotted to the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne and any amendments thereto, at the end of which time the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
“(a.1) The debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne shall be completed before the presentation of the budget.”
Standing order 46(
a) is amended by deleting all the words following “interrupt the bell,” and substituting “deem the debate to be adjourned and call the next proceeding pursuant to standing order 8(a).”
Standing order 47(
c) is deleted and the following substituted:
“(
c) A time allocation motion may not be moved until second reading debate has been completed or six and a half hours of debate have taken place on second reading consideration of any government bill or on a substantive government motion. Upon completion of six and a half hours of debate, the Speaker shall deem the debate to be adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.”
Standing order 47(
d) is deleted and the following substituted:
“(
d) A bill, and a time allocation motion applying to that same bill, may not be considered on the same calendar day.”
Standing order 48 is amended by adding at the end, “Except as provided by standing order 9(c), the vote on a motion for closure shall not be deferred.”
Standing order 54 is amended by deleting the word “government”.
Standing orders 60(a), (
b) and (
c) are deleted and the following substituted:
“60.(
a) The Standing Committee on Estimates shall select for consideration the estimates of not fewer than six and not more than 12 ministries and offices.
“(b)(
i) The estimates of the ministries and offices to be considered by the committee shall be selected by members of the committee such that the members of the party forming the official opposition shall select first, followed by the members of the other recognized parties in order of their representation in the House, and the members of the party forming the government shall select last.
“(ii) With each turn, the members of each party may choose the estimates of one or two ministries or offices to be considered.
“(iii) If, when their turn to select occurs, the members of one party decline to make a selection, the selection passes to the members of the next party in the rotation as provided in (i).
“(
c) The estimates of the ministries and offices shall be considered in the order in which they were selected.”
Standing order 60(
d) is amended by deleting the word “round” and substituting the word “turn” in each instance.
Standing order 69 is amended by deleting the words “up to one member from each of the recognized parties, and by any independent member” and substituting “up to four private members of the House”.
Standing order 71(
a) is amended by deleting the words “and distributed and marked ‘printed’ on the Orders and Notices paper”.
Standing order 71(
b) is amended by deleting “12:00 noon” and substituting “8:30 a.m.” in each instance.
Standing order 79(
b) is amended by deleting the words “and marked ‘reprinted’ on the Orders and Notices paper”.
Standing order 81(
c) is deleted.
Standing order 98(
a) is amended by deleting the first line and the substituting the following:
“Three items of private members’ public business shall be considered each Thursday, and the time provided for each shall be allotted as follows:”
Standing order 98(
e) is deleted.
Standing order 136 is deleted.
Standing order 137(
a) is amended by deleting the words “placed on the Speaker’s table and on the desk of each member a copy of” and substituting “published”.
The following new standing order is added:
“146. For greater certainty, the proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy are proceedings in Parliament.”
And that for the duration of the 42nd Parliament the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly be amended as follows:
Standing order 35(
e) is amended by adding at the end “and an independent member or members may comment for up to a total of five minutes.”
Standing order 43(a)(iv) is deleted and the following substituted:
“(a)(iv) shall be taken up upon the commencement of orders of the day in the afternoon on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, as the case may be, the time available being apportioned equally among the recognized parties in the House, after first allotting time to the independent member(
s) of the House, if any; the time for a reply by the mover of the motion shall be included in the time apportioned to the party of which the mover is a member;
“(iv.1) the time allotted to independent members referred to in (iv) shall be three minutes per independent member up to a maximum of 12 minutes, which may be shared among the independent members;”
Standing order 47(
b) is deleted and the following substituted:
“47(
b) Two hours shall be allotted to the debate, apportioned equally among the recognized parties, after first allotting time to the independent member(
s) of the House, if any. At the end of this time the Speaker shall without further debate or amendment put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.
“(b.1) The time allotted to independent members referred to in (
b) shall be three minutes per independent member up to a maximum of 12 minutes, which may be shared among the independent members.”
Standing order 66(
a) is deleted and the following substituted:
“66(
a) On the first item of the first vote of each set of estimates, a representative of each recognized party may speak for not more than 30 minutes and the minister or person answerable for the estimates is allowed not more than 30 minutes for a right of reply. Thereafter, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates shall ensure that the members adhere strictly to the vote and item under consideration and shall apportion the remaining time among the recognized parties after first allotting time to the independent member(
s) on the committee, if any.
“66(a.1) the time allotted to independent member(
s) referred to in (
a) shall be 15 minutes.”
Standing order 113(
e) is amended by adding the following at the end:
“In the case of independent members, the notification must be signed by the independent permanent member and the independent substituting member. If a committee meeting is divided into morning and afternoon segments on the same sitting day, this clause applies to each segment individually.”
And, that the Clerk is authorized to re-number standing orders 30 to 39 and to order them as the daily routine proceedings are set out in standing order 8(a), and to make such other consequential, editorial or other minor changes as may be required to ensure a consistent form of expression throughout the standing orders; and
That in exercising his discretion under standing orders 31(c), 37(
i) and 98(a)(iv) the Speaker shall recognize independent members for the duration of the 42nd Parliament as follows:
—during members’ statements: one per day
—during oral questions: two questions per day, each followed by one supplementary
—during private members’ public business: five minutes for each item of business, which may be shared.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 73.
Mr. Calandra, back to you.
Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you to the House for your patience in allowing me to read that fairly lengthy presentation. I do appreciate it. At the outset—I will be splitting my time with the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.
Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to some of the changes that we are proposing to the standing orders. This is something that we have been working on and consulting with all parties since July.
Some of the amendments that we have put in here are obviously common sense amendments that I’m sure all members of the Legislature will agree with. The use of laptops and cellphones, which is commonplace and most members are doing already—the changes that we’re putting here just allow that to be recognized right in the standing orders.
Obviously, the changes that allow for people with disabilities to more fully participate is something I’m sure all members will agree with and will not be a cause for much debate.
Some of the other things that we’re doing in here are aligned around helping debate move faster and making debate more relevant to the members of the House and to the general public.
We are making some changes that will allow members to debate back and forth when it comes to the defence of a speech that is made in the House. Members will know that the current practice is, when you give a speech in the House on a particular bill, you have what we call here the hits; it’s a two-minute discussion on a member’s speech. We are eliminating that, and we are asking that members, in essence, defend the speech they have made on a topic, instead of the two-minute hits.
As we outlined in the changes, a member will give a speech and, following a similar rotation that we do right now, will be questioned by other members in the House on the contents of the speech that they gave. That member will then defend their speech, in essence, for five minutes, with questioning that will go back and forth. I think that will make for a more lively debate and will increase accountability in the House.
I think it will also lead to more consistency in the speeches, because members, as I said, will have to defend the speech that they are making, and the questions that come from our side and from the opposition side will have to be based on the speech that the member has given.
The other benefit of that change: It does allow the Speaker to have a bit more of a role to play in ensuring that debate focuses on what we’re speaking about on any given day, on the bill that is before the House. So I think that is a positive change.
One of the other changes, of course, is to allow night sittings in the final 18 sessional days. I know that some changes have been made on this in the past, to try to eliminate some of the night sittings. But what we’re trying to do is make it so that there is less packed into the last 12 days by providing more opportunities for there to be night sittings. I suspect what it will result in is, actually, fewer night sittings, because there will be more opportunities in order for the government to proceed and get its legislation through and we won’t have to pack it into those last 12 days, as so often is the case.
There are a lot of minor changes here.
I think one of the other good changes that colleagues will have noticed is that members’ statements will be changing from where they are now to before question period. They will happen at 10:15 every day. One of the reasons we’re bringing that forward is, we heard from a lot of members, as we’ve consulted on this, that this—in their opinion, and I agree with it—will allow for the elevation of the importance of members’ statements because it will happen in front of a full House, when all of the members are coming into the chamber for question period. They will all be here.
We will be able to hear about the important things that members are doing in their communities and in their constituencies. The galleries will be full with a lot of the people members are actually speaking about in their statements. We thought it was a good opportunity, so when the proposal was brought forward to us, we thought that we would add that into it.
Another change is to limit the length of time for introduction of guests. I have taken the opportunity myself to introduce guests who have been here, but it has taken on a life of its own, and has gone from what was a five minute—the inspiration of it is good. The introduction of guests was to stop members rising on points of order to introduce guests. They thought by bringing it in that it would work better, and it does work better. But because it’s not codified in the standing orders, as opposed to being five minutes, it can go for 15 minutes or 20 minutes.
As excited as we all get—I have done it too, so this is not a criticism of anybody—we sometimes welcome the same guest three or four times, which delays us getting into question period and really focusing on the things that we are supposed to be doing, Mr. Speaker. So that change has been put in there. We’ve allowed for a firm five minutes, as I said, before question period, and then another firm five minutes in the afternoon. I think that will help us move debate along a little bit better.
We also have obviously made some changes that will allow for the independent members to better participate in debate both here in the House and at committee, to make things run a little bit smoother. We are cognizant of the fact that this House probably has larger numbers of independents than we are used to, so many of those changes will be in effect for the duration of the 42nd Parliament. We did not think it was appropriate to tie future Parliaments to the reality of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker.
I think that that will certainly—one of the things that we did hear, and we have heard, is that we have to do a better job of allowing more voices to be heard in the Legislature. With such a large group of independents in this Parliament, we felt that it would be appropriate to give them more of a voice both in question period and in some of the debate that happens in this place.
The other thing that I think might cause some people to question is the referral. When I say the referrals during question period, this happens in all Legislatures. Most of the questions in this House are asked of the Premier, and the practice is that the Premier—or the Deputy Premier or the House leader in their absence—will rise and refer the question to the appropriate minister. Ontario is the only Legislature of the provinces—and that includes the House of Commons—that has this rule.
In consulting with colleagues, I believe that this was a change in—if I’m incorrect on this, I will apologize to the House later, but I believe this was a change that was brought in in the late 1990s. In consulting with individuals, it was deemed to be a bit of a time-waster, so we are eliminating that referral. That doesn’t mean that people can’t ask questions to who they want. If they want to ask it to the Premier, they can certainly do that, but the Premier can choose or the minister can choose, without a referral, who will be answering the question.
Again, I think that just allows for the question period to run a bit smoother.
One of the final things I’ll touch on: There has been a change to a practice that was left over from the last time the standing orders were changed in a big way. We have this awkward scenario where we have something that can be debated in the morning and then cannot be debated in the afternoon. It causes for disjointed debate in the House. We are making changes that will allow an order that is called in the morning to continue to be debated in the afternoon.
In response to criticism—or concern; I don’t want to say criticism. In response to concern from people that this might mean that the government can move legislation through this chamber quicker than we already have the legislated right to do, we have made it very clear that a time allocation motion cannot happen on the same day that a bill has been proceeded with in this new fashion. We have not taken away the ability of the opposition to bring forward reasoned amendments, which function to help delay the passage of bills, Mr. Speaker.
In total, we have consulted broadly on this. We’ve worked with many of the members opposite. I am pleased that both the Liberal and Green members and the independents will be supporting it. I look forward to the debate that occurs throughout the next few days.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Continuing on with debate, I recognize the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.
Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Speaker. It’s not often that I get to participate in debate with you in the Chair, so this is very exciting.
Of course, I am happy to be here this morning to speak to this motion. As the House knows, I’m always eager to participate in debate. I’m passionate about the issues that are debated in this place on a daily basis, and I consider it a great privilege and honour to participate at every opportunity.
My constituents elected me to come to this place and represent them. They did not send me here expecting me to be a bump on a log, and I work every day to live up to their expectations. The reason I mention this is because I know all members in this place feel the same obligations to their constituents. This Legislature is a place of passion and thorough debate. One of the things that I’m most excited about are the many measures in these changes to the standing orders which will enhance debate and enhance participation, especially by our independent members.
I will get into the many ways these changes to the standing orders will make this place work better, but first, I think we should talk about how we got to this point. The government House leader has taken time to do this the right way. This is a collaborative and inclusive approach to modernizing the rules of this Legislature. The government House leader reached out proactively to the opposition and to the independents in this place to make sure that we were updating the rules with an eye to fairness and genuine improvement of the way this place works.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that consultation was a success. Many of these changes included in this motion originated with the independent members in this House. The independent members who sit in this chamber, no matter which political party they identify with, are here for the same reasons as the members of the Conservative Party and the NDP, my friends across the aisle: They want to positively effect change here in Ontario. Yes, of course, we disagree, probably fundamentally, on the politics, and we have varying views of how this should be done, but when it comes down to it, we are all here to do our best to contribute proactively to our great province.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the people of Ontario may not know the limits and the extent of this place. For example, when a government minister stands to make a formal statement in the Legislature, right now independent members do not have an opportunity to split their time for a response. We are changing that. We heard from our independent members, and we recognize that this is a unique Parliament, with a particularly large number of members who are not part of recognized parties.
It’s important to note that what we are doing is formalizing. Right now, with unanimous consent, we know that in this House we can make exceptional accommodations, but we know that, in this case, the ability to participate should be predictable and consistent.
I mentioned ministerial statements. These are formal occasions for a government to express an opinion in this Legislature, but there is more. We also have opposition motions. The opposition in here in this place get regular opportunities through the course of a legislative sitting to bring motions to this House and have them debated. Right now, opportunities for debate are not necessarily afforded to the independent members. If passed, this Legislature will be changing that. If this motion is passed, independent members will get a fairer chance to participate here in this chamber, and I think that is a good thing.
Like I said earlier, we members who sit in this House have an obligation to our constituents to be active, engaged and involved. While there are many ways to do that behind the scenes, to have your words and opinions transcribed into Hansard and broadcast, probably around the world, is an indelible contribution to our democracy. I know that when I stand here, the words I speak will be printed in books which will be stored in our library and posted on the Internet for as long as this province and country exist. That gives me great pride.
As many of you here know, my father was also a member in this place. When I think that these very words, or the speech I gave last week or may give next week, will sit printed forever next to the words of my father, that means even more.
I explain this because it is with that context that I consider the words I say in this House, and I know that my constituents will hear me, that my family will hear me—they’re actually watching right now; I got a text a little bit earlier; hi, Gemma—and I want them to be proud of what I stand up for here, and that it’s honourable.
But I am just one member in this place. We have colleagues in this House who also understand the importance of the words they speak here, except the extent to which they are allowed to participate is limited. Let’s change that. Let’s recognize that in this Parliament we have nine members who are not affiliated with a recognized party. I think those members should have more of an opportunity to participate in debate here.
If passed, this motion would allow time for independent participation in debate on opposition day motions, debate on time allocation motions, enhanced participation in the estimates process, enhanced participation in the committee process and the simple ability to substitute for other independent members at committee if their schedules get a little too tight.
Now let me get to what I consider the most exciting changes for independent members. Question period: While we can all argue about just about anything in question period—and we usually do—I think everyone in this place agrees that it is the most passionate time of day in the Legislature. Emotions run high. There’s heckling. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker; I think I can admit I have maybe heckled once or twice. But I think we both know that heckling does not come from a place of disrespect for this chamber, but it comes from passion. This is the same passion that got us all here. I promise I will try to hold myself back.
I respect that our fellow members care so much about what they have to say here that they can’t help it sometimes; they also need to interject.
That is why I am excited that we are formalizing independent participation in question period, members’ statements and private members’ business. With these changes, the Legislature will allow two questions and supplementaries for independent members each day, as well as one member’s statement. The independent members of this place have much to contribute, and I am excited to see that that will happen, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to mention to you as well—I’m not sure if I have to do this. I may also be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, I believe, Kaleed Rasheed. Quickly, what’s your riding?
Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Mississauga East–Cooksville.
Mr. Mike Harris: Mississauga East–Cooksville—in case I needed to do that. I’m not 100% sure.
There are also changes proposed to participation in debate on private members’ business. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, but for the benefit of those watching at home: Private members’ business is a very important part of this legislative procedure. I would say that this is especially true for those members who are not part of cabinet. Private members’ business is the only opportunity for a member who is not a minister of the crown to directly propose legislation in this place. We go out into our communities, we speak to our constituents and we develop and introduce legislation which is debated in this House and can pass into law.
In October of last year, I introduced Bill 50, the Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. This bill serves to allow motor vehicle dealers to apply for permits and licence plates and complete various other applications online. I developed and tabled that bill, Mr. Speaker, because I know our small business auto dealers spend their day trying to be productive and contribute to the economy, and that standing in line for something that can be ordered with a click of a mouse was not productive.
When I debated my private member’s bill at second reading, I was very happy to have the support of the whole House and for it to pass. We heard many passionate speeches from both sides of the aisle, but we did not hear from an independent member. While I hope that the independent members in this place also supported my bill, I would have welcomed their comments and feedback during second reading debate.
If passed, these changes to the standing orders will allow just that. While the independent members will not get quite as much time as a recognized party, they will have time to contribute productively and collaboratively as, I think, all members of this House seek to do, Mr. Speaker.
I’m sure that, in the coming debate, other members will highlight the many other positive changes this motion seeks to make, but there is one other item that I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss. If these changes are accepted by this Legislature, we will also be adding a new standing order. To summarize that: “The Speaker may alter the application of any standing order or practice of the House ... to permit the full participation in the proceedings of the House of any member with a disability.”
Now, I know that members in this place would not have an issue with making these kinds of accommodations, but I think that in 2019 we shouldn’t need to provide special permission for an elected member of this place to do their job. Imagine a member who required an electronic device to assist them in speaking or a member who required a person to provide medical assistance on an ongoing basis. These should not be things requiring special attention of this House. They should be left to the Speaker to ensure that all members have an equal opportunity and ability to participate.
It should be left to the Speaker to decide which rules might need to be waived for a particular member given their special needs.
Mr. Speaker, if passed, this motion would allow that. It would bring the Legislature into the 21st century and say to all those Ontarians with a disability who are passionate about public service, “Nothing should hold you back,” certainly not a physical barrier or an outdated rule.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I move that the motion be amended by adding the following at the end:
“And that the terms of this motion shall come into force at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, February 18, 2020.”
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Harris has moved that the motion be amended by adding the following at the end:
“And that the terms of this motion shall come into force at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, February 18, 2020.”
Debate on the motion? Back to Mr. Harris.
Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to finish up by saying that it has been an honour to be able to speak here in the House this morning. I’m looking forward to hearing the continued debate on this.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?
Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: It is absolutely an honour to speak on this motion this morning. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity—this motion that has been proposed by the government House leader and the proposed changes to the standing orders of this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, these are the rules by which we operate, the rules that govern our debate, the passage of bills, and the consideration of important issues of the day. This is why it is so important that we approach these proposed changes in a thoughtful, respectful and collaborative way. I’m so pleased to hear that that is exactly what has been done, that the government House leader began studying the standing orders this summer. I know his approach was collaborative and sought to include the NDP, Liberals, independent members and the leader of the Green Party. Mr. Speaker, that collaboration goes a long way.
The proposed changes this Legislature is considering have been consulted on and revised, and now they are here before us as the outcome of a collaborative process.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually disappointed that the NDP had decided to withdraw from the consultation process, especially because what has been presented to this Legislature is ultimately an objective improvement upon the rules that govern this place. I hope that through this debate, NDP members will see the value in these proposed changes and support our motion.
We all know in this place that there is plenty of time for spirited debate on policy and politics, and that will not change. What we are debating today is the best way to structure the rules and procedures of this place to encourage positive, constructive debate. How can we best make this democratic institution function for the people of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga spoke to this House about the passion that we feel as members to represent our constituents. I can confirm what the member told the House. Every day, I consider how best I can leave a lasting impact here that benefits my constituents for years to come. When I go back to my riding, I want to be able to tell my constituents and my family and friends about the good work our government is doing and how I’m contributing as a member of provincial Parliament.
In my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville, I received almost 18,000 votes in the last election. But I know that I’m not here just for those people who checked my name on the ballot; I’m here for all 120,000 people who call Mississauga East–Cooksville their home. I mention this because I consider my role as MPP to be a responsibility more than a job. I’m here to serve the people of Ontario. That is why I’m standing to support this motion that is brought forward by the House leader. I firmly believe that the changes this motion makes will make this Legislature more productive and more encouraging of passionate debate and engagement.
As much as I know it is my responsibility to serve the people of my riding, I also know that this Legislature has 123 other seats, each represented by people with the same mandate of public service. These proposed changes to our standing orders mean that all 124 MPPs in this place will have a better opportunity to participate and involve themselves in legislative business.
More than our individual duties to our constituents, we have a collective duty to the people of Ontario to ensure that this place can carry out business in the best way possible, in the most efficient way possible, in the most inclusive way possible, in the most inspiring way possible.
These changes are not, as some have claimed, an effort to pass legislation faster. Instead, we want to use the time we have efficiently and effectively, and we want to put in place processes that encourage debate and allow the engagement of as many MPPs as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing this motion will do is to allow the complete participation of members with disabilities. Right now, members with disabilities may be constrained by any number of rules, traditions or practices of this Legislature. While the Legislature can grant special consent to accommodate a member, we think that a person who has put their name forward to serve their province and their country should not need to jump through hoops just to do their job.
By making this change, the Speaker of the House would be empowered to alter the application of the rules and practices of this place to accommodate members with disabilities. A member with a speaking disability who requires an electronic assistive device to communicate would not need the unanimous consent of this House to participate in the debate. A member in a wheelchair who cannot stand in their place to vote would not need unanimous consent of this House to cast a vote.
A member who requires a personal assistant in the chamber to support their medical needs would be able to receive this support without needing to ask 123 of their colleagues.
It is obvious to me that we should not allow procedure to stand in the way of public service and democratic participation.
Mr. Speaker, there is another part of these proposed changes which is very exciting to me: The time of the day for statements by members will be moved from the afternoon to first thing in the morning. All members in this place know the value of being able to rise and highlight local events, the accomplishments of constituents or even some important initiative of government. Right now, these statements take place in the afternoon around 1 p.m. or 3 p.m., depending on the day.
These statements are very important to members, but I think we can all agree, most people watch this place for the most exciting part of the day—that is, question period—and may not always tune in throughout the rest of the day.
When the House first meets at 9 a.m., most days of the week, members are assembled and ready for question period; the media is nearby, waiting to report on important exchanges; and visitors flood into our galleries. When I rise in this place to discuss the problem of cyberbullying during Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week, as I did last week, or to discuss the Mississauga Cooksville Lions Club, which has been doing community work since 1983 and just recently donated $231,000 to the Trillium Health Partners Foundation, I want these statements to be heard by as broad of an audience as possible.
As private members, this is a unique opportunity to directly represent or advocate for your community. I hope all members would agree that elevating the profile of these statements and moving them to a time where they may better be heard is only a good thing. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will admit that we are piggybacking on the excitement around question period, but this is one example of how we are trying to use our time more efficiently.
While it is important to me and, I’m sure, to other members to know that my words are being permanently transcribed in Hansard, if we have members of the general public, the media and television audiences all assembled ready to hear question period, let’s also use this as an opportunity to promote our communities and talk about the work we are doing locally and advocate for the things we are passionate about.
The people of Ontario sent us here and placed their trust in us to represent them, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot work to promote public engagement in the democratic process. Enhancing the profile of members’ statements might be a small part of that, but I think it is a positive step in the right direction.
While I’m on the subject of the responsibilities of members, I would like to speak a little about other responsibilities of members, those outside of this chamber. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that there is an ancient custom which we follow closely in this place in which the absence of a member from this Legislature cannot be discussed. I think this is paramount to our ability as elected representatives.
While we would all like to spend all or most of the day in the chamber, not all of us are whips or deputy whips, and even those of us who have obligations which take us back to our offices, to local events, to meetings and to any number of other places—which might not allow us to be here all day every day. This is why the custom of not mentioning an absence is so important. A member may be working on behalf of his constituents but not sitting in his place in the Legislature, and that is not the implication when an absence is discussed.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe one of the proposed changes to the standing orders will help to resolve the struggle between being in the Legislature and attending to other duties as MPPs. The motion we are discussing proposes, for the first time in our history, that we formally allow the use of electronic devices in this chamber in a non-disruptive manner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, no one is suggesting that MPPs should be allowed to make phone calls, take photographs or watch music videos while seated in the chamber. The point of being in the chamber is to be able to monitor and participate in the debate. I know you are liking this, Mr. Speaker, but as we all know, there may be long periods of time in which a member is not required to speak and could be answering emails or doing research for a constituency case.
Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that some members already take advantage of electronic devices, even though the rules do not yet allow it. By adopting this motion as a Legislature, we would be signalling that we understand that members have other obligations, and that where possible these obligations should not force a member to leave the chamber.
When the rules of this place relating to use of technology were written, the world was a different place. A constituent might mail a letter and hope for a response in two weeks or longer. Now constituents reach out to me through Facebook Messenger and expect a response in minutes, not weeks, Mr. Speaker. It is actually true: They sometimes text-message you, or WhatsApp or Messenger—there are so many forms of communication now, and the expectation is that we will get back to them as soon as possible. Passing this motion will help us do our constit work, as well, which I think is a great step.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to serve my constituents as effectively as possible, and for me that means being responsive. Ultimately, this chamber is a place for debate, but allowing quiet, non-disruptive, complementary work could help us all to be better public servants, and if this also allows members to more actively participate in debate, then this is a change we should support.
With this privilege, there would be an expectation of responsibility. Included in the language of the motion, it clearly states that electronic devices may only be used “provided they are operated silently, do not impair decorum and are not used as a telephone, recording device, camera or prop.”
It will be incumbent upon all members to ensure they continue to respect the rules of decorum in this place and use this privilege wisely, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks here, especially in 2019. In 1920, I would imagine that members brought their correspondence into this House to read and to write replies, as some members still do. This motion simply updates the rules of this place in recognition of the fact that much of our daily business is now on a computer rather than on paper.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to another part of the proposed changes which would change the way debate happens here. As you know, Mr. Speaker, debate on a bill is done in rotations. A member from one side of this place has the opportunity to speak to an item of business for 10 minutes. Eight minutes are then allotted to four members to pose a question or to make a comment, not exceeding two minutes each. And then the original speaker has two minutes to reply.
While I have enjoyed participating in debate this way over the past year and a half, I look to our sister Legislatures and to the House of Commons in Ottawa for other ideas. Our format of debate is very constrained. It gives members an opportunity to voice their opinions, but I don’t believe it is used the way it was intended. The two-minute segments following a speech are called “questions and comments,” but it is rare that we see genuine questions during this time. The fact that we rotate through four members to ask questions or comment, and only then return to the original speaker, means that if there are questions posed, it is difficult to properly answer them.
The motion we are considering proposes that we do things a little more like the House of Commons. A member would still make their initial 10-minute speech; however, the member would then take questions from other members of the House. Other members would be permitted up to one minute to ask a question, and then the member who originally spoke would immediately get one minute to reply.
I know you’re liking this, Mr. Speaker, because it’s going to make your job a lot easier as well.
I think this back-and-forth question-and-answer format will encourage thoughtful debate. It will make debate more interactive and it will encourage members to actively consider and respond to what other members are saying.
This House is a place of debate first and foremost. The rules of this place should reflect and encourage the best possible quality of exchange of ideas and opinions. I’m extremely excited to try this new format if this motion is adopted by this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to discuss the proposed changes to private members’ public business. I recently introduced Bill 146. When developing this bill, I had considered, as all members do, whether I wanted to seek co-sponsors. As the standing orders are written now, if I wanted to include a co-sponsor, it could only be a member from another party.
While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues across the aisle, I thought this rule was very strange. Without assuming the opinions of any other member, I think it is fair to say that people generally do not support cyberbullying or bullying of any kind. So when I considered whether to invite members to co-sponsor my bill, my mind first went to many members of my own caucus who I knew would be eager to show their support. Unfortunately, we know this was not possible.
Members on both sides of this House work hard to develop private members’ legislation. If something can be broadly supported even from the outset, I think there should be fewer barriers to demonstrating this.
Our proposed changes to the standing orders would remove these barriers. If passed, this motion would make it possible for any four members to co-sponsor a piece of legislation, regardless of their party. This way, members have more freedom to develop private members’ business in whichever way may best work for them.
For example, I think of the possibility of a bill which may have a particular impact on a municipality or a region. In this case, if consultation had been done and a member had developed a possible resolution to a regional issue, it might be helpful for the member to work on it with other members affected and for there to be a demonstration of broader support through co-sponsoring. Under the current rules, this could only be possible if members from various parties represented the region. In a case where all members representing a region also represent the same party, this would not be possible. It is time we change this.
Private members’ business is an incredibly important tool for most members to directly contribute to or develop a legislated solution to an issue. By passing this motion, we can modernize our rules and encourage the broadest possible engagement.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about only a few of the proposed changes within this motion, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the House will offer impassioned opinions as well, but we have a unique opportunity here. We can work across the aisle to pass this comprehensive and collaborative package of amendments to the rules of our Legislature and by doing so make this a better-functioning democratic institution. I know all members of this place work every day to be the strongest possible advocates for their constituents and these proposed changes only unleash the full ability of members to do this important work.
Let us work together to update our rules for members with disabilities. Let us work together to enhance the profile and awareness of members’ statements. Let us work together to allow members, in 2019, the ability to answer emails while at their desks in the chamber between rounds of debate. Let us work together to make the format of debate more engaging and productive. Let us work together to give members more freedom when it comes to developing private members’ bills.
Mr. Speaker, in this place, we always have the opportunity to argue and fight about politics. Let’s work together and across the aisle on this initiative to improve the Legislature, for us and for future Parliaments.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? Further debate?
Mr. Harris has moved an amendment to government notice of motion number 73 that the motion be amended by adding the following at the end: “And that the terms of this motion shall come into force at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, February 18, 2020.”
Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Harris’s motion carry? I heard a no.
All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.
Vote deferred.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Orders of the day? I recognize the government House leader.
Hon. Paul Calandra: No further business.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): There being no further business, this House now stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.
The House recessed from 1008 to 1030.
Introduction of Visitors
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d like to begin by introducing some special guests who are here with us today from the riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, friends of ours: Christine Kerr, Pat Kerr, Bob Kerr and James Kerr. They’re in the Speaker’s gallery. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We’re delighted to have you here.
Mr. Joel Harden: I want to wish my beloved Clare Roscoe a very happy birthday today. She’s tuning in from home.
I want to also thank John Sobey, who’s here from the International Association of Fire Fighters, for keeping our city safe. We’ve had a rough go with bus crashes, tornadoes and floods. Thank you, John, for everything you do to keep people in our city safe. Cheers.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to intrude again on this process and also welcome to the Legislature the longest-serving Speaker in the history of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: Dave Levac. Welcome back, Dave. It’s always good to have you here.
Mr. Robert Bailey: I would like to introduce, in the gallery today, from the Sarnia Professional Fire Fighters, Matt Bedard, here from Sarnia–Lambton.
Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Today I’d like to welcome John Whitehead from the juvenile diabetes foundation, from St. Catharines.
Also, I’d like to welcome, with the international firefighters’ association, from St. Catharines, Dean Stoltz and Ryan Madill. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you to the men and women of St. Catharines fire who keep our city safe. When we’re running out of a building, you’re running in and making sure we are safe. Our hearts are with you.
Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’d like to give a warm welcome to a personal friend and colleague of mine, John Sobey, president of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association; as well as Vic Dillabaugh; Erik Leicht; and Mark Lalonde, president of the Chalk River professional firefighters’ association. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting with you later.
M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome the leadership of OPFFA, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association: their president, Rob Hyndman, who is from Local 527 in Sudbury, as well as Mark Train and all the other professional firefighters representing their locals.
November is also national Diabetes Awareness Month. I would like to welcome 20 volunteers who came for their advocacy day, as well as some of the staff from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation of Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature, from the Whitby Professional Fire Fighters Association, Bob Brandon, Jason Swail and Mike Tucker. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to do my daily introduction of parents and advocates for autism. Today we have with us Stacy Kennedy and Angela Brandt. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.
Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I wanted to welcome the Barrie professional firefighters who are here with us today: Steve Pomeroy, Kevin White, Eric Webster and Bill Banting. Welcome.
Mr. Kevin Yarde: I’d also like to welcome to the Legislature the Ontario professional firefighters from Peel region and right across all of Ontario. Enjoy your lobby day today. I’m sure we’ll have a lot of frank discussions.
Mr. Stan Cho: I have a number of guests to introduce today, including my friend Kevin Vuong, who is here with his mother, Belinda. Welcome.
On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I am pleased to have joining us today, from the Ajax Professional Fire Fighters Association, Dan Bonnar, Clive Deonarine and Kyle Chamberlain. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Christi Webster and Maya Webster, who are here with the juvenile diabetes foundation. Maya is going to present a petition this afternoon at 3 o’clock.
I’d also like to welcome, from my riding, Kari Everson, Jason Everson, Ava Everson and Eliana Everson.
Also, I’d like to welcome, with the Niagara Falls professional firefighters, my good friend Tim Lea, and Justin, who is stuck in traffic. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Ms. Jane McKenna: I want to recognize Dan VanderLelie, president of the Burlington Professional Firefighters Association.
I also want to thank Jessica Plume. I lost my ring this morning and was in tears, and she found it for me. Thank you so much, Jessica.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There appear to be a number of members on both sides of the House who want this to continue, so I’m happy to continue.
The member for Oshawa.
Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome folks from the Oshawa Professional Firefighters Association, Local 465. We’ve got President Peter Dyson, Cory Devereaux and Nathan Langille here with us today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Hon. Sylvia Jones: As has been mentioned, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association is joining us today. Personally, I would like to welcome Dan VanderLelie, Rob Hyndman and Mark Train, who I met with earlier today.
Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m proud to welcome two firefighters from the great city of Waterloo: Chris Hicknell and Rich Fedy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Ms. Lindsey Park: I would like to welcome Clarington firefighters Michael Kalita and Dan Worrall.
I’d also like to welcome representatives of the Ontario community newspaper publishers: Colleen Green, Gordon Cameron, Dave Adsett and Pamela Portt.
Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I’d like to welcome Eric Nordlund from Thunder Bay Fire Rescue.
I’d also like to welcome members from the Scleroderma Society of Ontario that I met with this morning.
Hon. Monte McNaughton: I too would like to welcome firefighters from my riding, those from Chatham-Kent, who are here today. On behalf of the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development, I’d like to welcome all firefighters from across Ontario.
Ms. Doly Begum: I’d like to welcome some wonderful constituents from Scarborough today: Kingsley Kwok, Michelle Spencer, Ashwinder Suden, Justin Kong, Yan Chen, Aysha Sonna, Felicia Samuel, Faiz Kamal and Wai Kat Tang. Welcome to your House.
Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I also want to welcome Future Possibilities for Kids in the gallery this morning, a wonderful organization that inspires and empowers kids to become community leaders. I would also like to thank and welcome Rickesh Lakhani, the executive director, and all of the young future leaders in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d like to welcome friends from Windsor fire and rescue: Wayne Curry and Sean McNamara, as well as members of the Ontario community news association: Colleen Green, Lori MacDonald and Alexandria Shannon. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.
Mr. Mike Schreiner: I too would like to welcome firefighters to Queen’s Park today, especially Colin Hunter and Andy Sanvido from the Guelph professional firefighters association. Welcome.
Mrs. Robin Martin: I have two groups of people to welcome today. We have members of CJPAC Women in Politics here in our gallery.
Also, I’d like to welcome the advocates and volunteers with JDRF, including a constituent of mine, Lorne Shiff, as well as some great advocates: Anne Pettigrew and her mother, Cathy; Teagan Hulse and her father, Derek; and Tilly Stimpson and her parents, Matt and Joanna.
Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association to Queen’s Park today, including Central York firefighter delegate Kevin Saxton and Andre Bourrie. Thank you for all that you do to keep our community safe, and welcome to Queen’s Park.
I would also like to welcome as part of Scleroderma Advocacy Day the following guests who are in the members’ gallery today: John Malcolmson, Lacey Battaglio, Maureen Worron-Sauve, Susan Docherty-Skippen, Jennifer Botelho, Donna Giles, Silvia Petrozza, Vicki Breech, Jeanne Monteir, Clarissa and Mike Launder, and Keshini Devakandanc. Thank you very much, and welcome to Queen’s Park.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to welcome Andrew Rogerson and Brett Fairweather from the Stratford Professional Fire Fighters Association.
Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to welcome three residents of my riding: Matt, Jo and Tilly Stimpson. Tilly is here; she’s a young lady with juvenile diabetes and she’s here to talk to us about that.
Ms. Christine Hogarth: I’d also like to welcome some visitors here from the Scleroderma Society who are here to speak with us later on this afternoon: Rosemary Vincec, Mary Realejo, Pauline Brousseau, Wendy Vujacic, Marty Edwards, Suzanne Zandbergen, Mike Occomore, Kevin Vuong, Belinda Vuong, David Chung and Aldo Wright. Welcome, and I look forward to meeting with you later on this afternoon.
Mr. Michael Parsa: I just wanted to introduce Kevin Saxton, president of the Central York Professional Firefighters Association, and Andre Bourrie, secretary-treasurer. Welcome to the Legislature.
Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I would like to make a couple of introductions today. It gives me great pleasure to welcome Sean Beer from the London Professional Fire Fighters Association today. Thank you for your service. I look forward to meeting with you.
I also would like to point out that London North Centre is the birthplace of insulin, Banting House. Fittingly, I would like to welcome members of JDRF for your lobby day today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome the Jewish women in politics, once again coming down to Queen’s Park to visit all of us and do some chatting. Hopefully, you’ll all say hello.
Mr. David Piccini: I would like to welcome one of the hardest-working guys I know and our new federal member of Parliament for Northumberland–Peterborough South, Philip Lawrence. Welcome to Queen’s Park.
Hon. John Yakabuski: I would like to recognize a firefighter from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, a firefighter in Deep River, Mark Lalonde, and also Harold Calla, who is the executive director of the First Nations Financial Management Board in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce my firefighters from Orillia: Leona McAusland, Brett Eeles and Moira White, and also from Midland, Doug Ward.
Mr. Jim McDonell: I want to welcome Jeffrey McIntyre from the Ontario professional firefighters in Cornwall.
Miss Christina Maria Mitas: I would like to welcome Tamara Kronis to the House, a long-time political powerhouse and mentor to many women who are looking to get involved in politics. Thank you for being here.
Wearing of pins
Mrs. Robin Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe you’ll find that we have unanimous consent to allow members to wear pins from the Scleroderma Society of Ontario during question period today.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I deal with that matter, I just want to remind the House that there were members on both sides of the House who wanted to introduce guests, so we allowed them to do so even though the standing orders provide for only five minutes.
The member for Eglinton–Lawrence is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear pins and ribbons today for scleroderma awareness. Agreed? Agreed.
Death of member’s father
Hon. Jeff Yurek: Point of order.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has a point of order.
Hon. Jeff Yurek: I just wanted to thank the members of this House, the media, and all those who reached out to share their compassion with the loss of my father last week. It’s very heartwarming, and it shows that even though we do bicker back and forth, we’re still a family here. We all want what’s best for Ontario; we just take different routes to get there.
My ask for you today is to just take your time and think for a minute of those who helped you in life, only wanted the best for you and helped make you who are you today. Thank you.
Applause.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.
Oral Questions
Government contracts
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Earlier this morning, government members on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts voted down a measure to have the auditor conduct a complete review of the Premier’s plan to scrap renewable energy contracts. Conservative members have also blocked efforts to have the assembly request a review, and the Premier himself has refused to make the request.
The price tag for this mess has already ballooned from zero to $231 million. Why is the Premier unwilling to allow a transparent review?
Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Energy.
Hon. Greg Rickford: When the government tabled the 2018-19 public accounts, the auditor, in fact, reviewed our allocation for the wind-down of these projects. In speaking to the media yesterday, she stated that her office “already looked at the costs associated with the cancellation of the contracts....” The audit looked at all of the big contracts and a sample of smaller green energy deals to determine whether the government’s calculations were reasonable. The auditor herself concluded: “Based on the review of the contracts and estimates of the payment, I find the audit to be clean....” Mr. Speaker, the auditor reaffirmed her position this morning at committee.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: It wasn’t that long ago that now government members were sitting in the public accounts committee demanding the auditor look into the Liberal gas plant scandal. At the time, the now Minister of Economic Development said, “The auditor needs to have that opportunity to let us know what’s going on.” At the time, the now Deputy Premier was on hand in that same committee echoing those same concerns. And at the time, the now Premier was calling into AM radio stations saying, “They’re hoodwinking the people of Ontario.”
Now, just like the Liberals, the Conservatives seem to prefer hoodwinking over transparency. Why—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the member to withdraw—
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Withdraw.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): —and place his question.
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Now, just like the Liberals, why is it that the Conservatives prefer the Liberal method of dealing with these questions? Why is that?
Hon. Greg Rickford: Here is some interesting context: The Green Energy Act, of course, which gave rise to the 750 projects that we cancelled—it turns out the NDP voted in favour of the Green Energy Act that forced unnecessary renewable projects onto unwilling communities at a price that they couldn’t afford.
Ninety communities passed motions to declare themselves unwilling to host the Green Energy Act: Billings township in Algoma–Manitoulin, LaSalle in Windsor–Essex, the entire region of Niagara. The former mayor of Warwick, Todd Case, declared his community an unwilling host, then retired after 18 years to run for the Ontario NDP in the 2018 election. Sadly, he lost. He didn’t get elected. His party didn’t stand for what he believed in.
Why won’t they support us in getting rid of expensive contracts that made our system more complex and more expensive, 100% of the time?
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary.
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: At a time when the rest of the world is rushing to embrace renewable energy, the Ford government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars tearing it down, and quoting climate change deniers while they do it. If that wasn’t bad enough, they are doing everything they can to ensure that families stuck with the bill don’t know the real cost.
If the Premier is proud of this mess, why is he afraid of a review?
Hon. Greg Rickford: Wow. We spent last week and the early part of this week going through all of the increases from 2005 to 2015, a whopping 22% in one year that nobody knew about. The thing is, the former Liberal government was in cahoots with the NDP, and nobody could see this on their bill. That’s why we followed the Auditor General’s recommendations, to ensure that it was very clear on people’s bill how much this subsidy costs, moving forward in a fully transparent manner. We’re moving forward, ensuring that we remove all the pressures on this incredibly complex and costly system, all because of the official opposition and their support for the previous Liberal government.
Government contracts
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to Premier: For over a week, the Premier has insisted that the hundreds of millions of dollars he spent cancelling clean energy contracts and tearing down wind farms would bring down hydro bills. It was only last year that he promised to reduce rates by 12%. Can the Premier explain why the rates keep going up?
Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the opposition leader and the Liberals that they put us in a spot where we have the most uncompetitive energy costs in North America. Three hundred thousand manufacturing jobs left Ontario because of the NDP and the Liberals.
As I said the other day, there has never been a larger transfer of wealth from the hard-working taxpayers, the ratepayers of this province and small businesses than from this Green Energy Act. I call it the “green energy scam.” People made hundreds of millions of dollars off the backs of this big scam they came up with. We’re saving hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on energy right across the board. That’s why we’ve created 252,400 jobs since we’ve been elected.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I’m sure the Premier was of the same opinion when he promised to reduce rates by 12%, which he has not done.
Throughout the week, we’ve been raising concerns of Ontario families feeling squeezed by high hydro rates: Glynnis Hill, the senior from London–Fanshawe who reads by candlelight and wears a coat inside her house to avoid using electricity, and Dawn Van Nostrand, a retiree on a fixed income who has seen her bills climb by 7% when the Premier promised they would come down by 12%. When will we see the reduction that the Premier promised?
Hon. Doug Ford: Again, I just want to remind the opposition: The reason hydro rates are at the rate they’re at right now is because of them, because of all the backroom deals and all the political insiders making hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of the ratepayers. That’s the reason this happened.
We will make sure we hit our 12% reduction before the end of this term, as we promised. We’re driving efficiencies through this province. Our province is booming. We’re leading North America in economic growth, in jobs. Our province is booming. We don’t have enough people to fill all the jobs we have here in Ontario because of the policies that we put forward in the House here. But we’re going to continue to make sure people thrive, prosper and grow in Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary.
Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: Unfortunately for the Premier, denying climate change and tearing down wind farms is not an effective way to drive down hydro bills. In fact, it wastes hundreds of millions of dollars and has left seniors like Dawn and Glynnis paying more. Is the Premier ready to admit he has no plan to deliver on his promise of a 12% reduction?
Hon. Doug Ford: Let me first address his first question, Mr. Speaker. We’re leading Canada in emissions reductions at 22.5%. Because of the great environmental plan we have, we’re going to make sure we have clean air, clean lakes, clean rivers, clean parks. We’re leading the country. We’re going to hit our 30% and, hopefully, we’ll exceed the 30% target of the Paris accord 2030. We’re well on our way.
Again, I’m so proud of our environmental policies. You don’t have to tax the hard-working people of this province to be environmentally friendly. That’s what they believe in, Mr. Speaker.
Religious freedom
Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. On Monday, this Legislature unanimously passed an important motion declaring Ontario’s opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21, a ban on religious symbols in the public service that is discriminatory and violates people’s basic human rights.
The motion calls on this government to formally inform the government of Quebec that this is a discriminatory bill, and it must be repealed. The Premier will be meeting with Quebec Premier François Legault this Friday. Can the Premier assure us that this motion, which was passed unanimously here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, will be a topic of discussion?
Hon. Doug Ford: Government House leader.
Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. Mr. Speaker, this House has spoken unanimously on two occasions on this matter. The Premier has spoken on behalf of the government on multiple occasions on this matter. I think our opinions on this were very clear during the debate, I thought it was a very respectful, remarkable debate, really, in many aspects.
We’re not going to continue to play politics on this. The House has spoken clearly, and I think that message has gotten through.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, through you to the government House leader: The question is for the Premier; the House has spoken, but we need the Premier to speak up. The Premier’s office has informed reporters that the Premier has no intention of discussing this Legislature’s concerns about Bill 21 when he meets Premier Legault this week.
Silence is simply not an option when basic human rights in this country are at stake. The Premier knows this House unanimously passed our motion to condemn Bill 21. The Premier should also know that religious discrimination in all its forms has no place here in Ontario or anywhere else in this country.
Speaker, the Premier needs to take a stand. This Legislature unanimously demanded that he take a stand. Why won’t he do that?
Hon. Paul Calandra: The Premier has spoken multiple times on this and has expressed our opinions very clearly on this matter. The Premier has said on multiple occasions that a law like this would never have a place in the province of Ontario. I’m not sure how much clearer he can be than that. This House has spoken on two occasions unanimously, and we are now going to move forward. The opinion of this House on two occasions and the opinion of this Premier on multiple occasions on this topic have been well known.
At the same time, we heard a number of remarkable speeches. The minister of small business talked about being the first turban-wearing Sikh to be in Cabinet. We heard from the member for York Centre, who fled the Soviet Union to come to Canada. Those are the types of people that we have in this caucus. We heard from the member from Milton, who talked about his family leaving to come to a free place.
That’s what we want to talk about. We want to talk about what unifies the country, not what divides the country. We hope that the opposition would actually join us—
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I apologize to the government House leader for having to interrupt; I couldn’t hear what he was saying.
Start the clock. The next question.
Seniors’ dental care
Mr. Stephen Crawford: It’s a pleasure to speak here today and to ask a question to the Premier: Premier, recently our government made an announcement in support of dental care for seniors. In my riding, many seniors whom I have spoken with have raised concerns: For the last 15 years, the previous government neglected them, ignored their contributions and made life harder, whether it was increasing electricity costs that forced many individuals to choose between heating and eating, or long-term-health-care wait lines.
Our government values the contributions that seniors have made for the betterment of our province. Can you elaborate on the support we are providing for seniors as part of this new dental program?
As part of our plan to end hallway health care, we’re investing in programs that keep seniors healthy in their communities longer. Each year, more than 60,000 seniors show up at emergency departments for help on dental pain and infection. That’s unacceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, we’re changing that. We’re going to make sure that we deliver a great dental plan for over 100,000 seniors of low income. We’re spending over $90 million to help seniors so that they don’t have to show up to the emergency room. They can go to their dentist and actually get proper dental care and not worry about a whopping bill.
Anyway, we’ll talk more on the second question.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?
Mr. Stephen Crawford: Again, my question is to the Premier. I thank the Premier for that answer. As has been previously reported, at least two thirds of low-income seniors do not have access to proper dental insurance. As a result, untreated oral health issues can lead to chronic disease and lower the quality of life. This is a shocking statistic and speaks to the immediate action that needs to be taken by our government. For far too long, seniors’ health care concerns were considered an afterthought by the previous government. I am proud of the actions and the investments that our government is making to lead the way on this very important issue.
Premier, can you describe further what is provided in this program and other supports our government is committing to the seniors of this province?
Hon. Doug Ford: I’d like to thank the member for his question.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what’s ironic? What’s ironic is that the NDP voted against the seniors on this bill. It’s absolutely staggering. They don’t want to take care of seniors. We want to take care of seniors. I was shocked, actually, that they voted against it.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we’re delivering to 100,000 low-income seniors $90 million of dental care. The services covered will include examinations, oral surgery, X-rays, and repairs for broken teeth and cavities.
This builds upon the other supports we’re providing for seniors, which include the Seniors Community Grant Program funding. That’s an important funding mechanism where seniors can go out and have programs—up to $25,000 per project that encourages activity. Seniors active living centre programs: again, community-based, non-residential programs that promote active living. There are now over 300 programs—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.
Education issues
Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. Since day one, this government has tried to drive a wedge between parents, students and the people who deliver their education. This week, as teachers take job action, parents and students are showing that that tactic won’t work. Parents in Ottawa told the CBC, “I think there are many other areas where the government could explore if it wished to do so, not least of which would be not cancelling a bunch of green energy projects [at a cost of] hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Speaker, parents and students are standing shoulder to shoulder with teachers to defend public education. Why won’t the Premier do the same thing?
Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Education.
Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to renewing schools in this province. The member will know that of the green fund that was created, 97 cents on the dollar was expended to help improve public schools. That was left out of the question. What was also left out of the question is the fact that our government has invested $550 million this year alone to improve schools and to build new schools, in addition to maintaining over $1 billion in renewal funding.
After 15 years of the Liberals having left so many schools in a place of disrepair, we are investing in our schools, we are updating our curriculum and we are giving hope to young people to achieve their full potential in this province.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.
Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to go back to the Premier again. Parent organizations are springing up across the province. Groups like the Ontario Parent Action Network, which started right here in Toronto, are helping to push back against the government’s agenda of cuts, breaking down misinformation and distributing information online. As one parent in my community put it, “If you care about your kids, you need to care about their teachers.”
With 10,000 teaching positions on the chopping block and the 60,000 courses that are going to go with them, it is no surprise that Ontarians are pushing back. Will the Minister of Education and the Premier take a break from their daily press conferences and start repairing some of the damage that their failed policies have caused?
Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the government’s aim is to keep kids in class by getting good negotiated settlements.
This morning, the press conference that was noted in a pejorative way was actually to announce five steps we’re taking to counter the scourge of bullying in this province. We announced that Christina Mitas, the MPP from Scarborough Centre—a former teacher—will lead initiatives and work to counter bullying in our schools. We announced a province-wide survey to empower students to have a say and to share their voice and their narrative. We announced new training for education workers, professional development to help reduce the scourge of bullying and de-escalate these situations.
We announced a review of school reporting practices of bullying in public and Catholic schools. And we announced an evaluation of the definition of bullying.
These are the initiatives we’re taking to improve safety. I would hope that every member of this Legislature would stand with our government to keep our children safe.
Climate change
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. Climate scientists have long estimated that Canada is warming at a rate twice as fast as the rest of the world. Yesterday, the UN released an even further damning report on the inaction of G20 countries, including Canada. It is now clear that the targets set in 2015 will be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming.
Our communities are already feeling the effects of climate change. Flooding due to rising lake levels, extreme weather and fires are undermining the well-being of our communities. Yet we’re the lucky ones. In the global south, it is estimated that due to heat, drought and rising sea levels, these places will become uninhabitable by 2050.
Speaker, through you to the Premier: We are global citizens and it is our civic duty to take action. Do this Premier and his government believe that climate change is real, and what are they going to do to respond?
Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Jeff Yurek: Before I answer the question, I just want to say hello to Warren Scott and Daryl Smith, who are here from the St. Thomas Fire Department. Thanks for being here today.
But listen, Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure where the member opposite is coming from. Her government set the targets that were agreed upon in Paris for 2030 targets, and we’re on our way to making sure we reach those targets. We have an environment plan in Ontario that we’ve put forward, a living document that we’re hoping for others to join in.
The member from the Green Party has, numerous times, spoken to us about helping us develop a plan for the environment. The NDP have yet to come forward with a plan; they said that maybe sometime next year they might have something. It’s 2019, Mr. Speaker. It’s time to have action on climate, and that is what we’re doing through our environmental plan. By increasing the renewables in our fuels and having an impact assessment across this province to see how climate change is going to affect our province, we can take hold and take focus on how we’re going to deal with that.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Indeed, we did commit to the Paris agreement. In 2016, Canada affirmed its commitment, and yet this government has put our plans in reverse. By its actions, it has weakened our commitments to those targets.
Today the youth of this province are taking this government to court because of its inaction on climate change and its refusal to acknowledge that we are in a climate crisis and we must respond now.
Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Will this minister take these ambitious targets seriously and make sure that Ontario does its part once again to address the issues of climate change, stop denying that it’s occurring and make sure that we take this seriously in our policies and in our programs and in our response?
Hon. Jeff Yurek: I thank the member opposite again for that question. I advise her to google or Internet-search—contact my office; we’ll send you a copy of our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which is doing just that. It’s taking action, working on the success of our goals to reach the 30% targets. Ontario leads the way. We’re already 22% below the 2005 emissions targets in this province.
Again, I’ll add in: We’ve added working towards 15% renewable content in our gasoline, which will lower emissions. We have finalized our emissions performance standards for large industrial emitters, to ensure polluters are accountable for greenhouse gas emissions; we’re waiting for the federal government to act and approve that. We have issued green bonds, $1.7 billion to capitalize on the province’s ability to raise funds to deal with climate change. We have announced $30 billion to build new subways in the city of Toronto. That alone will reduce emissions by a million tonnes when working.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing our work. Bring us more ideas. That’s what I ask the members opposite. Let’s work together in a non-partisan fashion and clean up our environment and—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.
Start the clock. Next question.
Renewable energy
Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr. Speaker, agriculture creates amazing opportunities for economic growth and innovative ways for farmers to create economic solutions for a variety of issues. I’m encouraged that our government is supporting these opportunities through the proposed changes and rules surrounding the biogas sector.
Last week our government launched consultations to identify ways farmers in Ontario can expand the emerging renewable natural gas market. Can the minister explain why he is looking at making these changes?
Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for that great question. Agriculture in Ontario is an exciting frontier for innovation and creative economic and environmental solutions. That’s why we announced that our government will launch consultations to identify ways in which farmers can expand the emerging natural gas market that would make Ontario a North American leader in the biogas sector.
These consultations will focus on identifying potential changes that would enable the biogas sector to access new markets for renewable natural gas through red tape reduction. We want these consultations to pinpoint the potential changes that could enable Ontario’s $35-million-a-year biogas sector to grow by 50% over five years.
Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting time for agriculture in Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Mr. Norman Miller: Thank you to the minister for his response. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the many innovative ways in which Ontario can expand its biogas sector. The best
part is that we can stimulate economic growth in this sector by cutting red tape and helping the environment. These consultations are a great first step, and I trust we will receive many valuable suggestions over the next while.
Will the minister please tell us more about some of the proposed changes our government is considering?
Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I thank the member for the excellent supplementary question. Our government is proposing new rules for on-farm anaerobic digesters to unleash the economic opportunity of the biogas sector while protecting the environment. This means economic solutions for food and organic waste, encouraging the recycling of nutrients including organic matter, and reducing greenhouse gases.
The proposed consultations will include discussions about enabling new on-farm anaerobic digesters to be approved faster, easier and at less cost, giving farmers a new source of revenue in the emerging renewable natural gas market. These proposed changes would help make Ontario a leader in the biogas sector. This would cut red tape, make life easier for farmers, expand their economic opportunities and help provide solutions to some of the challenges outlined in our government’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan.
Climate change
Mr. Ian Arthur: Speaker, through you, my question is to the Minister of Energy. For the last two days, the minister has quoted a climate-conspiracy website that denies the scientific evidence of the climate crisis. In fact, he called it his favourite periodical. Now, I understand that the Toronto Star, which once referred to him as an “unctuous bloviator” probably isn’t his fave. But this—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I ask the member to withdraw.
Mr. Ian Arthur: I withdraw, Speaker.
But this, a website that has called climate science dishonest, has said that global warming has nothing to do with pollution, has called Greta Thunberg mentally ill? It’s a conspiracy website that no one has ever cited in Parliament, in the US Congress, in the US Senate, but that didn’t stop the minister, who told the media he reads it to support “both sides” of the climate change argument.
Would the minister clarify his position to the House?
Hon. Greg Rickford: As a well-studied person, I take every opportunity, whether it’s on the Internet or sources of literature, to consider different points of view, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, when we think about Ontario, thank goodness that we have those differing viewpoints, because in reality, while the NDP were busy supporting the previous Liberal government to put some of the most expensive kinds of projects into our system, making it more complex and, more importantly, more expensive, we took the right path. We followed all of the Auditor General’s recommendations. We now see a clear path to be able to offer ratepayers a reduction. It started out with taking down 750 projects, which had a net present value of $790 million today.
That’s what “net present value” means, for the benefit of the NDP. That’s supported by communities across this province, and I’ll be happy to share in the supplementary just how many of those communities there were.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Mr. Ian Arthur: I wonder what the political inspiration was for claiming that there are both sides to an issue when there is really only one.
The minister defended this government’s scrapping of clean energy contracts by quoting this blog that compares those who believe in climate change to Nazis. Ontarians know that hate-filled conspiracy theories are the wrong foundation for public policy, and the minister should know better than to look to climate-change-denial websites to get—I can’t say “facts” here, but whatever it was.
When every other Ontarian is looking for leadership to combat the effects of climate change, this government is undermining progress at every step of the way. When is this government going to stop defending their policies, which are based on climate change denial?
Hon. Greg Rickford: Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Jeff Yurek: The member opposite—that was just basically untrue, what he put forward at this Legislature.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.
Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’ll take that back, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw.
Listen, it’s coming up to a year now that we’ve put forward a plan for the people of this province and the government of Ontario to work towards reaching our goals, our Paris targets of 30% below 2005 emissions. We’re at 22%.
We have spent the last year beginning implementation that will reap rewards down the way. I’ve already made mention that we do have that impact assessment, the first of its kind in Ontario, much like the one that happened in the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker. This will be an analysis of what is occurring in Ontario due to climate change so we can become more resilient and respond to the changes that are going on, Mr. Speaker, and those municipalities and communities and Indigenous communities can focus in on how best to deal with this climate action. We’re going to continue to fight—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.
The next question.
Opioid abuse
Mr. Billy Pang: My question this morning is for the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Minister, communities across Ontario continue to be affected by the ongoing opioid crisis. The recent report co-authored by Public Health Ontario, the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario and the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network revealed that between July 2017 and June 2018, there were over 1,000 confirmed opioid-related deaths in the province of Ontario. We also know that 90% of these opioid-related deaths were accidental. These are staggering numbers.
Constituents in my riding of Markham–Unionville are concerned about the ongoing opioid crisis. Minister, could you please update the members of this Legislature on what our government is doing to address the ongoing opioid crisis in Ontario?
Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I want to thank the member from Markham–Unionville for his important question. Mr. Speaker, our government continues to take the opioid crisis seriously. Our government has conducted extensive consultations spanning the entire province that have directly informed our new consumption and treatment services model. These consultations saw the participation of experts, health care workers, first responders, community leaders, business owners, and stakeholders including the opioid task force.
To date, we’ve approved 16 CTS sites in communities with the highest needs across the province. This new model saves lives by helping to reverse and treat overdoses, and it connects people who use drugs to primary care, treatment and rehabilitation, and other health and social services.
Mr. Speaker, since the very beginning, our government has remained committed to investing $3.8 billion over 10 years to build a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system in the province of Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?
Mr. Billy Pang: I want to thank the minister for this response. This is reassuring to hear that our government is continuing to take the ongoing opioid crisis seriously. I know that residents in my riding will be pleased to hear that we are taking real action to fight the opioid crisis and are providing the necessary services and supports to individuals living with an addiction.
Minister, could you please explain to the members of this Legislature about the investments we are making this year to address the ongoing opioid crisis?
Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Again, I want to thank the member for that great question. Mr. Speaker, based on extensive consultation with experts, we’re confident that the model that’s brought forward is the right approach to connect people struggling with addiction to the care they need and deserve. In addition to our commitment to invest $3.8 billion over 10 years, our government is investing an additional $174 million this year to address the critical gaps in our system, to support patients, families and caregivers in their communities struggling with mental health and addictions.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that we don’t truly save a person’s life until we help them beat their addiction. Our overriding priority—to ensure that all efforts to combat the opioid crisis are being done—is something that we take very seriously and that we need to do. I want to assure all members of this Legislature that our government is working tirelessly to ensure that we are able to create a connected, comprehensive and integrated mental health and addictions system for the province of Ontario.
Firefighters
Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Today we’re joined by professional firefighters from across the province, including two from my riding of Niagara Falls. None of us here will dispute that they’ve got just about the toughest job around. As the first on the scene for anything from major fires to a fatal car crash, our firefighters have to be at their best when often we’re at our worst. Then they’re left to process what they’ve experienced.
Presumptive PTSD coverage legislation, championed and first introduced by the New Democrats, passed in 2016. Municipalities are now required to submit PTSD prevention plans but not necessarily to follow through on those plans.
Will the minister tell the House what concrete steps, including funding, the government has taken to ensure that our firefighters receive the same standard of post-traumatic stress care no matter where they serve?
Hon. Doug Ford: Minister of Labour.
Hon. Monte McNaughton: First, I’d like to, on behalf of the Premier, on behalf of the government of Ontario and on behalf of every member of the provincial Legislature, welcome our professional firefighters who are here with us today, as well as to, on behalf of every single person in Ontario, every family and every community across the province, sincerely and truly thank them for everything that they do to protect our families across the province.
Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with every first responder in the province of Ontario. I know that my office and I have had a number of conversations with the professional firefighters. We continue to work with them and to send that message that we’re going to stand with them every step of the way.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the Premier: Firefighters find themselves exposed to toxins that can cause cancer at higher rates than other members of our population. These exposures don’t just happen at the scene of the fire but continue on their gear and the equipment firefighters use, at the fire station, and even back in their homes, potentially to affect their families.
We know that firefighters and first responders are heroes in all of our communities. Right now, guidelines are being created that will help protect the health and safety of firefighters. This is good, but only if this government follows through.
Will the minister commit today to implementing through regulation any recommendations this committee makes to keep our firefighters safe, on and off the job?
Hon. Monte McNaughton: Again, I want to thank the professional firefighters, the leadership and their members, for being here today.
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite likely knows, our ministry, the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development, is currently reviewing occupational cancers. In fact, our ministry has commissioned international, world-renowned expert Dr. Paul Demers. I met with Dr. Demers last night, Mr. Speaker, actually, at MaRS.
I join the medical community and many of our friends in the building trades when it comes to cancers related to asbestos. When it comes to the
section 21 committee that the member opposite referenced, I’ve been attending
section 21 committee meetings.
We’re going to continue to work with professional firefighters, continue to demonstrate leadership and continue to tell them and show them that we stand shoulder to shoulder and to thank them for what they do.
Tourism
Mr. Norman Miller: My question is for the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. First of all, I want to thank the minister for coming to my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka to speak to tourism operators last week. I know that they appreciated speaking with her first-hand about the challenges they face.
The minister often says that Ontario offers the world in one province. During the summer, this is true: You can take
part in festivals celebrating any culture on any weekend in Toronto, Ottawa and many cities. For example, I know that the minister went to a Highland games, a Caribbean festival, a South Asian festival and a Chinese event all in one weekend in her riding of Nepean.
Minister, while that’s great in the summer months, many people see winter as a time to hibernate. I know there are great things to do around Ontario in the winter, but how do Ontario communities encourage more people to get out and enjoy our province in the winter?
Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much for an outstanding question from the outstanding member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I want to say thank you to him for his wonderful hospitality last week when we took in some local sites and had some great meetings. I went to Bracebridge with him where they shot the Netflix original The Knight Before Christmas and screened it last week. I encourage all residents of Ontario to check out some of our wonderful film-friendly locations. In addition, we learned of a wonderful skating opportunity for Ontarians if they’d like to visit the Muskoka Lakes Farm and Winery. Their acres’ worth of skating on the cranberries is amazing.
The truth is Ontario tourism represents about a $34-billion economic imprint in the province of Ontario, with over 142 million visitors taking in our sights year-round. And I’d like to point out that we are open for business, we are open for jobs and we are open for visitors 365 days of the year. That’s why our tourism strategy will focus on making sure that that $34-billion economic imprint continues to grow as we work with the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario and the wonderful—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.
The supplementary question.
Mr. Norman Miller: It’s great to hear that Ontario is open for visitors 365 days of the year. Winter is a great time to travel around Ontario to ski, skate, see Santa and to attend winter festivals.
In my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka this weekend, the CP Holiday Train visits MacTier. At the end of January, Bracebridge hosts their Fire and Ice Festival, featuring fire artists, fireworks, a skating trail and the legendary downtown tube run that turns the main street into a tubing hill. In February, Gravenhurst hosts the North American Cup original Pond Hockey Classic tournament, where four-on-four hockey is played on the pond where the sport was born.
Can the minister tell us how she’s working with the tourism industry to support winter tourism in communities that traditionally rely on summer tourism?
Hon. Lisa MacLeod: The truth is, whether you’re in the Thousand Islands, whether you go to Niagara Falls or whether you go to Muskoka, you are looking at the most beautiful and picturesque places in the entire world, regardless of which season we’re operating in. That’s why our tourism strategy that we will move forward with will ensure that we’re open for business, open for jobs and open for visitors, 365 days of the year, so that we can take in those wonderful opportunities.
The truth is, also that, in this ministry, Speaker, we host a number of sporting events that we’ll continue to roll out in the winter months as well as in the spring and in the fall. We’re going to continue to work with our film and television operators right across this province to ensure that they’re going to film-friendly locations not just in Ottawa and in Toronto, but elsewhere in our wonderful province. And through Celebrate Ontario, we’ll continue to fund excellent events like Winterfest in Vaughan, the festival of lights, which is happening right now in Niagara, and the Twenty Valley festival that’s happening right now.
Mr. Speaker, we are a province that is the world in one province, but, at the same time, we are making sure that we are a four-season destination, the world over.
Water quality
Mr. Jeff Burch: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario appeared before a legislative committee to warn about the consequences of Bill 132. He said that if the Premier is going to weaken protections for drinking water while reducing penalties for polluters, then municipal officials should not face prosecution for any harms caused by the Premier’s short-sighted decisions to scrap important water protections.
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that in 2019 we are rolling back water protections to the point that municipal leaders are fearful that they will be held liable for a future disaster that is made almost inevitable by this government’s short-sightedness. Will the Premier withdraw
schedule 9 of Bill 132 and stop risking the safety of Ontario’s drinking water?
Hon. Christine Elliott: To the Minister of Natural Resources.
Hon. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for the question. I can tell you that, from the ARA’s—Aggregate Resources Act—point of view, we are making changes that are going to ensure that Ontario has an adequate supply of aggregates over the next 15 years to 20 years, when there’s massive growth taking place in the province.
Protection of water is a paramount responsibility and of paramount importance. That’s why we have ensured, through changes to the act, that the ability to go below the water table will rest on the province’s shoulders, not the municipalities’, so that we’ll have one source point for responsibility for those actions.
But I want to point out that anyone who does go below the water table, if they’re approved, will have to go through a more rigorous environmental assessment than they had to before. Protection of water is paramount in this province.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, I don’t understand why this Premier is so determined to repeat the same mistakes that led to the Walkerton disaster. He tried to do an end run around the Clean Water Act with Bill 66; he repealed the Toxics Reduction Act; he’s scrapping nine regulations that limit discharges of industrial water pollution; he’s overruling municipal plans that protect threats to groundwater due to aggregate extraction; and he’s reducing penalties for polluters.
Will it take another Walkerton for this Premier to realize that protecting our drinking water is not red tape?
Hon. John Yakabuski: Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Jeff Yurek: Listen, I take objection to the member’s question there. We have not lowered any fines to any polluters. In fact, we have tremendously increased our ability to oversee facilities across this province. We have increased the amount of monetary penalties that can be enforced on those that are polluting our environment.
Under previous governments since the beginning of time, there have been so many facilities that have been allowed to pollute, with no tools available to the environmental officers to deal with them. We are adding in those tools to deal with monetary penalties. In fact, if a business or an individual is being economically benefited by their polluting the environment, not only will they be charged a monetary penalty, but they could also be charged for the economic benefit that they received from polluting the environment.
We are holding polluters accountable. We are going to be tough with polluters. I assure the member opposite we are keeping our environment, water, land and air—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.
Firefighters
Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question today is for the Solicitor General.
Protecting citizens is a fundamental responsibility of government, and part of that responsibility is the continued support of the hard-working fire services and firefighters from across Ontario in the work they do keeping our community safe.
There are a number of different tools and resources that fire services rely on when ensuring the safety of the communities they protect. These aren’t always top of mind for everyone, but they have a big impact on fire services’ ability to do their job.
Could the Solicitor General please let us know how our government is supporting firefighters in Ontario in their vital work of keeping the people of Ontario fire safe?
Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Oakville North–Burlington. She’s absolutely right: It is an issue that the members who have joined us here from the OPFFA understand, because they deal with it every day; but, frankly, the general public just assumes that when there is an issue, those firefighters are going to come to protect their homes and their families. To them, thank you for your engagement and thank you for your participation in your lobby day today.
Earlier this summer, our government announced $2.5 million in funding for urban search and rescue, and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive teams, more commonly referred to as hazmat teams.
Support for HUSAR and hazmat teams across Ontario ensures that our brave firefighters have the tools they need to keep our communities safe. I think these are important tools that, when we work together, can make our communities safer.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.
Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I thank the Solicitor General for her response.
Firefighters are truly everyday heroes who put themselves in harm’s way to keep our loved ones and our communities safe. When you or I might run away from danger, they run toward it. That is why it is critical that our government continues to support them in their fight to keep Ontario fire safe.
Speaker, can the Solicitor General please tell us more about how our government will continue supporting firefighters across Ontario in improving fire safety?
Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, our government values the important work that firefighters do as they place themselves at risk every day to protect our communities across Ontario. It’s why we will continue to work with our first responders on the front lines of community safety in order to create a public safety regime that puts people first and provides our front-line officers and heroes with the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe. That’s why I was pleased to speak at the OPFFA’s recent legislative conference, and this morning continued that conversation with members of their executive.
As Solicitor General, I look forward to continuing our strong relationship with our firefighters to continue working with them on their essential work in our communities.
Legislative reform
Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you would know that your government tabled yet again rule changes that are, quite frankly, going to consolidate even more power into the government’s hands. Despite your current record, you have used time allocation over 90% of the time that legislation has come through this House. You have used the “notwithstanding” clause in order—
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the member to address his comments through the Chair.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Speaker. The government has used time allocation over and over again in order to speed legislation through this House. The government has even used the “notwithstanding” clause in order to change the electoral process in the city of Toronto in the midst of an election.
The question I have is a very simple one: How does consolidating even more power in your hands enhance the democratic process?
Hon. Christine Elliott: Government House leader.
Hon. Paul Calandra: The changes to the standing orders that we’re proposing do no such thing. As a matter of fact, we’ve been consulting with all members in all parties, including the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party, who are supporting the proposed changes. It’s about making the Legislature work better. It’s about allowing the independent members—we have a large independent members core here. It’s about allowing them the ability to participate more often in debate in this place. I suspect that’s part of the reason why the NDP is not in favour of some of the changes that we’re bringing forward.
I think that when members take a look at the package in front of them, they’ll be happy about it, Mr. Speaker. It’s about allowing members to defend the speeches that they make in this place. It’s about making it open. It’s about making debate more active. It’s about transparency. It’s about giving independent members a larger voice.
This side of the House will always stand up for all members in making this place an even better place for the people of Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Through you, Speaker, to the Acting Premier: This does no such thing as what you’re just trying to say. All this does is it allows the government to move legislation through the House lickety-split—even faster than you did before. If the Liberals and the Greens are happy with that and are prepared to support you, well then, shame on them. But I can tell you that New Democrats will fight you on this because this Legislature is the Legislature of the people and at no time should the government consolidate power in such a way that takes the power away from the people.
I ask you again: How does this enhance the democratic process when it comes to the people of this province?
Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the standing order changes do no such thing. As a matter of fact, the NDP was co-operating in changing the standing orders and agreed with most of them until they didn’t get their way on something and decided to withdraw support entirely.
What the member says is absolutely completely wrong. We do not give ourselves more powers to pass things any quicker. What we’ve done is give the Legislature more power to debate bills and to question each other back and forth.
The member opposite said to the media on a number of instances that somehow the changes we’re making will do that, will allo