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

April 10, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Apr-10 (PDF)

L022 - Wed 10 Apr 2013 / Mer 10 avr 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 10 April 2013 Mercredi 10 avril 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SKILLED TRADES

SKILLED TRADES

CANCER TREATMENT

TAXATION

SKILLED TRADES

POWER PLANTS

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

POWER PLANTS

MINING INDUSTRY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TOURISM

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VIMY RIDGE ANNIVERSARY

RURAL AGRI-INNOVATION NETWORK

NATIONAL ORGAN AND TISSUE DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

A.O. SMITH

RON SCHLEGEL

LEDBURY PARK ELEMENTARY

AND MIDDLE SCHOOL

ROBERT ELGIE

ROUGE VALLEY HEALTH, AJAX–PICKERING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTING EMPLOYEES’

TIPS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU POURBOIRE DES EMPLOYÉS

POOLED REGISTERED

PENSION PLANS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES RÉGIMES

DE PENSION AGRÉÉS COLLECTIFS

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRIBUNAUX,

DES CENTRALES ÉLECTRIQUES

ET DES INSTALLATIONS NUCLÉAIRES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY /

SÉCURITÉ COMMUNAUTAIRE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

COMMUNITY SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

GREENWATER PARK

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

CANCER TREATMENT

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

DOG OWNERSHIP

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

VISITORS

OPPOSITION DAY

SKILLED TRADES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr. Murray moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of permit denials and out-of-province service and evidence in certain proceedings and to make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi visant à modifier le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les refus relatifs aux certificats d’immatriculation et la signification et les preuves extraprovinciales dans certaines instances, et à apporter une modification corrélative à la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Debate?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be sharing my time with the member from Oakville, who is the parliamentary assistant in the ministry.

As of July 2010, there were nearly $1 billion in defaulted POA fines. This is not including parking offences; this is serious things like speeding and dangerous driving. These are owed to our Ontario municipalities through offences under 243 acts, municipal bylaws and certain federal statutes.

Principally, we’re talking about two pieces of legislation being amended today: the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and the Highway Traffic Act. They make up, respectively, 37% and 33% of the total defaulted in this amount; however, HTA represents 47% of total charges in default compared to only 7% under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. We appreciate the challenges faced by municipalities and that this billion dollars—which derives a great deal of cost to government because of accidents; this is loss of life, damage to property and a great deal of the problems we face on our roads and the safety of our streets and the safety of our communities.

I’d like to say right off the top that we’re very proud in Ontario to be consistently rated as having the safest roads and highways in North America, which is quite remarkable given how vast our territory is, how hostile our weather can be—especially in the wintertime—that we are able to have safer roads than warmer climes like Arizona or Georgia or places that don’t face some of the extreme weather events that we face here.

We will be leading this process, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to just take you a little bit through some of the things we have done. This really started with the 2012 budget, which identified expanding the use of vehicle licence plate denials as a consideration. It was said at the time that, if implemented, not only could this improve municipal collection of defaulted fines and promote the administration of justice; it could also enhance road safety by making those who break the rules of the road and ignore the consequences more identifiable to police.

The ministry is chairing a province-wide municipal working group that has collaboratively identified a specific set of initiatives for further exploration that will improve the collection of defaulted fines. The working group has benefited from the participation of various municipal stakeholders, all of whom have expressed satisfaction with the progress to date.

I want to thank my colleague Minister Jeffrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, for her leadership and work with the AMO round table in maintaining a very positive conversation between the government of Ontario and our municipal partners as we’ve gone through the development of this. We could not have done it without her support and without our friends at AMO.

Over the years, the province has given municipalities new and enhanced tools for fine enforcement, in addition to the existing tools. This government has been very active on this file for nine years, incrementally bringing forward new improvements. For example, drivers who fail to pay fines for traffic offences have had their driver’s licences suspended until the fines are paid. Previously, plate owners who failed to pay parking or red light camera tickets are not permitted to renew their plate stickers until the fines are paid.

The proposed expansion of plate denial would do the following things: It would apply to individuals whose fine defaults stem from motor-vehicle-related—primarily HTA and CAIA—offences, and will also apply retrospectively for a specified period of time to all plates owned by a defaulter in certain circumstances. It would be supported by a simplified payment process that allows the money owed to be collected at ServiceOntario locations, similar to the current process for unpaid parking tickets.

There are other provinces that have done this. One of the things we’ve discovered is that sometimes people have multiple plates and they will just substitute the plates out. This will prevent that from happening, because it will cover all plates under the ownership of that person or in that household. Furthermore, by using ServiceOntario, we avoid costs and simplify the system, and take some of the pressure off municipalities and the courts in doing so.

Additionally, the proposal would give municipalities the authority to issue

part I offence notices to out-of-province owners of vehicles involved in red light camera and failure-to-stop-for-school-bus offences in Ontario, and ensure that Ontario courts accept certified documents from other jurisdictions for the prosecution of these owner liability offences, as well as for parking infractions.

I just want to take a moment to thank some of our friends: Mayor Watson and the city council in Ottawa, and I want to also acknowledge the Minister of Labour, the member for Ottawa Centre, because this really started with a private member’s bill a couple of years ago by the Minister of Labour, with the support of Mayor Watson and the city council in Ottawa. They brought forward this idea largely because they were having great problems in eastern Ontario, in the Ottawa Valley and in the city of Ottawa because of the number of offences that are committed by our friends in Quebec.

That’s not to take a shot at Quebec; I’m sure it’s equally true in reverse for Ontarians in Quebec. This will actually allow municipalities—Hawkesbury, Cornwall, Ottawa, Nepean and other communities—to actively, more effectively enforce their fines. It’s a very important first step for border communities.

The same is true—one of the other major advocates for this has been our friend Mayor Canfield in Kenora. Certainly anyone from northwestern Ontario knows the very close relationship between Manitoba and northwestern Ontario. Almost every Winnipegger has their cottage in Kenora or Dryden, and many people there send their kids to school and shop in Winnipeg, a relationship I’m particularly fond of, and remember God’s country up there in the beautiful country of northern Ontario.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That’s why we think you’re a northerner.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Exactly, because I’m way out there. Thank you for that, Minister Gravelle.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: It’s true.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This will help those communities as well, because I know that for smaller communities in northwestern Ontario that have out-of-province folks—a lot of people from Manitoba—this will actually level—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to be involved somehow. You’re having a conversation with the minister. You might want to go through the Chair. I feel left out. Thanks.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would never be able to overstate my fondness for you. My apologies. Thank you very much.

This is good legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it’s rooted in the communities that have been affected by this. This has been folks who have heard this. I also want to say I am assuming that our friends in opposition will see this as a positive thing as well. I know that many of them have raised these kinds of concerns with me as minister. This is the kind of good legislation that’s not just rooted in communities, but I think it’s rooted in the experiences of every MPP in this House who tries to find solutions for their community.

This issue was also raised by the Drummond commission, which pointed out the importance of starting to collect this money, that municipalities were under increasing pressure to make investments in traffic lights and traffic controls, policing, ambulance services and paramedics, and all the things that are very expensive that go as a result of when people break the law and cause damage, death and accidents.

The POA governs non-Criminal Code offences. So we’re talking about violations mostly as a result of liquor licence violations, occupational health and safety, the Environmental Assessment Act and things like that. Between 2006 and 2009, several provincial ministries—the ministry of governmental affairs, MTO, municipal affairs and housing, government services and the Attorney General’s office—all participated in a comprehensive three-year review of the POA.

I want to thank Attorney General Gerretsen for the leadership of his ministry and the help in bringing this forward in a proper legal context, and making sure that we were managing our relationship with the court system in the proper way. The provincial-municipal working group I mentioned earlier had representatives from AMO, from the Municipal Court Managers’ Association and from the Prosecutors’ Association of Ontario, all at the table under the leadership of the Attorney General.

The Ministry of Transportation is coordinating the province of Ontario’s efforts to improve municipal collection of defaulted POA fines.

I just want to explain a little bit about the details of what this means. I’m sure that some of this will be the debate: What does this actually mean and how are we applying this? The issue of expanded plate denial is probably the one that will be the most immediate impact of this and the one that Ontarians who have been breaking the law will—attention will be drawn to quite quickly.

In order to assist municipalities in collecting the defaulted POA fines, the Ministry of Transportation will be seeking here to expand and strengthen the province’s current regime to deny the issuance of renewal of vehicle plate licences, what we generally call plate denial, for defaulted fines. Specifically, there are four things that will result from this. Expanded plate denial will apply to defaulted POA fines for driving-related offences which currently result in the driver’s licence suspension on fine default, including all Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act offences.

It will apply to the expanded plate denial regime with respect to defaulted POA fines dating back as far as seven years to the date of implementation.

Mr. Speaker, what this means is that municipalities will be able—plate denial will go back seven years. So anyone who, five years ago or four years ago, defaulted on their fines, did not make a payment, would find plate denial. It’s not going back forever, but with the guidance of the Attorney General’s office and our legal advice, that is the reasonable horizon for doing that. That amounts to about $350 million in unpaid fines if we get a collection rate which is about 60% or 70%.

The other piece of this that’s important—this is quite substantial. This is about $100 million or more that people are not paying. That money, when it’s not paid by people who break the law, is paid by people who obey the law. So the people who cause the greatest amount of police costs and ambulance costs and those kinds of things are really getting away scot-free. Not only are they causing harm to their neighbours and endangering our children and our families and our communities; they’re not accepting responsibility and paying for that.

So there’s $100 million more that would be going into small municipalities for critical road construction, making our streets safer, all of that kind of thing because people are scofflaws, quite frankly. We see this as positive. When you realize that 1% of gasoline tax is $150 million, this is almost like giving 1% of gasoline tax. It’s particular to our municipalities.

I’ve said this several times, and I want to make the point very clearly: We’ve had debates in this House about whether we should dilute transit funding to distribute it. Well, that may get $15 million or $20 million to all of those rural municipalities; this is going to put a lot more money in their pockets.

We have the MIII program for emergency funding, which is $90 million, which is our down payment. Our applications this year were about $400 million. Well, some of this money will actually allow those municipalities to establish their own programs. As these programs grow, particularly MIII, we are putting more money into rural municipalities and bridges through this, through MIII, and I think, hopefully, for good use.

I want to thank my friend Minister Leal, the Minister for Rural Affairs, because he very much has been an advocate for two things. He has been a big advocate for community safety, and we all know how important that is, especially if you’re in a community by a highway. He has also been a big advocate that these monies go unrestricted to our municipalities. If you don’t think the Minister of Rural Affairs is having a big impact on government policy, he certainly is, and you see it in this legislation today. So I want to thank him for his leadership.

There are a couple more things that I want to clarify so that, hopefully, people are very clear about what this will mean. We will be expanding a plate denial regime to all of the plates owned by the defaulter while maintaining the current single plate denial regime for vehicle-based offences. There are some provinces that have single plate denial; some have multiple plate denial. In the surveys that we did across the country, it was very clear that multiple plate denial is the only way to secure it.

It’s the only way in which you can—people who are, I think, thoughtless enough to endanger other people in their bad driving don’t seem to think twice about substituting plates. This will allow us to do that. And when you think about it, if your licence permit is denied, no one sees that. It’s in your wallet and you don’t see it, but when you don’t have plates on your car, it’s a little obvious. So this is a much more significant enforcement. By adding plates, it makes it very hard to drive around without your plates or your stickers.

We’re also going to be improving MTO’s existing single plate denial system to more effectively collect data on POA fines by allowing the denial of plates other than the plate on the vehicle at the time of the infraction in certain situations. We think that will finally close the door on people’s ability to avoid their responsibilities.

What offences would be subject to plate denial under the proposed expansion? So what are these things in these—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, folks, it appears there’s a lot of noise coming from the opposition side. I don’t think the member from Durham is paying attention. I suggest he take it outside if he wants to hold court. The minister—I can’t hear him speaking—

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order? What is your point of order?

Mr. John O’Toole: I was paying attention. It was presumptive of you to think I wasn’t. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That’s not a point of order, but duly noted.

Continue, Minister. And a little quiet, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thanks very much. I’m hoping that my friends in the opposition are listening to this particularly. I have to say that people in the third party are being very attentive. That isn’t lost on me, but I’m kind of fond of those folks over there.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m actually reading your bill.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much. The member for Cambridge, I know, is a friend and a keen observer of this.

But I just want to say something. We took a position that we were not going to water down transit funding and that we were not going to take money out of urban transit. When I say “urban,” I’m talking about Orillia and north Quinte bay, communities that get transit funding. We’re talking communities of 5,000 and 10,000 people. Well, we’re talking about urban, so we’re really talking about a lot of what most common-sense folks would see as a rural community. Because we realize that transit funding was really important, and that $300 million, if diluted, was simply going to undermine the efforts of our municipal partners to do transit.

I’ve also said that we will not take money from rural funds. We’re not going to start spending MIII money in Toronto and Ottawa. That’s going to go into the smaller communities across Ontario; we’re not going to dilute that funding. This funding is a principle-based funding. It is money going to municipalities, recognizing that people who break the law incur greater costs to our municipalities, small and large, and we’re not going to do that.

We as a government have made a very strong commitment, through our Premier, to expand funding for infrastructure. The Premier has shown great leadership, great clarity and great purposefulness in bringing in additional revenue to solve our infrastructure challenges, be they northern highways, rural roads and bridges, or the transit, highway and road challenges we have in our larger cities, causing congestion that’s costing us a billion dollars a year.

This isn’t disconnected from the larger government strategy; this speaks both to our safety agenda in communities—protecting and continuing to ensure Ontarians have the safest roads in Canada, a remarkable accomplishment—and that the money that we collect is transparent and dedicated. This is a dedicated, transparent sort of revenue. It can only go to municipalities—it’s collected; it will go in—but by transferring to municipalities, we know it’s going to be spent in our community, and we will not interfere with that as a government.

There are a number of other things that I could say about this, but I really want to talk a little bit about the other aspect of this bill, which is the red light cameras. I’m particularly fond of them; when I was mayor of a city, I introduced these. The fatality rates dropped dramatically. Since 1993—and I want to give some credit to both the opposition parties. The New Democratic Party, when it was in government in 1993 under Premier Rae, introduced graduated licensing, which I think was one of the more visionary and intelligent public policy initiatives. It’s something that’s worked.

We, in 2004, 2006—10 years later—started higher regulations of driving schools. We’re still working on that, but that has continued through the New Democrats and through Conservative and Liberal administrations, and it’s really strong. That was something that the official opposition very much advanced and was very supportive of. When you can do these non-partisan things—and you’ve heard me speak often about my desire to see this as a more non-partisan place; I always think it’s better to say that when you’re in government, because it means something. It’s always easy when you’re in opposition to say that this should be a non-partisan place, and I appreciate my friends who share that view.

But let’s just look at what that means. We’ve had a 31% increase in young drivers, in that 16-to-19 group, and up to 24. That’s 31% more since 1993, in the last 20 years, and do you know what’s happened to our accident and fatality rate in that group? It’s down 58%. So if you don’t think that the action of 107 MPPs acting on this kind of legislation matters, I would say one of the best cases for all-party support for this kind of positive legislation—I’m going to take a guess that it’s not just a Liberal view; I think this is a shared view between all three parties—is that that was something that we all respected and we brought forward.

There are probably about 60 or 70 people who are alive today that probably would have been killed in fatalities if we had continued with the same accident rate before graduated licensing. This actually takes a stronger measure, continues down that tradition in Ontario and makes it very hard for those same people who are breaking the law to get away with it. It’s pretty hard to drive without your plates.

I think this is something, quite frankly, that all three parties in this House share and can take credit for. The fact that Ontario does have the safest roads in North America is a remarkable accomplishment for a four-season community that has such vast roads. If you’ve driven through parts of northern Ontario in the winter—I’ve done a lot of driving up to Thunder Bay, Kenora and Dryden, and up to Hearst; those highways, in a blizzard or in a storm, are pretty challenging.

The fact that we can do that is remarkable, so I would just like to take a moment to thank previous governments of various political stripes for their continued leadership on this, and I hope that that spirit of collaboration will continue.

Getting back to red light cameras—and again, I want to thank Mayor Watson and Mayor Canfield for their advocacy for this, and to AMO. I have to say that one of the good things that happened that this government has done was our consultative round table with AMO, and the relationship—my friends Minister Jeffrey and Minister Leal, whom I’ve had the great pleasure and honour to work with around ROMA and around the Ontario Good Roads Association, the last conference we had, I’m sure they would tell you the same—this was an issue that has come up over and over again. It’s something that all three of us committed we would act on quickly.

Interjection: Minister Sergio, a great city councillor in Toronto.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Absolutely, Minister Mario Sergio, who always has his finger on my back on safety. For seniors, we don’t want to be ageist. We know a lot of our seniors are good drivers, so going to this kind of system means—it doesn’t matter whether you’re 72 or 22; as long as you follow the rules, you can keep your licence. We want to be fair-minded about that.

Let me get back to red light cameras, because that’s where I was going. I was wandering off a bit there. Six Ontario municipalities—Ottawa, the city of Toronto, Hamilton, Peel, Halton and Waterloo—have requested that MTO amend the current legislative framework to facilitate the mailing of RLC tickets to out-of-town vehicle plate owners to enhance the prosecution of RLC offences, which are those road offences I mentioned earlier, by the use of certified records for jurisdictions to establish vehicle ownership before a provincial offences court authorizes it.

Although these RLC municipalities are able to use

part III of the charging process, it is not being pursued against out-of-province RLC offenders as municipalities believe it is too onerous, and these municipalities are missing out on that much-needed revenue. For consistency, the Ministry of Transportation is proposing to provide municipalities with the authority to issue

part I POA tickets by mail to owners of vehicles that are registered out of province but were involved in a fail-to-stop-for-a-school-bus offence in Ontario and to ensure that Ontario courts accept certified documents from other jurisdictions for prosecution of

part II POA parking tickets. The road safety value and the continued success of the program are contingent on the effective enforcement and administration of justice. The issuance of a

part I POA offence notice by mail to out-of-province RLC offenders would ensure that these offenders do not go unpunished. Between 2001 and 2011, a rather large number—381,577—of RLC charges were processed, of which 95% gained a conviction.

How will the government operate with this new legislative power? Under this initiative, the province’s role in RLC and school bus ticketing processes would remain pretty much the same.

Municipalities would continue to be responsible for all aspects of ticketing out-of-province RLC and school bus offenders, including entering into an arrangement with the jurisdiction that has the plate registering information; developing a mechanism for obtaining the out-of-province plate owner’s information and address; deciding whether they would issue a ticket or, in the case of RLC offences, have the Toronto processing centre issue it on their behalf; ensuring that the documents provided by out-of-province jurisdictions are in a form that is acceptable to the court; and finally, determining how to proceed if the out-of-province plate owner defaults on their fine.

That will be something we will be monitoring quite carefully to see what the compliance is. If this works in the way we imagine it will work, we should see at least a two-thirds recovery and we will not need to take further action; if we do, then we’ll have to consider future action at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we looked at the experience in collecting parking and red light camera tickets. Municipal fine collection experts have indicated that plate denial, right now, is viewed as the most effective fine enforcement mechanism. Based on the results of a jurisdictional survey issued by Ontario to other Canadian jurisdictions, five out of the seven respondents utilize plate denials as a collection tool that applies to all motor vehicle offences under their respective highway traffic statutes. Four out of five of these jurisdictions have multiple plate denial regimes.

So we will be the sixth province in Canada to go to plate denial, and we will be the fifth to do multiple plate denial. So we are fortunate to have considerable experience from our Canadian provincial sister provinces in this initiative, and we have a fairly good idea of how this will work.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are they brothers or sisters?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: These days, they’re sisters. We’ve changed. There are some brothers there too.

The Drummond commission report was quite important to us. Mr. Drummond went through our Highway Traffic Act and went through the Ministry of Transportation. We have taken the Drummond report quite seriously. There are a number of recommendations that we are pursuing quite aggressively. This was one of the most significant recommendations that Mr. Drummond made for our ministry. It is one that we’ve taken quite seriously.

I also want to thank a couple of folks before I conclude my remarks in the next minute or two and turn it over to my colleague and my friend the MPP for Oakville, who has been a great champion on this. I have benefited from his friendship and his wise counsel now through two ministries. I’m very fortunate to have one of the best parliamentary assistants around. Our shared Irish lineage gives us a fine appreciation of fine Irish beer and whiskey and a few other things.

The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and particularly the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services, all came together to advocate for this.

I want to also particularly thank the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, known as the OAPSB, who were down here and who I know lobbied very heavily for this. I know many of you met with them, and they reported back to us that they got a very fair hearing from members on both sides of the House. I know that without their leadership, we would not have been able to get this this far.

This was a budget commitment last year. It was a commitment of the Drummond report. Our Premier has laid out a very strong commitment to safer communities, safer roads, more autonomy for municipalities and more choices for municipal governments.

We’re also committed to making sure that people accept their responsibilities for the things that they do. We also see this as over $100 million in the future, every year, going into our municipalities to help them keep their streets safe. This meets our budget commission.

I want to thank the opposition parties for previous legislation and leadership they have shown on this issue. I hope this is not viewed as a partisan bill but one that is a good piece of public policy and one that builds on the tradition of all three parties and past governments.

I will, with your permission, turn it over to the MPP for Oakville.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill 34. I think a lot of us come to this House having served in other levels of government, most usually at the council level—on a regional council; perhaps on a town or a city council.

From time to time, I think, during the 18 years I served at that level, I wondered if I was working with the province or if the province was working against us. That applied to all three parties, because there seemed to be some very obvious things that could be done, in partnership and collaboration, that would make the operation of good government in the province of Ontario, at all levels, something that could be accomplished much more easily if the two levels of government worked together.

I like this piece of legislation particularly because it doesn’t just impact us here at the province; it impacts those people, those elected officials and those taxpayers and constituents, in all the communities around the province of Ontario that are dealing with the issues surrounding road safety.

Those members who have served on council, I think, anywhere in the province—I think this is true of all communities around the province. Despite us sort of waxing quite eloquently about our political philosophies, if you’ve served on council, you’ll know the number one phone call you get is about speeding and red lights and people not stopping at stop signs in particular neighbourhoods. It’s the practical, everyday stuff that they expect of a councillor, they expect of their council, they expect of the mayor, and anything we can do to assist in that regard at this level of government, I think, is something that is of tremendous advantage to all citizens of Ontario.

I guess what we have in the province of Ontario is a bit of a social contract. In order not to have people travelling 200 miles an hour in our neighbourhoods, we agree to travel at 50 kilometres an hour. In order not to have people driving through stop signs, we agree that we will stop at stop signs. We also put in a system of justice to administer that, and we agree that if the police pull us over or we get caught by a red light camera and the charge is justified, a good citizen will pay that fine, and say, “I was wrong.” The price we pay for having everybody else act safely is that I act safely myself.

What’s happening right now in the province of Ontario, and probably in other jurisdictions around North America, is what appears to be a growing problem, to the tune of about $100 million a year. Some people are just choosing to ignore the fines that are being administered by the justice system, just choosing to walk away from them, and if they’re from another jurisdiction, they are choosing to drive away from them.

Because of the fact that perhaps the offence happened in Ontario but the person happens to live in Quebec or Michigan, they seem to think that once they cross that border, the offence they committed in the jurisdiction somehow doesn’t apply to them anymore, that they shouldn’t be subject to any further action, that they can just leave it in their past. Other people continue to drive in the province of Ontario and continue to just decide that they’re not going to pay that fine.

It seems to me that one of the ways we can compel people to do what the rest of us are doing and paying any fine we’re issued, if we do receive an offence which we are guilty of, is to say when you show up on that day to renew your plate, your sticker, that the province of Ontario says, “No, it’s time to pay up now; you pay up now or you don’t get your sticker.” It’s a very practical way of doing things, something we can do through our ServiceOntario offices and, more importantly, something that’s going to provide revenue for people in the province of Ontario and for those jurisdictions in the province of Ontario that since the global economic turndown have been looking for ways to be able to continue to provide services to their ratepayers and constituents, but have also been understanding that the competition for funds out there right now, including the taxpayer’s wallet, shows that we are operating in a changed world since the middle of this decade.

So this provides that extra revenue stream. It’s the right thing to do; it’s the moral thing to do. I think it enhances road safety. As all of us are driving around, the vast majority of us submit to the system and say, “Yes, if I get caught by the police and I’ve done something wrong, I will pay that fine before its due date.” A minority in the province of Ontario have decided that somehow those rules don’t apply to them, that they can do what they want, they can drive any way they want, and when it comes time to pay the fine if they have been caught and tried, they simply ignore it.

This puts a roadblock in the way of those people who would choose to ignore the law. Those people who decide they’re not going to stop for school buses, for example, those people who decide they’re going to run the red light and put other people’s lives in jeopardy, shouldn’t be allowed to run around the province of Ontario unfettered. What we’re essentially saying to these people is, “You don’t get your sticker.” If you don’t get your sticker on your plate, it’s easily identifiable by the police in the province of Ontario if you’re driving with an expired sticker.

It’s an immediate sign, an immediate red flag to our police services.

Incidentally, this legislation is supported very, very strongly by the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards.

The headline of the news release they put out was very simple: “Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Welcomes New Measures on Unpaid Fines.” What they’re saying is that we’re expending money at the local level, at the regional level and at the provincial level to provide for policing in this province, and what is happening is, the police are doing their work: They’re going out and finding people on our streets who are disobeying the laws, and what they are saying to those people is, “Here’s a ticket. You have a chance for your day in court.

We’ll decide whether you are innocent or guilty, and if you are guilty, you’ll be required to submit a fine.”

So we go through all that expense. We provide the funding for the police. The taxpayers at the local level provide the funding for the police. Then, when it comes to the end of that process and it’s time for the convicted person to pay up, somehow we feel we don’t have a system in place that compels some people to do that. That seems to me to be very silly. It seems to be something that the Ontario police service boards also find silly, and it has been asking for action in this regard.

Here’s another quote that I want to read. It says, “These problems are not new. Municipalities, courts, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders have been advocating for decisive action for … years. The persistent problem of unpaid” provincial offence “fines undermines the justice system, frustrates law enforcement officers and municipal fine collection agents, and denies municipalities and the provincial government desperately-needed revenues.”

I don’t think it could be put any more clear than the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards has said in that quote. I think it wraps it all up very, very nicely. It gives us an opportunity to do something that other organizations, other levels of government have been asking us to do so that we can work together and we can enhance the relationship we have with towns and cities, municipalities around the province of Ontario.

It’s no small problem. Most people, I think, in my community of Oakville—and certainly yours, Speaker, in Hamilton, I think are very similar people—would be very surprised to realize that there’s about a billion dollars that’s outstanding out there. It’s not a small problem; it’s no small problem. It’s a billion dollars that could be put to very, very good use.

I need services in my community. People need enhanced services in my community. That’s true, I think, of every member here. If we can get more money into the hands of our local government from people who owe that money, from people who should have paid that money in the past, I think that nothing but good can come from that.

I think it really enhances the reputation we have and the standing we have as either the safest road system in all of North America or one of the safest road systems in all of North America if people who are using those roads know that they’re going to be held accountable for their actions on those roads. I think it makes them drive safer. I think if people come to the understanding that, “You know what? I might get caught by the police doing something I shouldn’t. I’ll speed through a residential neighbourhood; the police may or may not pick me up.

But it doesn’t matter because I’m not going to pay that fine anyway. And it doesn’t matter if I pay the fine or not; I can still continue to drive, and the chances of me being caught driving around with unpaid fines is very low, so I’ll simply ignore the system and I’ll continue to do whatever it is that I shouldn’t be doing. If I see a school bus, I may think, ‘Well, I’m just going to drive right by the thing because the chances of there being any consequence for me in the end are very, very low.’”

By passing Bill 34, what this House is saying is that the chances of that consequence being something that the offender would be subject to are increased. It becomes higher. Someone, when they’re making that decision to break the law as either a speeder or someone running through a red light or any one of a number of traffic offences that make our communities more dangerous—when people make the decision to do that, they’ll know there will be a consequence.

When they are making that decision, when they’re going through that decision process in their mind and they think, “You know what? I’ll probably get caught if I do this. I probably won’t be able to renew my plate if I do this. So maybe perhaps I shouldn’t do this,” I think it just enhances that reputation that we have in the province, and I think throughout all of North America, that this is a safe place to drive, in the province of Ontario, and that if you choose, by your own individual actions as a motorist, to make it a less safe place to drive, you will be held accountable by the justice system.

When you look at the amount of charges that are in default in the province of Ontario—and this dates back quite a number of years; I think over 40 years—it’s still a large number of outstanding offences. These are offences where the police system or the traffic system have done what we asked them to do, have done what we paid them to do, have gone out and found somebody on the streets doing something dangerous and have issued them a ticket. There are close to 2.5 million outstanding charges; charges that are in default dating back to around the 1970s.

Those charges could be any one stemming from an offence under 243 pieces of provincial legislation. Sometimes it’s a bylaw in a municipality and sometimes it even applies to the federal level.

There’s a number of reasons why people don’t pay their fines, but at the end of the day, fines need to be paid. If the justice system has determined that a person is guilty, then certainly the next step, I think, as a good citizen in the province of Ontario, as a safe driver, is to step to the bar and to pay that fine.

According to the most recent data we’ve been provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General, approximately 75% of the total amount of fine payments in default is from the period from 2000 to 2010. When you look at that, you realize that we’ve got an increasing problem; that during the last decade people in increasing numbers have decided that somehow they can get away with this. Somehow, between 1970 and 2000 people were doing it, but not in large numbers.

What you’ve seen is a huge acceleration in the past decade of people who are just walking away from that process and deciding that somehow this doesn’t apply to them. We’re seeing, as I said, the problem increase by about $100 million a year.

We’ve already provided some tools to municipalities to enforce Provincial Offences Act fines. They are responsible for the enforcement and the collection of Provincial Offences Act fines. They decide themselves, at the local level, when and how they’re going to apply the various fine enforcement tools that are available to them.

All three parties, I would hope, Speaker—we’ll find out as we hear more from the other parties on this—I hope there’s some sort of unanimity in the House that this is a tool that we can extend to our brothers and sisters in the different levels of government to allow them to do their job better, to ensure that the money that is due to them from people breaking the law is, indeed, much easier to collect.

We have already implemented a few new initiatives to help. We’ve got online fine payment systems now so that when the time comes to make that fine payment, you don’t have to take time off work and visit an office. You can go online in the evening and you can make arrangements for that. We’ve made it easier for the people. We’ve given access or provided information for those people at the local level who are trying to collect fines to access the Ministry of Transportation database. That helps them find people who perhaps have moved. Some municipalities have decided that they’re going to use agencies instead of doing this. They developed guidelines; they’ve developed best practices.

So, simply what we’re saying is that the municipal collection of fines should be a priority for this government because it’s going to promote the administration of justice in the province. It’s going to ensure that those who break the law and ignore the consequences are held accountable.

I’m going to end there, Speaker. I know I have some time left but I think some bills just become self-evident, that it’s a sensible thing to do when you’ve got support from the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, when you’ve got support from municipalities, from towns and cities. Perhaps it’s time that we move ahead on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege to stand before the Legislature this morning and to address Bill 34,

an act to amend the Highway Traffic Act in respect of permit denials and out-of-province services.

The Minister of Transportation actually made a very compelling argument whereby tightening the rules to collect outstanding offences could in fact have these finances going back to municipalities, and that money could in fact be used for road repair, bridge repair and so on. To me, that’s a very compelling argument, because we know the state of the current economy per se.

The member from Oakville, as well as the Minister of Transportation, did also comment on the fact that we have the safest roads in North America, and I do want to believe that as well. However, I will say with slight tongue in cheek that I recall back in 2007 there was an election promise—imagine that; an election promise—to enhance the 401 between Ridgetown and Tilbury whereby they were going to put in the cement barriers to minimize accidents whereby transports and cars would cross over the median. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. We’re still waiting on the 2007 promise.

Unfortunately and regrettably—and I’m sure they would also agree: regrettably—there have been some fatalities, most recently last year, where a mother lost her life when a transport crossed the median and killed her and, I believe, a sibling as well.

However, again, I do agree with the minister with regard to this bill, Bill 34. I like the fact that it can go back seven years and collect, I believe the minister stated, $350 million, based on a 60% to 70% collection rate. Therefore, I commend them for this act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill.

When I was first elected, I always said that where something was good, I would highlight it; where there were good ideas, I would give credit where credit is due. This is absolutely something that municipalities have been asking for for a very, very long time. This is something that will benefit their communities, and I absolutely agree with some of the comments that the prior member said as well: It will go toward their bridges, their repairs, their infrastructure, their water treatment and so on and so forth. So this is a good thing.

The concern is: Is it just a one-liner? I appreciate the fact that the member actually made a comment indicating that this is good. He kept his comments short. I’m hoping that this will progress and move forward so we can actually have those discussions at the committee stages so we could actually implement this, because that is certainly one of the concerns that the municipalities had: How is this going to be implemented? How are the regulations going to be developed? How much of it is going to be municipally governed? What is going to be our responsibility?

Is this going to be a one-liner that we’re going to see in tomorrow morning’s paper which is going to be great, fantastic news and we get all these fuzzy-wuzzy feelings about it?

This is a good idea; this is a good initiative. We need to push it forward and we need to get it to a level that will assist these municipalities so that we can give them the tools that they need in order for them to collect those funds so that they can actually get the support they need and they can do the changes and implement the infrastructure they need.

I am looking forward to this debate. I’m listening very attentively, along with our caucus as well. We definitely need to push this to committee so we can have the discussions that are needed to assist the municipalities with the regulations of how this is actually going to be implemented.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I think we heard a number of positive comments this morning from the Minister of Transportation/the Minister of Infrastructure and, of course, my colleague the member from Oakville.

Over the years, I’ve contributed mightily through the POA office in Peterborough. I’m notorious for getting parking tickets. I remember that when I was a city councillor, I’d be at agency meetings with various groups in Peterborough. The meetings always ran over time; I always got parking tickets. It was interesting: I had a straight path to the finance department in the city of Peterborough. Every week I had to make a contribution through my accumulation of parking tickets.

Certainly, this goes back. When David Crombie did his work in the late 1990s through services that were delivered at the municipal level, he looked at the Provincial Offences Act as a source of revenue to assist municipalities with their ongoing obligations in terms of bridges, roads, and expansion to waste water treatment plants. This bill, Bill 34, has the support of AMO, I suspect. I know it has the support of Mayor Bennett in the city of Peterborough and of J. Murray Jones, the warden of Peterborough county. This was an issue that was brought to us at ROMA.

There’s a real opportunity to collect those fines and provide those dollars back to municipalities. Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that we could really reach a consensus with House leaders, have a minimal time of debate, get this bill in committee, get this bill past royal assent, and really help out our municipalities with another revenue tool that they would like to see in place very quickly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I recognize the minister’s statement this morning on Bill 34, and his parliamentary assistant, the member from Oakville.

I think it’s important to put things in perspective. Some would say, “What took so long?” Some would say, “Could they not have handled this in regulation?” But the history of this, under the Provincial Offences Act and Highway Traffic Act offences—back in 1998, Premier Mike Harris, when they were looking at municipal alignment of services and revenue, made the change which committed this revenue to the municipalities. In many cases, law-abiding citizens do pay these fines, and he’s never once been thanked for giving that new revenue to municipalities.

So in that context, I think, in regulation they can, under some offences today, impound the car, suspend licences. That’s available today under impaired driving. These changes are important, and I believe our critic, Frank Klees, will be supportive of that, as well as our leader, Tim Hudak. It’s getting the job done.

Again, going back to the simple part of it, without being too contrary about it, what took so long? This bill itself is about one page long. It’s in two languages. We could get on with more important things: getting to the bottom of scandals, getting to the bottom of making sure that we can afford the future for our children. This province is out of control.

I don’t want to change the topic totally. This is one small administrative piece that has taken them 10 years to deliver on. It’s an example of a government with no plan and no vision for Ontario.

I would think we’d be supportive of this, and I’m sure our critic, Frank Klees, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, will make it very clear.

But I want to leave one more thing—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Oakville has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to rise in response. Thank you to the members from Chatham–Kent–Essex; from Algoma–Manitoulin; the Minister of Rural Affairs, my colleague; and the member from Durham.

Most of the comments, I think, were quite constructive, and there seems to be a willingness in the House to make sure that this moves forward. Like the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, I want to see it move forward quickly. I don’t see why it shouldn’t, if all three parties co-operate and if we hear some of the comments that we’ve heard from the government, saying that the opposition has done some good things in this regard. The opposition remarks, for the most part, maybe except for the member from Durham, were fairly positive comments and designed to move this legislation forward.

I think if we approach this issue through the government House leader’s office and the offices of the House leaders of the other two parties, this is something that we should be able to do in fairly quick order, in my opinion.

I think municipalities, ratepayers, constituents at all levels would be happy to see us working together, not only amongst ourselves but between the levels of government, because certainly this is something that is fairly simple, in my mind. I think what it says, quite simply, if you had to describe it to somebody, is that if you’re not paying your traffic fines, you’re not going to get your plates next time. And it’s not just for the car that you committed the offence on; it’s for any vehicle you own.

So when you show up at the MTO office, when you show up at the ServiceOntario kiosk and you ask for your plate to be renewed, they’re going to tell you, “No; you pay your fines or you don’t get your plate.” It’s that simple.

For anybody from out of the province, out of the jurisdiction that we drive in, if they commit an offence here, it will also make it easier for us to track those people down and to hold them accountable, the way that Ontarians are often held accountable in other jurisdictions.

There’s a little chirping from the opposition, but I think most of this, most of the comments, I think, we’ve heard this morning have been positive ones, and this bill should move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? That’s carried.

Second reading debate adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Milloy: No further business, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 0959 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted today to welcome Ontario’s paramedics to the Legislature. It’s their first Queen’s Park day, and I know all members of this Legislature are delighted that paramedics are with us today.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to welcome paramedic Gil Kisielius from Peel emergency services. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome James Downham to the House this morning. He’s representing the Waterloo-Wellington Community Support Services, who are taking the lead on a centralized referral system for all community support services in partnership with community care access centres, the first of its kind in Ontario. Welcome, Mr. Downham.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Page captain Morgan Palmer’s family is here today. We’ve got Janet Palmer, Aaron Palmer, Paige Palmer and Brock Palmer. I believe Aaron Palmer grew up in Newbury, so he’s an ex-constituent of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex—of Monte McNaughton. Welcome today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome today Smokey Thomas, the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, some of his executive members and other members of the union: Eddy Almeida, Roxanne Barnes, Jamie Ramage, Marnie Niemi Hood and Gord Longhi, as well as Kyle Vose.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m looking forward to a meeting with the Ontario paramedics’ Marvin Austin and also a constituent person, Alex Greco, who will be in the Legislature here today.

Miss Monique Taylor: Today it is my pleasure to welcome Ryan Baird here. He’s a student at Ryerson, in public policy and administration. Welcome, Ryan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Can you explain to the Legislature the compelling provincial interest to impose a $60 trades tax on a part-time hairstylist?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The compelling provincial interest in establishing a College of Trades, Mr. Speaker, is that we want an industry-driven governing body. We want to make sure that people who work in the skilled trades will have decision-making over the matters that affect them. We share the opposition’s commitment to encouraging young people to enter the skilled trades. We also believe, Mr. Speaker, that skilled trades should have the same authorities, privileges and autonomy as teachers, doctors and nurses—all of the people who have professional colleges.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Those are different professions—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, the member opposite says that those are different professions. We would like to say that we think that the same status, the same respect should be accorded to all of the people who work in the skilled trades. That is the provincial interest.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think I heard an answer to my question, which is: What is the compelling provincial interest in assigning a new trades tax of $60 to part-time hairstylists, to young men or women who want to be apprentices in a skilled trade, just coming out of school with tuition bills, who will be hit by a new $60 tax? Why would you impose a $120 tax on small business?

It’s basic economics, really. As you know, Premier, if you tax something, you get less of it; if you lower taxes, you get more of it. Clearly, if you wanted to create more jobs in the skilled trades, the worst thing you want to do is impose a new tax on those very same trades. Please tell me that you do oppose the new skilled trades tax, from hairstylists to electricians.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I support is an industry-driven governing body that allows young people in skilled trades to have the opportunity to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to jump right to individuals. Quite frankly, yesterday was an opportunity for us to improve. We will improve today.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What I support is young people in skilled trades to have the same privileges and the same autonomy as people in other professions.

The member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, positions himself as someone who supports the skilled trades. I would think that he would support the same status and privilege and autonomy being accorded to people in skilled trades as people in other professions, and that he would recognize that there is a provincial interest in putting that status in place and making sure that the same respect is accorded to people who work in skilled trades.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m proud to be part of a party with somebody as strong as the member for Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, who knows this industry inside and out.

I stand with Garfield and what he says. This is a guy who is a plumber by training, ran his own business and speaks from the heart, as you’ll hear shortly. He has compassion and passion for the sector, and he knows we need to clear aside obstacles to help young people get in the trades, clear aside obstacles to help small business do better.

In this environment under the McGuinty and Wynne governments, where Ontario is first in debt and last in jobs, why in the world would you bring in a new bureaucracy and a new tax to punish those very same young people whom we’re fighting for to open up opportunities? Why do you want to shut them down in the skilled trades? Why do you want to impose a new tax on hard-working women and men and small business owners in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am not going to engage in the kind of denigration of Ontario that the Leader of the Opposition—I’m just not going to go there. I actually have a lot of respect for the member for Simcoe North, and I know that he’s passionate about his—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to pass the test.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I actually have a lot of respect for the member for Simcoe North. I know that he’s passionate about the causes that he takes on and I know that he works very hard in his constituency. I share his desire to help young people know what the range of opportunities is to be able to develop the skills and to be able to get into a skilled trade. But I think those people in skilled trades should be accorded the same respect, they should have the same privileges and the same autonomy to work with their peers and to have a college in the same way that other professions do. That’s why I’m supportive of the move to have a College of Trades.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Quite frankly, there is no respect shown when you slap a brand new tax on the backs of working people in the trades. There is no respect shown when you put new obstacles in the way of people advancing their careers, starting their own business and getting job opportunities. In fact, this shows tremendous disrespect for hard-working men and women in the province whom we want to help succeed—more take-home pay and good jobs.

The Premier’s only defence now seems to be that there is widespread support for this issue, but I will tell you, Premier, the coalition opposed to the trades tax involves 5,000 small and medium businesses representing 130,000 workers across the province. The unions have expressed their concern and their opposition to this.

When there was a college of physicians or nurses, there was broad-based support in the employers and the professions. That does not exist anywhere when it comes to the College of Trades. There is no support in the industry. Premier, will you do the right thing and stop this College of Trades in its tracks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you very much. The Leader of the Opposition’s description of the College of Trades is simply completely inaccurate. His rhetoric, frankly, is an insult to every hard-working skilled tradesman and woman in this province.

It comes down to this: We believe that our skilled tradespeople are very capable of regulating themselves, like countless other workers do. The Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately, arrogantly believes he knows better; his party knows better. We don’t agree with them. Why does the Leader of the Opposition believe that teachers, physiotherapists, chartered accountants and social workers—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Barrie, come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Speaker. Why does the Leader of the Opposition believe that teachers, physiotherapists, chartered accountants and social workers are capable and smart enough to govern themselves and have their own regulatory body but not skilled trade workers?

We support the skilled trade workers in this province. We believe in them. We believe they’re ready for self-governance—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: What is disappointing to those of us on this side of the House is how increasingly, day after day, week after week, the Liberal government sounds an awful lot like the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government in heading down their paths.

Premier, you said in the last couple of days that agencies like the Ontario Electronic Stewardship, the Ontario Tire Stewardship, Waste Diversion Ontario—in short, the agencies you created, these arm’s-length agencies to be self-governing. You’ve raised concerns about the eco tax. You want to have a conversation about the eco tax going forward.

Your record with these arm’s-length agencies, including Ornge, has been far from stellar—in fact, quite the opposite. Why don’t you stop this newest agency in its tracks? Why don’t you avoid a future conversation and make the right decision starting now, starting today, and stop this College of Trades and its tax grab right in its tracks?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Leader of the Opposition is going all over the map on this, so let me go back to the College of Trades, which was his original question.

The idea of the College of Trades is to provide greater consumer protection. Why would the PCs be opposed to this? The idea of the College of Trades is to help combat the underground economy and create a level playing field for our skilled tradespeople. Why would the PC Party be opposed to that? It will also make important decisions regarding standards like apprenticeship ratios.

The PCs simply believe that these decisions ought to be made here at Queen’s Park by politicians with whatever agendas those politicians may have. We have confidence that the skilled tradespeople across this province will have the expertise to make the right decisions to drive the skilled trades forward in this province to a new era where our skilled trades will rise way above where they’re at—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier—I’m just going to ignore the minister and his tiresome talking points because I think our guy from Simcoe North knows what he’s talking about. He talks to the workers. He knows the path we have to head down to create good jobs in our province again.

Premier, may I remind you that your experiments to date with arm’s-length agencies, from eHealth to the eco tax agencies to Ornge, have been a dismal performance? You yourself are starting to question the new taxes imposed by the eco tax agencies. I think you should cut to the chase here and stop this in its place.

I’m going to argue this, too: The so-called College of Trades is not exactly off to a good start. They’re going to have 75 bureaucrats working at the College of Trades. That’s why they’re imposing this tax on working people. They’re going to hire 150 trades police to go into hair salons and electricians’ shops to inspect and see if they’re paying the tax. Do you think that an agency with 75 bureaucrats and 150 tax police is off to a good start, or should we just end this thing before it gets going?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue is absolutely beyond belief. What we see through his rhetoric is that it’s pretty obvious that that leader and his party do not believe in worker safety across Ontario, do not believe in the importance of enforcing safety standards, do not believe in the importance of our skilled trades sector to tackle the underground economy.

We believe that we want to put a level playing field in place for our skilled trades workers across this province. We’re listening very carefully to what our skilled trades workers across the spectrum are saying to us. They want a level playing field, and they want us to tackle the underground economy. They want to ensure that they have safe and healthy work environments.

I think the Leader of the Opposition should want those things as well. I’m surprised it appears that he doesn’t.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This morning, we learned that the company that provided Ontario hospitals with diluted chemotherapy drugs has been operating without any oversight or regulation. The consequences, Speaker, have been disastrous.

Can the Premier explain how her government has allowed this to happen?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health will want to speak to the supplementary, but I just want to reiterate what I said before: that it is unacceptable that the doses of chemotherapy would not have been accurate. That’s why we have put in place an expert panel. That’s why we have asked an independent third party to review our cancer drug system.

I’m very pleased that Dr. Jake Thiessen will be leading that review and I thank him for that. He’s a pharmacy expert; he’s the founding director of the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy.

We need to get to the bottom of this. We absolutely need to talk to everyone who is an expert in the field who understands how this should work. That is why we have asked the people that we’ve asked to take a look at it and get to the bottom of what happened.

It is unacceptable, and my thoughts are with the patients and their families who are having to deal with this. It never should have happened.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this is a fundamental question of safety, and it’s a question that should be easy to answer. As Canadians, we cherish our public health care system, and we expect the government to make sure that it provides safe and reliable treatment when people need it. This didn’t happen for hundreds of people receiving cancer treatment, and that is simply unacceptable.

Ontario’s Ombudsman is the person who has the tools and the tenacity to look at what caused this mess. Will the Premier let him do that?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I can assure you that ensuring the care and safety of patients is my first and highest priority. Patients cannot and should not be caught in jurisdictional squabbles about who is responsible. They deserve to have confidence in our health care system.

This morning I met with the College of Pharmacists. I am very pleased that they are prepared to do everything possible to get answers to questions that have been raised. I will work with the College of Pharmacists to give them the tools they need to get answers to the questions that we all have.

Health Canada has a very important role to play. They are partners in this, but I am not prepared to wait. It is urgent that we act now.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is clear that there is no regulatory framework whatsoever for these cancer drugs and who knows how many other drugs here in the province of Ontario. This is a systemic issue that the Ombudsman should be looking at.

Here’s what patients see in Ontario: A for-profit company has taken over a critical part of our health care system. People’s lives are literally in the balance, and the government doesn’t provide any oversight whatsoever. Over the course of an entire year, a serious error put hundreds of people’s lives at risk. This isn’t acceptable.

The government cannot sweep it under the carpet. Will the Premier admit we need a real investigation and let the Ombudsman investigate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are in complete agreement that a real investigation must take place, Speaker. That is already under way. We have brought together the working group of the affected hospitals, the Pharmacists’ Association and Health Canada. We’re inviting New Brunswick to be part of this as well.

Every single person in our health care system has the same determination and passion to understand what happened. I’m delighted that Dr. Jake Thiessen, an eminent person who understands health care, who understands drugs, who understands cancer drugs, has agreed to step up and lead this investigation. He is exactly the kind of health care leader who wants to make it right for patients. I am delighted he’s taking this on. He is the right person with the right credentials, the passion and determination—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s disconcerting to watch the giggles on the other side of the room during the questions, Speaker.

My next question is to the Premier, and it’s about the budget. People know the province is facing some pretty tough times, but they also want their government to recognize that they are facing tough times too, and that’s while some people are doing better than ever. So people are having a rough time, but some people are doing really great in the province of Ontario.

Many people, however, feel they’re being squeezed right out of the middle class. They want a balanced approach to this upcoming budget. Does the Premier think it’s balanced or fair to cut taxes for Ontario’s wealthiest corporations in tough times?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I certainly agree with the leader of the third party that we need a balanced approach as we write this budget. I’m very clear that we need to take into account that people have been through a rough time, that there are people who are looking for jobs across the province. We need to make sure that we put in place the supports, for example, for small businesses, because that’s where the job creation is happening.

That’s why it has been really important for me to take

part in discussions around the province—11 different discussions—with people who are at the forefront of creating those jobs. We need to make sure that small businesses, small manufacturing and large manufacturing have the supports that they need and have the conditions in place.

That’s why infrastructure is so important to me, that we have the right infrastructure across the province so that businesses can thrive, because they are where the jobs are created, and that’s the most important thing we can do to grow the economy.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’re hearing a lot of the same old talk and a lot of the same old excuses from this government, and we’re not seeing a lot of fairness here in Ontario.

The CEO of the Royal Bank, and the chair of the government’s Jobs and Prosperity Council, got a seven-figure raise this year and is now contracting jobs out of Ontario. I know Gord Nixon. He’s a nice guy, but his bank does not need a tax break right about now.

Will the Premier commit to putting the brakes on the reckless giveaway that’s coming down the pike with the corporate tax giveaways?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question from the opposition member. But let’s be clear: You’re talking about input tax credits, which is something that is part of our value-added tax system. It is not a tax loophole. It is something that has been part of our initiation.

We are doing everything possible to close those loopholes and ensure that tax avoidance is curbed. We’ve been working closely with the federal government to that effect, and we will continue to be diligent in that initiative, because we are taking a balanced approach to our budget. We are looking at our fiscal impacts, and we are looking at making this also a very fair society. Thank you.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No matter how you slice or dice it, it’s a corporate tax loophole; it’s a giveaway. Whatever the heck it is, it’s making the rich richer in this province.

People are worried about the loss of good jobs in their own communities. They’re worried about finding jobs for their kids and the growing cost of living for their families. When they look at their government, they see more of the same policies that leave them falling behind while those who need the help least seem to be getting all the handouts.

CEO salaries in the public sector keep growing, the government plows ahead with more corporate tax giveaways, and people fall further and further and further behind, like they’ve done for a decade under the Liberal government’s leadership. It doesn’t make sense. It hasn’t made sense for a long time. We can do better than that, here in this province.

Is the Premier ready to take some basic steps towards fairness in this budget by capping CEO salaries and putting the brakes on the plan for more corporate tax giveaways?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are doing everything possible to make this a very balanced approach. We recognize how important it is to stimulate economic growth and to stimulate job creation, and we do that by providing incentives in the creation of those jobs and by providing for investment in Ontario. We want to attract more of that to come to this province, to create those jobs, not only for our skilled labour but also for our youth.

In the end, we also don’t want to leave anybody behind. We recognize how important it is to support our fair society; we’re taking those steps as well.

Three reports that you mentioned, that are so important in our budget: One is our jobs and prosperity agenda that you talked about. Another one is the Sheikh-Lankin report about reforming our social initiatives. And of course, we have the Drummond report, which we’re acting upon as well.

Altogether, we’re taking initiatives necessary to provide growth while at the same time supporting our communities.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, I listened to your answers to my leader, and I’m not really sure where you got some of your facts. It certainly wasn’t from any of the 125 meetings I’ve had with tradespeople across the province.

Minister, can you tell the House today what the cost is to the tradespeople of Ontario—because that’s who is paying for this—to hire 150 new trades cops, complete with their vehicles, that the College of Trades has now approved? It’s real simple: How much money for the trades cops?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Again, the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. The College of Trades has been up and running now for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure the member from Prince Edward–Hastings does not want to be warned—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —nor does the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke want to be warned.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The College of Trades has been up and running for a very short time. They’ve already made some great progress when it comes to reducing apprenticeship ratios, something that governments of all stripes have not done a great job doing. In fact, the member’s party itself—when they were in power, do you know how many apprenticeship ratios they reduced? Zero, Mr. Speaker. The College of Trades has already reduced six apprenticeship ratios.

My advice to the member opposite—and I know he didn’t like this College of Trades idea from the beginning: Give the college a chance. Give our skilled—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you, Minister. Well, that’s really not much of an answer to my question.

But let’s look at what’s actually happening at the College of Trades. The college has been created without the knowledge or the permission of the tradespeople of Ontario. The membership tax is mandatory, and the increase is 676% higher than the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities fees. And if you don’t pay it, you lose your licence.

The tradespeople have to pay for 150 trades cops, their vehicles, and probably a commissioner, for all I know, and even you don’t know what the cost of that is—at least, you referred it. There is no transparency, and you can’t even tell me when the tradespeople will get to vote on their own board of directors.

Minister, you should be embarrassed by this boondoggle. We, on this side of the House, feel you can fix this by abolishing the College of Trades. Minister, will you do that today, and will you stand up today and apologize to the tradespeople of Ontario for this colossal tax grab?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s a number of things that the member said there that were inaccurate, absolutely inaccurate. In particular, when it comes to the voluntary trades and losing their certificates of qualification: not the case; not factual at all.

But I think where the disrespect comes here, Mr. Speaker—it’s disrespect from the party opposite for our hard-working men and women in the skilled trades. I don’t know for the life of me why it’s okay for audiologists in the province to have their own college but not for auto mechanics to have a college representing them. Why is it okay for dental hygienists to have their own college, but the PCs don’t think that our skilled tradespeople—for instance, our agricultural equipment technicians—are capable of governing themselves?

What they want is a double standard. They’re suggesting that our skilled tradespeople don’t have the talent and the intelligence to be able to govern themselves. We disagree. We have confidence and respect for those individuals.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Yesterday, the former chief of staff to Ministers Duguid and Bentley testified at the justice committee that he had deleted all his emails relating to the Mississauga and Oakville gas plant cancellations—all of them.

Premier, that looks like someone who is protecting the Liberal Party and not the people of Ontario. Will the Premier admit that it’s wrong to protect the Liberal Party by destroying public records?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The government takes its obligation to produce documents very seriously. In fact, there is a committee of the Legislature which the member is part of, which is right now looking at the production of documents last year about the gas plant issue.

But what I find very strange is that when motions have come forward for the production of supplementary documents, government members have always supported more transparency, but when we went forward at the beginning of the committee hearings and offered the committee, through a motion, production of all documents across government, including ministers’ offices and the Premier’s office, to my absolute astonishment, they—including that member—raised their hands in the committee and voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, there are rules about the way records should be handled. The common records series says, “Records of Ontario cabinet ministers ... and their staff provide documentary evidence of the development of government policies and programs and form an important part of the historical record of government.” That includes “records in electronic form.” In fact, budget and planning files, which include “materials connected with budget planning and other ministry planning,” should be kept for five years and then sent to the Archives of Ontario.

Is destroying evidence standard practice for Liberal political staff?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, you know, we expect from the official opposition those sorts of drive-by smears. I’m a little bit upset to hear it from the third party.

The fact of the matter is, as I’ve said before, I would like to let the committee do its work, but let’s get into the weeds a little bit. We have had a series of requests from the committee for very specific documents. The Liberal members of the committee at the beginning went forward and put forward a motion for an across-government search, with a very wide timeline, for documents that were produced not only within the bureaucracy but within ministers’ offices, the Premier’s office and the Cabinet Office, and that member, along with opposition members, raised their hands and voted against it.

When it comes to transparency, when it comes to access to documents, I think that member has a lot of explaining to do.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Phil McNeely: Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Minister of Education. Many of my constituents in Ottawa–Orléans are new to Ontario. They come here looking for new opportunities and a better life. They also come to Ontario because they know that our schools are amongst the best in the world and that their kids will have access to a world-class education. I know that through many of our investments in our schools, our students are achieving great results and that more students are graduating than ever before.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the minister inform this House on how our investments in education are contributing to student success?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for his continuous advocacy for programs which help students graduate from high school.

I’m pleased to say that for the eighth straight year our high school graduation rate has grown. Since 2003, our graduation rate has increased by 15 percentage points, from 68% in 2003 to 83% in 2011-12. What that means is that over 115,000 more students have graduated from Ontario high schools than would be the case if we hadn’t put in place our student success programs, programs like the—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Mr. Speaker, once again, through you, my question is to the Minister of Education. I’m very glad to hear that more of our students are graduating from high school.

It is also important to note that in order for our students to do well in school they must feel safe and accepted in their classroom. As many members know, today is the International Day of Pink. Today is a day where we wear pink to stand up against the destructive effects of bullying in schools. We’ve all read in the last 24 hours about a young lady from the east coast, where the bullies followed her to her next school, and she took her life. When our students don’t feel safe, they do not do well in their studies.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Education, can the minister please inform this House on the work that is being done to ensure that our students can succeed in a safe and inclusive environment?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member is absolutely right. When students are bullied, the consequences are often very tragic. If students are going to succeed in school, they need to be safe. Every student has the right to feel safe and accepted at school. If students don’t feel safe, they can’t do their best. That’s why we’re committed to building a safe, inclusive environment in our classrooms.

I’m proud to say that our government passed the Accepting Schools Act last year to make sure that every school must take measures to prevent bullying and support students who come from all sorts of different, diverse backgrounds, and to support the students who want to work by events like pink day to support other students and to take a stand against bullying in our schools.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. At the justice committee yesterday we had our most revealing day yet. Your deputy energy minister corroborated the testimony of the OPA, who stated that the government knew there would be massive costs to the Oakville relocation in addition to the $40 million you claim. He swore to the justice committee that he told the minister the Oakville cancellation would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the $40-million figure.

Premier, you’ve known this for months—months—yet you sit there and pretend you didn’t. Will you drop the act and tell us the total cost of the gas plant scandal and who ordered the documents to be withheld?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think members are aware that we have asked the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature, to examine the issue. It is my understanding, through a letter that I received from him, that the Auditor General will be making his report public next week. That will be an opportunity for the members of the opposition, members of this party or government, to take a look at the Auditor General’s report. It’s certainly within the power of the committee that has been struck to examine that report in detail and in fact, if they so desire, call the Auditor General before it.

In terms of document production, we have undertaken in good faith to provide the committee with all documents it wants, but again, I remind members of this House that the government took the initiative to come forward and offer a government-wide search of relevant documents far beyond anything that had been asked, and that member and his colleagues voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It was also revealed that the Liberal staffers will go to any extreme to keep us from getting to the facts. Several times yesterday I asked Craig MacLennan, the energy minister’s chief of staff, about a $1.4-billion Oakville price tag that he was very concerned with. He repeatedly swore under oath that he had no idea what I was referring to until I showed him the urgent document he wrote. Then, eureka, he remembered it. We got him red-handed.

Last week, David Livingston, the former Premier’s chief of staff, either didn’t know or couldn’t remember 22 times in that short testimony. Let’s remember that he was a $367,000-a-year bureaucrat. Premier, do you really think this type of behaviour is acceptable, or is amnesia a prerequisite for your job in the Liberal government?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the drive-by smears continue. Individuals are coming forward before the committee. These are witnesses who are being called by the—

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: These are witnesses who are being called by the Progressive Conservative Party. They are coming forward. They are being asked questions—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Cambridge, second time.

Hon. John Milloy: —related to a long time frame. They are answering under oath to the best of their ability.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Mr. MacLennan’s testimony, the honourable member spoke about documents. Perhaps we should review what he told the committee about documents. He said, “Ultimately, legal counsel, as I understand it, advised that it would be difficult to release these documents while negotiations were still under way. Ultimately, as I understood it, the minister accepted that legal advice.”

Mr. Speaker, as has been discussed in this chamber on many occasions, the former minister and his staff tried to find a balance between the competing interests of the public and the requests of the committee, and that became very clear yesterday.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question this morning is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Ring of Fire presents endless opportunities for northern Ontario and the province; however, instead of seeing development and job creation, the past years of Liberal government have been marked by job losses in the north. Look no further than Xstrata in Timmins to see that we are losing good, value-added jobs and crippling our workforce for years to come.

Will this government start focusing on policies that create jobs in northern Ontario so the province can capitalize on what the Ring of Fire has to offer?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. It’s a good one in that we are, of course, very committed to seeing job creation continue in northern Ontario. I certainly note you did not reference the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp., which is one of the great job creators in northern Ontario, one that would be a benefit to your riding as well.

May I say, there’s lots to talk about here, Mr. Speaker, but the province remains very committed to, certainly, sound strategic development in the Ring of Fire, perhaps one of the most exciting economic development opportunities in the province that we’ve seen in over 100 years. We continue to move forward with that project as well as many other opportunities we see in both the mining and the forestry sector in northern Ontario.

Again, we could discuss this all day in terms of those opportunities. We’re seeing the forestry industry return in northern Ontario. We’re seeing opportunities, particularly with the purchase of the mill in Terrace Bay, the opportunities that have been there in the forestry sector as well as in—

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question again is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In the Ontario Mining Act, it is stated that companies must ask for an exemption to ship resources outside of the country. But our competitors come from other provinces, provinces like Manitoba, like Quebec, whose price of electricity is half that of ours in Ontario.

If this government is serious about stimulating the economy and creating new jobs, will they commit to supporting the refining of minerals and ores in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly looking forward to debating the member’s private member’s bill tomorrow afternoon. We are, obviously, always looking for value-added opportunities in the mining sector—why we’re excited about setting up a diamond-processing facility in Sudbury, Ontario; why we’re working, obviously, in terms of the opportunities you see for the processing facility that may be there with the Ring of Fire in terms of Capreol.

But let me tell you, you’re walking on very dangerous ground here, may I say, and I think the member knows that. He knows that indeed the amount of processing materials that come in from outside the province into the province of Ontario and that provide employment for hundreds, if not thousands, of people would be threatened if indeed the member moved forward with that legislation.

Interjection.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Oh yes, it would. So let’s agree that we will have a good, thorough debate tomorrow afternoon and one where indeed I hope that members of the House recognize that this is dangerous ground you’re on. Having said that, there is nothing that’s more important, that wants to see the value-added opportunities in the mining sector, let alone the—

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

New question.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Our government is making record investments in public transit, and two of these major transit projects go through my riding of York South–Weston.

Residents and businesses that have been waiting for years for rapid transit on Eglinton—ever since the original subway was cancelled in 1995—were pleased, Minister, to see you on the construction site yesterday and to know that the work is progressing.

However, another neighbourhood in my riding, Weston, where construction for the GO expansion and the UP Express is in full swing, has brought forth serious concerns about extended construction work hours. These are not acceptable to the community.

Speaker, through you to the minister, I ask how we can address these concerns.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The Eglinton crosstown line—I really want to commend the member from York South–Weston on it, because she has been one of the biggest advocates for that. Very few people who have sat in this House have been such unqualified advocates for transit and transportation investments.

This is a $4.9-billion project. It is the largest single transit project in 50 years in Ontario—this one project alone. It is one of seven projects that are now under way of 15 under the Big Move. By 2021, 53 million people will be riding that line. This is a remarkable step forward in transit investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the minister: In a public meeting held yesterday, my constituents expressed serious concerns with the accelerated construction

schedule being proposed for spring and summer along the Weston corridor. Crews working every day from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends all through the spring and summer is really extremely disruptive to the quality of life of the residents, especially in the immediate surrounding area. This is not acceptable to the community.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How are we going to make sure these concerns are addressed?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member raises a very good point. I hopefully would like to give her a bit of comfort on that. First, the work in this area is limited to the area of King between John and Church Streets, and that will focus on the Weston tunnel excavation.

Metrolinx is moving forward on this so that the road can be completed for the school year, and the work is being done four metres underground. We anticipate that the noise levels will be what they are, Mr. Speaker, or lower than they are right now.

The proposal is to have them run between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Monday to Friday and 7 to 7 on Saturdays, and only on Sundays if necessary for limited amounts of time.

I would like to commit to the member that I will review this construction

schedule with her and her constituents to ensure that we mitigate anything, and I’m quite prepared to work with her to achieve adjustments, if necessary.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, it’s almost two years to the date that the first question was asked in this House about why names had disappeared from the sunshine list of senior executives working at Ornge. Two years later, we look at the sunshine list, and there are still senior executives missing from the sunshine list. Bruce Farr, the acting operations manager; Jim Feeley, the VP of aviation—79 employees being paid in excess of $7 million are nowhere to be seen on the sunshine list.

I’d like to know from the Premier: Is this her idea of full disclosure? Is this her idea of transparency? Why are these people not listed on the sunshine list?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is almost two years, and what a two years it has been, Speaker. Ornge is a much, much stronger organization now: new leadership, new protocols—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —focused on patient care. It is a—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just want to make sure you heard that. The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to take this opportunity, Speaker—we have paramedics in the House, and I want to focus on saying thank you to the front-line staff at Ornge, who have worked so hard, despite difficult times.

I look forward to the supplementary, but I have directed that Ornge must comply with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. That’s why I made sure it was in the new performance agreement that has been in place for over a year. When the new board was appointed at Ornge, one of their directions was to wind down the for-profit companies.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, obviously, the minister has been as ineffective in the last few months as she was for the last two years, because there continue to be three for-profit companies that are employing 79 employees, none of whom have been able to be convinced to allow their names to be disclosed for the salary disclosure that we in this House were promised by the minister.

I would like to know, from the minister: Why are we still faced with a list of 79 employees who are being paid more than $7.5 million of taxpayers’ money? We have no idea who they are. Why has this organization not complied with the directive the minister told us here that she has given them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I was saying, Ornge is winding down those for-profit entities as quickly as is responsible to do so. I am sure the member opposite would not want Ornge to do anything that was not responsible.

Speaker, the member is correct. There are currently active for-profit entities that employ some of Ornge’s pilots and management. They do not fall under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. However, they are posting publicly the positions and salaries for all of those who are not covered by the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

I would say that if the member opposite wants to see progress at Ornge, he should pass the legislation, get it to committee, and let’s continue the job that has already been well started at Ornge.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier likes to describe the crisis in manufacturing in Ontario as a myth. Maybe she hasn’t heard the one about the emperor’s new clothes. That myth is about what happens when a leader ignores the obvious.

One thing is very obvious, Speaker, to 5,000 workers and their families in southwestern Ontario: They’ve lost good-paying manufacturing jobs over the last year.

When will the Premier face the facts and deal with manufacturing job losses in London and across the southwest?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. The reality is that important investments that this government is making, like the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund, which was approved and passed in this Legislature last fall—it’s such an important program to address precisely the issue that the leader of the third party is talking about.

When we think of the nearly 400,000 jobs that have been created since June 2009, since the bottom of the recession, many of those jobs were created in the manufacturing sector as well, and many of those jobs were created in southwestern Ontario.

We are focused on continuing to find new supports, better supports, to make sure that this important sector in Ontario, which contributed so much to our economy and our society—that we continue to invest in making sure that it continues to thrive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, over the last 10 years of Liberal reign, 18,000 manufacturing jobs in southwestern Ontario have disappeared. London now has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country. London workers are reeling from manufacturing job losses at Electro-Motive, Diamond Aircraft, and the list goes on and on and on. London families don’t want to hear bedtime stories. They want to see a jobs strategy that actually works.

When will the Premier take some real action to protect and create good-paying manufacturing jobs in London, in southwestern Ontario and, in fact, across this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, it’s important, I think, that we remind ourselves of the success that is going on in this province. In fact, Ontario, including in manufacturing, is leading in many sectors. I just want to say that, for example, our auto sector is producing more vehicles in this province than any other subnational jurisdiction in North America. We have the fastest-growing green energy sector in North America as well. We have the best-rated banks in the world. We have the second-largest financial services sector in North America, next to New York. We are the mining finance capital of the world.

We are in the top three in North America in terms of the film industry as well. And importantly, we have Canada’s largest food processing industry.

In the manufacturing sector, there’s work to be done, of course. The recession hit hard; it hurt this sector badly. We’re working hard to make sure that it continues to thrive.

TOURISM

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Supporting local festivals and cultural events is very important. In my riding of Brampton West and all across Peel region, we are fortunate to have many cultural celebrations. The government’s Celebrate Ontario program is an important tool that helps local community groups run programs and events and showcase their culture and heritage. It has helped with events like Carabram and the Mosaic South Asian heritage festival, which were wildly popular and well-attended events in Peel. Showcasing the diversity and heritage of Ontarians not only makes Ontario a popular tourist destination, but it also generates business for the local economy.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell us how the Celebrate Ontario program benefits Ontarians?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much to the honourable member for Brampton West for asking.

Celebrate Ontario is a great program in my ministry. It’s an important program, because it pulls people together. It attracts tourists; it creates jobs. Every year, festivals generate more than 22,000 jobs in this province. This year, through Celebrate Ontario, our government is providing support to 203 events.

Let me give you examples: Celebrations like the upcoming Tall Ships 1812 Tour will have $450 million in visitor spending while drawing 1.2 million attendees, including 500,000 tourists.

Local festivals and events make Ontario a great travel destination and encourage Ontarians and visitors to explore and experience all our province has to offer.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Easy does it, the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Supplementary?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: [ Inaudible ] Ontario, which will generate local business and help create jobs. I heard that our government also enhanced the blockbuster category of Celebrate Ontario, allowing London to host the 2013 International Skating Union World Figure Skating Championships in March, as well as Ottawa’s 2013 International Ice Hockey Federation world women’s championship, which just ended yesterday.

Can the minister indicate what else the government has done for festivals and events in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: That was a very good question.

I want to congratulate the Canadian women’s hockey team, which won a silver medal in Ottawa last night. I am sure the next time around, they will get a gold medal.

I am proud to say that since 2003, our government has invested over $260 million to support more than 4,600 festivals and events across Ontario. Since 2007, Celebrate Ontario has helped enhance close to 1,000 festivals, supporting our priorities to help grow the economy and create jobs.

Our government is dedicated to supporting Ontario’s festivals and events through programs like Celebrate Ontario, and we will continue to do that.

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to read something you said in question period yesterday; it intrigued me. This was in response to the $63-million price tag on retirement gratuities with the OSSTF. You said, “The savings that was found, $1.8 billion, is the same money that was saved at the end of this contract.”

Well, I think this member, of course, as Premier, knows that the Ontario PC caucus has been calling for an across-the-board legislated wage freeze that would be far more comprehensive than what they’re doing, and that would save $2 billion. She’s now trying to tell us she spent $63 million more but she has $1.8 billion in savings. Speaker, I know math scores are down in this province, but it appears that she has taken it to a new low in her office.

What I’d like to ask the Premier is, can you stand up and give us a detailed explanation right here, right now, on where you found those $1.8 billion in savings, or is it just like the power plants that are costing $40 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very happy to respond to this question, because I think what’s absolutely clear in all of this is that while the party opposite has an attitude which—I think one of the members, the other day, in question period, referred to teachers as terrorists. That is totally unacceptable, and we have a very different attitude. We think teachers are our front-line professionals, and we make absolutely—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: We make absolutely no apologies for working with our front-line professionals to come to an agreement. We actually think working with our teachers to come to an agreement and having peace in the schools and extracurriculars is a good thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I heard her make an accusation about the member from Thornhill, but she did not tell me what $1.8 billion of savings was added up from, because there aren’t, Speaker. We know this deal has cost us an extra—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I would appreciate it if everyone got a little softer.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If this government actually knew the details of their own agreement, they’d be able to table in this chamber what that cost. If they’re talking about $1.8 billion in savings, this side of the House wants to know why it hasn’t been applied to the debt and the deficit. We want to know why it has not been applied to our front-line classrooms for textbooks, technology and the portables where we see our kids in suburban communities right across this province.

So I ask this minister one more time—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Education.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to remind the member that when I stand, you sit.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Pardon me? I can’t hear you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You can’t hear me because you were talking.

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I’d be delighted to explain how we got over $1.8 billion in savings. In fact, Minister Duncan, when he was Minister of Finance, I believe, explained it in quite a bit of detail. In the 2012-13 fiscal year, which we are just completing, there was over a quarter of a billion dollars in operating savings. In the fiscal year that we are about to begin, there is over half a billion in savings. There are also ongoing fiscal savings of $1.1 billion in terms of long-term liability. So when you add it all up, there in fact is $1.8 billion in savings. And just as there was $1.8 billion in savings in January, there are $1.8 billion in March.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Residents in Kingston are very concerned about the fact that St. Mary’s hospital is being planned as a P3, a private-public partnership—so concerned, in fact, that this weekend they are holding an unofficial by-election on the issue.

P3s have been shown by the Auditor General to waste taxpayers’ money, as they transfer responsibility for a public hospital to a for-profit corporation with no accountability, with no oversight.

Financial experts have said that this P3 is going to cost $100 million more—$100 million that should be spent on improving patient care, Mr. Speaker, but the minister says that it is cheaper. Why, then, has the minister refused to release any of the supporting documents that make the case for this P3, and how can the minister justify ignoring the voices of the local residents of Kingston in justifying this P3?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure you that the residents of Kingston are delighted at the investments that are being made in hospital infrastructure, and I applaud the member from Kingston and the Islands, who has been relentless in his advocacy for capital projects in his riding.

The alternate financing plan that is building hospitals across this province is delivering hospitals on budget and on time. We simply would not have been able to replace our hospital infrastructure if we had used traditional methods of financing. We are getting very good value for money. We’re getting projects built. They’re coming in under budget and on time. The result is, we have a highly renewed hospital infrastructure across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1136 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Prue: I have five guests here today to observe the introduction of a bill later today. My guests are Daryl Chezzi, Sean Hamilton, Amanda Barchard, Bruce Katkin and Julius Varga. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome. Thank you for being here.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VIMY RIDGE ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Robert Bailey: I stand today to recognize the 96th anniversary of the Canadian Corps assault on the German troops occupying Vimy, France, between April 9 and April 12, 1917. In capturing that critical foothold in northern France, soldiers from all four divisions of the Canadian military corps stood side by side for the first time as a nation, united, at one. In doing so, 3,598 young Canadians made that ultimate sacrifice with their lives, and another 7,000 returned wounded from that battle.

Vimy Ridge stands as a memorial in perpetuity to those 11,285 Canadian soldiers who fought and were killed in France during the First World War and have no known grave. In 2011, I was fortunate enough to join a group of 1st Hussars from Sarnia and London to visit the memorial at Vimy Ridge, Juno Beach and the Commonwealth cemeteries in Europe. Together, we travelled to those sites to honour our brave soldiers, who have selflessly fought for our country with the hope that theirs would be the last generation to face the violence and the atrocities of war.

I ask that today, as we tend to the business of our individual lives, each of us takes time to reflect upon that past service and sacrifice of our fellow Canadians at Vimy Ridge and in all conflicts across the globe.

RURAL AGRI-INNOVATION NETWORK

Mr. Michael Mantha: The Rural Agri-Innovation Network, or RAIN, is holding sessions across many communities in Algoma–Manitoulin between April 18 and May 7 that will help strengthen the agricultural sector in northern Ontario.

RAIN is a collaborative organization for improved producer success and business growth in the agricultural sector. This valuable organization will improve the capacity of Algoma producers for rural-based crops and commodities and create value-added products and services. Through these sessions that will be held in Echo Bay, Huron Shores, Prince township and St. Joseph Island, RAIN will gain input from local community members so that they can effectively develop market opportunities, get access to information, and research Algoma-specific needs and opportunities.

Northern Ontario is not only a leader in primary sector industry, it has positioned itself to become a knowledge-based economy, building on its traditional strengths and expanding in the areas of innovation and collaboration. Northern agriculture is important to the health, economic viability and diversity of northern communities. RAIN is pursuing research that will develop and support the growth and sustainability of the industry so that the northern Ontario agricultural sector will be better able to thrive and realize its full potential.

I applaud the efforts of this organization and encourage community members to attend these sessions so that research can be properly tailored to the needs of local producers and agricultural communities can be strengthened through innovative practices.

NATIONAL ORGAN AND TISSUE DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like to take the time today to recognize April 22 to 28 as National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week 2013. At this moment, more than 1,500 people are waiting for a life-saving organ and tissue transplant in Ontario. One person on this list dies every three days because the organ they need is not available, but the organs of just one person can save up to eight lives.

While Ontario’s organ and tissue donation registration is 22%, Toronto’s registration is 14%. Scarborough falls well below this number, at a mere 10%. For this reason, the Scarborough Gift of Life Association was formed in September 2012. The members and the volunteers of this association live in Scarborough, and many have personal connections or interests in organ and tissue donations. They are local community donors, recipients, neighbours, advocates, friends, partners and supporters, including my constituent Mohan Bissoondial, who is a friend as well as an organ recipient and a founder of the Scarborough Gift of Life Association.

Mohan and his team have increased the registration rate for organ and tissue donation in Scarborough, working in partnership with Trillium Gift of Life. The Trillium Gift of Life network designates April as Be a Donor month.

I want to applaud the association for all their hard work and encourage each one of us here in the House and in the community to be a donor.

A.O. SMITH

Mr. Ted Arnott: Once again, I wish to update the House on the situation in Fergus related to the A.O. Smith, formerly GSW, manufacturing plant closure.

Upon hearing the news, I immediately reached out to township of Centre Wellington officials, company and union representatives, the Premier’s office, the offices of the Ministers of Economic Development and Training, and many others. I also joined Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj to visit the plant on April 4, the day after the announcement.

The Premier and the Minister of Training returned my calls to their offices. I asked both of them in turn to call the mayor, and they did, which I appreciate. However, the government’s response to date, as a whole, has been less than satisfactory. Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Economic Development claimed during question period that an action centre had been “opened” to respond to the crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, that was not true. In fact, when I contacted the company yesterday to double-check, I was told that the company hasn’t yet heard from the government. The minister needs to correct his record in this House.

The 350 A.O. Smith workers need a compassionate community response in the first instance, and this is happening in our community right now. But they need the support of the provincial government as well.

I call upon the Minister of Training to immediately activate the Second Career program and other relevant training programs and give my constituents fair consideration to help them with their retraining needs. Secondly, I call upon the Minister of Economic Development to immediately reach out to the township of Centre Wellington, offering all available resources to support our township, county and chamber of commerce’s efforts to create new jobs in our community to replace the ones that we will be losing on July 1, Canada Day.

Working together, we will meet this challenge head on, support our neighbours and contin