Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé.

Since the government introduced new sources of profit for pharmacies, pharmacists at Loblaws and Shoppers Drug Mart are being directed by their corporations to perform unnecessary MedsCheck to drive profit up and up.

What has the government done to ensure that corporations like Loblaws, and Galen Weston are not abusing our publicly funded health care system?

Things are so bad that the Ontario College of Pharmacists did a survey. The survey said Shoppers and Loblaws drugstores are the two workplaces where most of the pressure happens. Pharmacists are being pressured to do more MedsCheck, cold-call MedsCheck, dispense naloxone, verification therapeutic checks. They’re pressured to do more ailment assessments but do them within a time limit. All of this generates more profit. All of this is against the position statement issued by the College of Pharmacists, putting pharmacists’ licences at risk, as well as patient care.

Is the government happy that Shoppers and Loblaws are raking in more profit at the taxpayers’ expense?

My question is for the Solicitor General. From groceries to gas, the Liberal carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone in our province. People in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora have told me that they are concerned about the impact that this tax is having on our public safety system. They want to make sure that our first responders in Ontario have the tools and resources that they need to keep our communities safe.

Speaker, under Premier Ford’s leadership, our government is fighting back against crime and building safer communities, but we need all governments to do their part. The federal Liberals and their provincial counterparts need to listen to what we have been saying since day one, and that is, scrap this tax.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General tell the House how the carbon tax is negatively affecting Ontario’s—

Once again, the member for Nepean, come to order.

The Minister of Energy.

The next question.

Supplementary question.

The next question.

The next question.

My question is for the great Associate Minister of Small Business. The federal government’s carbon tax continues to make life more expensive for Ontarians. Small business owners across our province cannot afford the high prices of essential goods and services driven by this punitive tax. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberal members in the Legislature are ignoring the devastating impact of the carbon tax on our job creators. Their silence is a shocking endorsement of higher prices and more tax.

Unlike the opposition, our government is taking action to support Ontario’s hard-working business owners during these difficult economic times. Can the associate minister tell the House how the carbon tax compounds the financial pressure on Ontario’s small business?

It is not fair that the federal Liberals continue to punish Ontarians with tax hike after tax hike. Can the associate minister explain what our government is doing to support these vital job creators and offset the damage caused by the Liberal carbon tax supported by Bonnie Crombie?

I want to welcome to the House today two members of my riding of Durham, Mr. Doug Ellis and Mr. Timothy Zub, who are here today.

The Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, would, if passed, protect homeowners from harmful practices by banning the registration of consumer notices of security interest—NOSIs—on the land registry system and deeming existing consumer NOSIs to be expired.

The proposed act would protect buyers of new freehold homes by enabling the future implementation of a 10-day cooling-off period for purchases of new freehold homes, where the buyer could cancel the agreement for any reason within that period with no fear of financial penalty. This would help provide buyers with time to confidently make informed purchasing decisions.

The government is also committed to ensuring we continue to conserve Ontario’s heritage. The proposed legislation would, if passed, amend the Ontario Heritage Act to extend the deadline for municipalities to review their legacy-listed properties until January 1, 2027. This would support municipalities by easing administrative pressures and providing more opportunity for proactive designations.

Finally, to provide continued certainty for our building partners on transit-oriented community projects, the proposed legislation would exempt certain transit-oriented community lands from the immunity provisions in the Planning Act related to the making, amending or revoking of minister’s zoning orders.

I would like to thank the deputy minister within my ministry, Renu Kulendran; my chief of staff, Michelle Stock; my deputy chief of staff, Kai Nademi; my director of issues and legislative affairs, Erika Soler; my parliamentary assistant, Brian Riddell; and the MPP from Kitchener–Conestoga right behind me here.

Mrs. McCrimmon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 201, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to change of use exemptions / Projet de loi 201, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l’environnement à l’égard des exemptions en matière de changement d’usage.

My question is to the Premier. Child care operators have been warning this government since 2022 about the mismanagement on the Canada-wide Early Learning Child Care program file.

Child care operators like Ola have already opted out, and now, Sunnyside Garden, a not-for-profit daycare, is telling us that the funding formula, if it’s not fixed immediately, they will be forced to either opt out or close their doors.

The government’s latest budget doesn’t even mention child care, and last week, the minister announced the government won’t be releasing a new funding formula until 2025.

The cost of living is hard enough for families, and making families pay the price for the minister’s failure to implement the $10-a-day child care spaces is making things worse. Will the minister commit to parents and child care centres today that the newly announced funding formula is a full-cost-recovery model and will be implemented without further delay?

Thank you to the Solicitor General for the response. It is alarming to hear how the carbon tax is negatively affecting our public safety system. While our government remains focused on delivering solutions to keep Ontarians safe, the opposition NDP and independent Liberals continue to support a tax that puts a strain on resources for our first responders.

Speaker, I think it is interesting that the former mayor of Mississauga, Bonnie Crombie, who would have approved the budget for her municipal fire department and understood the implications that this punitive tax was having on the budget of her emergency response system—but now, today, as the leader of the independent Liberals, she is supporting the federal government and tripling this tax by 2030.

Speaker, can the—

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The ayes are 35; the nays are 71.

It’s always a pleasure when somebody from your riding is here. It’s an absolute pleasure to welcome Deana DeGrace from Mississauga–Malton’s Peel Children’s Aid Society.

I’d like to welcome my friend Nadeem Akbar Khatana from Milton.

I’d like to introduce my family here today—Dakota, my son-in-law; Katie, my daughter.

Kara is my constituency office manager in Wallaceburg. Jodie is my partner. Peter Turkington was my campaign manager. Tracey Everitt works in our constituency office in Strathroy, and Michelle manages the office in Strathroy.

My daughter Julia had to leave earlier to get back to her son, along with her partner, Josh.

It’s my honour to introduce my family. I see my father, Shakil Hamid, with my dear friend Nadeem Akbar, also from Milton. My handsome nephew is walking in: 13-year-old Maaz Subzwari. And I believe my mother, Asia Shakil; my wife, Maleeha Hamid; and my sister Muzna Hamid are in security, along with two dear friends of mine, Fwad Malik and Lubna Malik, both from Milton.

Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

Mr. McCarthy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les acquéreurs de logements et les propriétaires de logements, les biens ayant une valeur ou un caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel et d’autres questions liées à l’aménagement du territoire.

I want to thank my friend the member from Newmarket–Aurora for standing up for public safety every day in her community and supporting the York Regional Police service.

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, and I’ve said this before in the House. When you look at the latest rates of carbon tax as of April 1, it’s 18 cents a litre for gasoline. When you look at an average SUV at 100 litres per vehicle, you multiply a daily fill-up, you’re spending $6,500 a year just for the carbon tax. It’s ridiculous.

And, Mr. Speaker, do you know who knew about it? Bonnie Crombie—because she was on the board of Peel police service. The queen of the carbon tax knew it. She should come clean with Ontarians.

But, Mr. Speaker, there’s more: Bonnie Crombie wants to support the Liberals in Ottawa to triple the carbon tax, go as high as it can go. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians cannot afford Bonnie Crombie.

Thank you.

The Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General may reply.

That concludes our question period for this morning.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 178, An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to provide for a non-refundable tax credit to encourage children’s extra-curricular activities / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour prévoir un crédit d’impôt non remboursable afin d’encourager les activités parascolaires des enfants.

The division bells rang from 1157 to 1202.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading negatived.

The House recessed from 1206 until 1300.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

Whereas commercial building vacancy is still very high after the pandemic and barriers prevent the conversion of previously commercial buildings to residential use, this bill would remove one significant barrier to building conversions.

This bill amends section 177 of the Environmental Protection Act so that a regulation providing for an exemption from clause 168.3.1(1)(b) will not include a limitation based on the height of a building.

This petition is called “Pass Anti-Scab Labour Legislation”—Speaker, as you know, very dear to my heart. The short version of this as a summary is that without anti-scab legislation, strikes, labour disputes and lockouts tend to last a lot longer. The ACTRA lockout is a great example of that because they’ve been locked out now for more than two years.

What they’re asking for is for legislation that would be similar to British Columbia and Quebec’s and, probably by the end of the day, Speaker, legislation that will be at the federal level as well, with the passing of the federal legislation. They ask for the support on this to shorten strike and labour disputes and lockouts, and also to give the collective power to the workers to be able to negotiate fair contracts.

They have asked specifically for the legislation that existed under the previous NDP government to be reinstated and to support and pass provincial anti-scab labour bills, like NDP Bill 90, the Anti-Scab Labour Act, which—

One of the main concerns has to do with the water testing. If that wasn’t provided, it would cost people about $150 to have it done. As well, they provide all the medical testing that many of us got to be aware of during COVID-19. They’re concerned about closing six of the 11 Public Health Ontario labs and what that effect would have in rural and northern Ontario communities, especially the inequities that a lot of these communities have.

I’m proud to support the petition. I’ll affix my signature and provide it to page Tristan for the table.

Hello, everyone. I have a petition here on behalf of the residents of Flamborough–Glanbrook, the group Standing Up for Stoney Creek. Essentially, the petition actually has 4,150 signatures from east Hamilton and Stoney Creek. It calls for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to immediately assess the operations of the Green For Life landfill site in Stoney Creek for legislative non-compliance, odours and air quality/water testing—basically, to monitor the landfill site better.

I’m going to submit this massive, heavy load with new page Grace and sign my name to it.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

In keeping with centuries of parliamentary tradition, petitions have always been part of the assembly’s proceedings, though our procedures and practices around petitions have evolved over time. Initially, members were limited to providing brief summaries of their petitions that they presented; eventually, they were allowed to either read the petition or summarize it, but any attempts at editorial embellishment would be called to order.

Speakers have addressed the matter repeatedly over the years. Speaker Warner reminded members in 1991 to “simply summarize the petition” and, if they wish to do so, indicate the number of signatures. That comes from the debates, November 10, 1991, page 3,567.

After the 15-minute time limit for the presentation of petitions was introduced in 1989, a change to the rules that was made because some members had begun reading petitions out in full as a dilatory tactic, Speakers repeatedly reminded members to make brief statements in order to allow for as many petitions as possible to be presented in the limited time available.

For example, in 1998, following a petition presentation that lasted almost two minutes, Speaker Stockwell told members that, “You can summarize them; you don’t have to read them verbatim. Especially if you’ve read it once, maybe you could summarize it.” That comes from the debates from June 15, 1998, page 1,419. A few days later, the Deputy Speaker issued a similar reminder: “We have 15 minutes, and I would ask members to try to summarize their petitions. It’s up to them to bear in mind that there are many people trying to get their petitions read within 15 minutes.” From the debates, June 18, 1998, page 1,633.

As members can see, the issues we’re facing today are not new. Going forward, members will be permitted to make a brief statement summarizing the petition request. Members may also indicate the author or origin of the petition, the number of signatures it received and, if they wish, whether they agree with the petition. I will again urge members that the presentation of a petition should not be used as an opportunity for debate, and if the Chair believes that the members comments qualify as an argument, editorial or debate, we will move on to the next petition presentation.

There is a limited amount of time available for the presentation of petitions, and my intent is to hear as many as possible during those 15 minutes. But I will remind members that just two months ago—actually two months ago today—a single petition presentation lasted 14 minutes, and this is a trend that we have seen on both sides of the House at various times.

I ask members to make every effort to conform to the process as outlined, and, in doing so, demonstrate their respect for, and appreciate of, the value and importance of public petitions and the people of Ontario who have circulated them and signed them.

Petitions?