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

April 19, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Apr-19 (PDF)

L039 - Thu 19 Apr 2012 / Jeu 19 avr 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 19 April 2012 Jeudi 19 avril 2012

WEARING OF BADGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CHILD CARE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ENERGY RATES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

HEALTH CARE

NOTICE OF POINT OF PRIVILEGE

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

I LOVE DANCE

WEST LINCOLN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

EDUCATION FUNDING

VAISAKHI

VAISAKHI

LEONARD BRAITHWAITE

PARRY SOUND AND AREA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

CASSELMAN VIKINGS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

IMMIGRATION POLICY /

POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

EDUCATION FUNDING

WIND TURBINES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO BUDGET

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

IMMIGRATION POLICY /

POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT

OF WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

DE L’ONTARIO (HAUTEUR DES

BÂTIMENTS À OSSATURE DE BOIS)

ONTARIO’S WOOD FIRST ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 PRIVILÉGIANT

LE BOIS EN ONTARIO

PROVINCIAL DEBT

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT

OF WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

DE L’ONTARIO (HAUTEUR DES

BÂTIMENTS À OSSATURE DE BOIS)

ONTARIO’S WOOD FIRST ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 PRIVILÉGIANT

LE BOIS EN ONTARIO

PROVINCIAL DEBT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2012 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 0900.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Let us pray.

Prayers.

WEARING OF BADGES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I seek unanimous consent to wear the “I Love Dance” logo today. It is a celebration of the Canadian Dance Assembly, as they kick off their year-long fundraising.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member has requested unanimous consent to wear the badge. Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 18, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to bullying and other matters / Projet de loi 13, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation en ce qui a trait à l’intimidation et à d’autres questions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): At the adjournment of the debate, Mr. O’Toole had just finished his comments, so we’ll go to questions and comments. The member for Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to commend the member for Durham for his remarks and indicate that, really, we should be making a little more progress with respect to anti-bullying in this House, and it’s unfortunate that things are a bit bogged down. We are moving forward with the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, Mrs. Witmer’s bill, Bill 14, hopefully in committee soon. We should have been at the stage where Bill 13 and Bill 14, the government bill and the PC bill—a bill that Mrs. Witmer worked on for some three years now—were both at committee, and not have Bill 13 stuck at second reading because we want a select committee to delve into the Ornge matter.

We offered the government the opportunity to have both bills put into committee after first reading, Mr. Speaker, which is rarely done but can be done with consent of the House, and there would be a meshing or a melding of the two bills and we would bring forward the best, most comprehensive anti-bullying legislation that I think this country has ever seen. There still is that opportunity. We believe that we can move forward, and we will eventually move forward, but the fact of the matter is, it’s unfortunate that that wasn’t done at this time.

Mrs. Witmer’s bill has a clear definition of bullying, which we don’t see in the government bill, Bill 13; early intervention—incorporation into the curriculum beginning in kindergarten so that students at all ages will learn that bullying is bad; a province-wide ministry model for prevention and intervention plans; the development of detailed school board prevention plans; and the reporting of incidents of bullying in schools, which is not in the government bill. So we should work together to try to merge the two bills and come up with one that’s going to deal with this issue once and for all, hopefully.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just rise to make comment on how important I think this bill is. I’m happy to hear the member opposite talk about working together, because I think what is really important is that we get this legislation passed so that we can have a framework, a legislative framework within which our schools can function.

Some years ago, we put in place an equity and inclusive education policy. What that did was reintroduce into our school system the notion that equity and the seeking of equity in an inclusive education environment in our schools was important because, in fact, for some years, previous to our coming to office, the word “equity” had been expunged from the education ministry. There was no policy or legislation that actually included the notion that equity was important. I think an inclusive classroom and an inclusive school system is what this Bill 13 is about.

On the issue of Bill 13 and Bill 14, Bill 14 having been brought forward by the member for—

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Kitchener–Waterloo.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —Kitchener–Waterloo, and our Bill 13, which was brought forward by our Minister of Education, my understanding is that there is a lot of goodwill on this side of the House to merge these two bills, to take pieces of the opposition bill and put it into Bill 13 and to get the legislation passed. I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between some of the language and rhetoric that’s being used and what’s actually happening on the ground.

My hope is that the language and the rhetoric could come closer to the reality and we could actually work together, get this legislation passed, because it is in the best interests of all our children in our schools that this legislation be in place and that anti-bullying for all be the norm.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m happy to join in the debate on this important bill in terms of offering two minutes of comments.

Much has been made about the importance of the bill by all sides of the House. I, I think, as well as all of my colleagues, have been particularly disappointed that in terms of the level of debate on this bill that what we’ve heard from the official opposition has basically been the sound of bells ringing. We’re now at over 11 hours that we’ve debated this bill, and for the most part all the opposition has done, instead of talking about it constructively, has been to ring bells.

It’s not about me personally—the bells ring; we have a break here for 30 minutes as we wait for it—but it’s the simple fact that what this bill is about is young people. It’s about our education system. It’s about educators. I’ve certainly been hearing from many individuals about how concerned they are that we’re not making progress on this bill. I certainly acknowledge the good work that has been done by my neighbour to the north, our colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo, in terms of her bill, Bill 14. Certainly, the government has approached the opposition with the intention of seeing ways that we could reconcile both bills.

To that end, I think it’s important to put on the record that the Minister of Education has written formally to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and made sure that the opposition is aware of our openness to amending the government bill to take what is best from both of them and combine it in the type of bill that could be dealt with by this Legislature. As the government House leader, I was disappointed that we couldn’t get agreement moving forward of how we could pull the two together, despite a great deal of discussion.

But that being said, we’ve always made known—and I just referenced the letter—that if we were to move G13 to committee, finally, if the opposition were to quit with the bell-ringing, we would be very open to having the types of discussions that would strengthen the bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I’m looking forward to participating in the debate on this bill a little bit later—

Hon. John Milloy: We want to hear it, Frank.

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, the government House leader will hear.

I think members of this House know that the issue of bullying is one that I’ve brought forward in this House on many occasions. It’s a very serious one. I have dealt with constituents on many occasions. I know the effect that bullying has, not only on the victim of bullying but the victim’s family as well, and I have repeatedly called in the past on the Minister of Education and on the government to bring forward meaningful legislation that will make it very clear what the obligations are on the part of the teaching staff and on the part of the principals in our education system. I have called repeatedly for a recognition of the victims of bullying.

In the past, most of the focus has been on the bully and how does one deal with the bully. Who we tend to forget are the victims who struggle with the effects—the psychological effects—that bullying has had on them. I’m concerned about the bill before us, the government bill, because it does not address in a comprehensive way many of those aspects; I am pleased that my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo has brought forward a bill that does in a very comprehensive way. We look forward to seeing what kind of progress we can make to ensure that those essential parts of that member’s bill are incorporated.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Durham has two minutes for a response.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much. I’m very impressed this morning that the Minister of Education, Ms. Broten, is here as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ms. Wynne. Both have spoken. I appreciate that, both having served as Minister of Education.

But more importantly, my remarks on Bill 13 were to stress the importance of and the balance that Mrs. Witmer, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo—in the time she spent on developing a full and comprehensive response to bullying.

In my remarks yesterday, I was just citing right from the paper that there were two incidents where cyberbullying was cited as being provocative and current. That type of bullying has a very low profile in this overall discussion on Bills 13 and 14.

When you look at the strength of the Anti-Bullying Act—and I think the member from Simcoe–Grey paraphrased it very respectfully. It’s a clear definition of bullying in Bill 14, which is lacking in Bill 13. These bills need to come together.

Now they’re going to deflect all this and say that we’re ringing bells procedurally. This is a democracy and the opposition are very concerned that the government’s not listening, not just in the budget but they’re not listening on the need for a select committee on the wasteful, scandalous spending of Ornge helicopter—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I request the member to keep the comments to the bill we’re debating.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, I’m trying to explain. All due respect to you, Speaker, all deference to you, that is one of the reasons for the bells.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Don’t argue with the Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: See? Now they’re yelling. The Liberals are yelling at us now. I’m trying to speak in a civilized way. I feel like I’m being bullied.

So, respectfully, Mrs. Witmer has put on the table early intervention incorporated into the curriculum beginning in kindergarten, a provincial-wide ministry model for prevention, a development of the detailed school board prevention plan, counselling services for the victims and the perpetrators, ongoing professional development, parent and community engagement and consultation, publicizing anti-bullying initiatives and policy, reporting incidents, prompt investigation. This is why we need to move forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to our exchange off-camera there, the fact of the matter that we’re here this morning again debating Bill 13 is a product of an inability of the parties to get together and merge these bills after first reading. We didn’t have to have Bill 13 mired where it is in the second reading debate. If we had agreed to bring the bills together, in somewhat an unprecedented way, in the social policy committee, where Mrs. Witmer’s bill is right now, the government at any time could have taken Bills 13 and 14 and put them in committee, and we would have merged the bills.

Unfortunately, if I recall back then, the government had some requests of what the framework of that discussion would be. Our belief very strongly on this side of the House in the PC caucus, and mine as House leader, is that we’re not going to allow, in a minority government, ministers of the crown to dictate what the committees of this Legislature will or won’t do. Therefore, we simply wanted the bills to come together, let the committee decide how they would merge those bills, and allow the committee to do its work in an independent way, without the influence of a minister of the crown sending a letter dictating how that committee would behave.

That sets a very bad precedent for other committees of this Legislature and a very bad precedent in a minority Parliament. The Liberals don’t have a majority anymore and they have to stop behaving like they do. The fact of the matter is, this issue could have been resolved.

We’re very, very positive about Mrs. Witmer’s bill, the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, Bill 14. She spent three years developing the bill, travelling across the province, speaking with virtually every group and parents that had an interest in the issue—a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation.

The government has the option right now—Bill 14, Mrs. Witmer’s anti-bullying bill, is in committee; it’s before the social policy committee—to bring that forward for debate in committee and for clause-by-clause consideration and just simply pass Mrs. Witmer’s bill.

It is a comprehensive bill and has far more features in it than the government’s bill. It actually has a definition of bullying, which is a tricky thing to do, but it managed to create a definition with great buy-in from people across the province. It is a comprehensive way to protect children of every race, colour, creed, size, shape, whatever—it’s very comprehensive—those who are subject to bullying.

It deals with the bullies themselves and requires them to go into—I’ll say it in layman’s terms—rehab and to understand why bullying is wrong and to correct their ways.

Bill 14 is a comprehensive anti-bullying bill that focuses on prevention, accountability and awareness. Just reading from Mrs. Witmer’s notes: “Bill 14 provides students, parents, educators and the community at large with a strategy to raise awareness and prevent bullying, as well as a process to resolve it…collect data and report” that data to the ministry, which is not contained in the Liberals’ anti-bullying bill, Bill 13.

In fact, the Liberal bill does none of those things that I just mentioned. The Liberal bill does not address the root causes of bullying. We believe in tackling bullying head-on. Unlike the Liberal bill, the PC bill does so with four critical areas.

One is reporting of bullying and investigating root causes of bullying; accountability of school officials and boards to the ministry—that is, providing the data to the ministry and making sure that we can see this on a school-by-school basis and get to the root cause of it—education, a very important part of the member for Kitchener–Waterloo’s bill, public awareness, a very important part of Bill 14—public awareness to prevent bullying—and the fourth area, which is not dealt with in the government’s bill, is remedial education for bullies to teach them that bullying is unacceptable.

Mrs. Witmer’s bill, the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, requires anti-bullying lessons to be incorporated in the provincial curriculum from junior kindergarten to grade 12, something that the Liberal bill does not do.

Mr. Speaker, again I say—it is unfortunate, but I want to explain to the public the reason that this bill is being brought forward again this morning. It’s perhaps that it is stuck in second reading because we wanted a committee to deal with the issue of the Ornge ambulance scandal, which is by far the largest scandal in my 21 years here in the Legislature. And yet the government wants to hide that. Some unparliamentary terms I wouldn’t be allowed to use, but they don’t want to get to the bottom of it. They don’t want to have an inquiry.

We’re stuck in a committee that has procedural rules that are archaic and are not attuned to getting to the bottom of these issues. It will take years, at the rate we’re going. I think my colleague Mr. Klees, the member for Newmarket–Aurora, has done an exemplary job on this issue in uncovering tens of millions of dollars—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re talking about Bill 13, and the member opposite is not talking about Bill 13. He’s not even approaching the substance of the issue. I’d ask that he stick to the subject.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. I would ask the member to restrict his comments to Bill 13.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Fine. If the government doesn’t want to hear the full story, then I move adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, because we need a select committee on Ornge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member has moved adjournment of the debate.

All in favour of adjournment, please say “aye.”

Those against adjournment, please say “nay.”

I believe the nays have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0921 to 0951.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Could all members take their seats, please?

Mr. Wilson has moved adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

All those against, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 28; the nays are 33.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. The motion is lost.

Mr. Wilson?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah, it shows that one of these days, we’re going to win one of these votes. Persistence will pay off. But again, we wouldn’t have to be ringing the bells if the government would agree to abide by the will of this House, which on a couple of occasions has actually voted and passed that a select committee be struck or an inquiry be held into the multi-million dollar scandal—as I said, the largest scandal I’ve ever seen in my 21 years here. Yet the government doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it and doesn’t want to uncover the whole truth.

We have to do that in a committee room under archaic rules where witnesses can only appear for a half-hour. Therefore, Bill 13 is caught up in some procedural wrangling, but the government knows where the escape route is and refuses to take it.

The fact of the matter is that Bill 13 shouldn’t even be in second reading debate right now. It should be in committee, along with Bill 14, Mrs. Witmer’s bill, the honourable member from Kitchener–Waterloo, who spent three years of her life painstakingly meeting with parents, consultants, children who have been bullied and bullies themselves, to come up with a very comprehensive piece of legislation that I believe this House, if given a fair chance, could vote upon and would pass, and find it a very comprehensive piece of legislation that’s leading in this province, in this country and indeed in North America.

There are good parts of the government’s Bill 13, their anti-bullying bill, that we would like to merge into Mrs. Witmer’s bill, the honourable member from Kitchener–Waterloo. The government had every opportunity to do that after first reading, when the House leaders were having discussions. And the minister; our critic Lisa MacLeod, the member for Nepean–Carleton; and Mrs. Witmer, the honourable member from Kitchener–Waterloo, were having some discussions about how to, in a somewhat unprecedented way but a way they often do in Ottawa, pull the two bills after first reading.

Therefore there wouldn’t be this debate, if they were to go into committee to be merged together—the best of both worlds. It would come out of committee on agreement, unanimous consent perhaps, and bring it back to the House and then the debate we’d be having today would be on a merged bill. We would call it a government bill. It would be on a merged bill with the best of Bill 13 and Bill 14. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened.

I still think the government knows the way out of this, but refuses to take that route. I would encourage them to come to their senses about this. I understand they’re having a press conference this afternoon to try and embarrass us or whatever. We have done our best to work with the government. We understand it’s a minority Parliament and that working together is what we should do, and you guys across the way keep carrying on like you have a majority. Shame on you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I can speak for people in my riding, where we have seen the tragic face of bullying. The story is about 10 years old, but it’s worth repeating.

We had five beautiful young girls in Nickel Belt who made a suicide pact because they had been bullied in school. Out of those five beautiful girls, two of them died in that suicide pact and the other three managed to hang on.

I was a health care practitioner at the time and we spent a lot of time in that school. We spent a lot of time talking to the kids and asking them what went on. All of the kids knew what was going on. All of the kids knew that those five girls were being bullied, but nobody knew what to do. Nobody knew how to address it. Nobody knew how to reach out. Nobody knew how to help them.

Is there room for us to move? Absolutely. Bullying is still there in some of the schools. Because of the tragedy that happened in my riding, I would say a lot of the schools have put in good programs that help prevent all sorts of bullying. The kids understand, and the young people understand what it means to be bullied. They understand how to prevent it. They understand how to help one another, but all this happened because time, effort and resources were put into those schools to make sure that we teach those youth what to do, how to recognize it.

The two bills that we have in front of us, Bill 13 and Bill 14, once merged together and once we pick the best ideas from each, could do the same thing. The progressive programs we now have in Nickel Belt could be available to all. Let’s move on.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s a pleasure to speak again to add some comments and questions after hearing from the opposition House leader. Unfortunately, his speech was interrupted by ringing of the bells for 30 minutes, yet again; I think another indication that the opposition is not that serious about moving forward with this bill.

He spoke a lot about the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and the private member’s bill that she put forward. Again, I want to reiterate, to put on the record, the openness of this government from day one to work with the opposition—in particular, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and the member from Nepean–Carleton—in order to take what was the best of the two bills and put together one that was stronger.

We had what I felt were many productive discussions amongst House leaders about how we could move forward, a number of ways that we could reach agreement on sections that would move forward. Those collapsed because, quite frankly, the opposition didn’t want to co-operate on that. But at the same time, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo’s bill has gone to committee. We would be very happy to vote in favour of the government bill, send it to the same committee and continue to find ways to strengthen it.

To that end, the Minister of Education has provided the opposition a very detailed list of amendments that the government is willing to entertain, is willing to agree to, which would take what was the best from Bill 14 and add it to Bill 13.

The Minister of Education just handed this to me: “Definition of bullying”—a big issue—“Expanded definition of bullying to include cyberbullying, school climate surveys, principal’s duty to investigate reports of serious student incidents”—and I could go on.

I think what’s important for members to understand, and for those watching on television to understand, is the government’s willingness to work with the opposition, to work with the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and bring forward the best bill possible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have a couple of minutes to add my voice in the conversation on Bill 13, and obviously on Bill 14 as well.

I’m interested in the remarks made by the government House leader because of the fact that, at this point, there has been no formal recognition. I think that, on this side, we look at Bill 14 in terms of the way in which it expresses concerns over pieces in Bill 13 that are missing.

Particularly, I just would want to comment on the whole issue of anti-bullying awareness, and part of that anti-bullying awareness piece is also recognizing the kinds of issues that perpetrators have and the important role that any piece of legislation should deal with—the victims, obviously, very clearly, first and foremost, but also the question of the perpetrators, in dealing with prevention and treatment.

I remember having a student many years ago who had been caught intimidating other students. When I knew that she was going to be going to the detention centre if she so much as threatened another student, never mind beat them up, which was usually what she did, I said to her, “Come on. You’re too old for this. You’re not supposed to beat up people.” Her answer to me, very simple, said it all. She said, “Well, what do you do when you’re mad?” That’s the kind of intervention and opportunity that is in Bill 14, and that’s what we need to have.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This is the first time I believe I’ve had the opportunity to rise and discuss the efforts made on behalf of this Legislature to address the issues of bullying. Maybe a perspective from the outside of this Legislature will help aid in the discussion.

I’m a parent of two young kids. My daughter is eight, my son is five and a half, and they’re looking forward to having this type of protection. They understand it. We talk about it.

Also, in my riding, the visits I make to grade schools, to the grade 5 civics classes and to the grade 10s—we talk about this piece of legislation.

It’s interesting that within the brief hour that I have to talk to students in their schools about bullying, we’ve come to the resolution, to the conclusion that it’s important that we need to address the issue, that those who are being bullied need protection, that those who feel marginalized and pointed out due to their sexuality, their physical attributes, their culture, their heritage, their language, their name, their height, their weight, the colour of their hair—it doesn’t matter. Kids can be picked on for any reason.

What’s interesting is how quickly they come to the conclusion and to the resolution that it’s a type of protection that—it’s been far too long since it’s been addressed.

Also, this House, potentially, is suffering from never having addressed the issue in our own educational system. We seem to be a group that has never had the ability within our school system to understand the impacts of bullying. We could have certainly used a couple of lessons in terms of how to act and to behave in our schools. We’d be getting along a lot better in this House if that were the case.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? Further debate? Sorry. Member for Simcoe–Grey, you have two minutes for a reply.

Interjection.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Yes. Let’s repeat it all again.

I just want to thank the member for Nickel Belt. Obviously she’s got some good programming in her riding. As she said, let’s get on with this so that all of the children in our schools can benefit from that type of programming—progressive programming, as she called it—with respect to anti-bullying.

The member for York Simcoe, I thank her for her comments, and the member for Algoma–Manitoulin and the government House leader. I see the list that the minister has provided the House leader as possibly a small step forward, some progress. We hadn’t seen that up until this moment. The fact that the approach that the government took up to this moment has been—at one point they did agree to have this bill along with Mrs. Witmer’s bill, the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, in committee after first reading, but then the minister sent along a letter to both our critic Lisa MacLeod from Nepean–Carleton and Mrs.

Witmer from Kitchener–Waterloo, dictating what clauses we could look at and what clauses we couldn’t look at.

We cannot allow a minister of the crown of a minority government under any circumstances to dictate what our committees are going to do in this Legislature. Committees are to be distanced from any influence in that way. Committee members are free to do what the committee wants to do, and we need to make sure that that is absolutely respected, particularly when the opposition has a majority in this House by two votes, and we have a majority in committee.

People want to know where this bogged down. It bogged down with the government dictating what a committee is going to do on this particular subject, and that simply isn’t acceptable. It shouldn’t be acceptable to any party in this House, and it just shows the government continues to rule like they have a majority, like the arrogant way they did in the last eight years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate.

Mr. Frank Klees: On behalf of my constituents, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 13. It’s probably an issue that I’ve received as much communication on as any bill that has ever been before the House, and I can say that overwhelmingly, the tone and the message that I’ve been asked to bring to this House is one of great frustration with this government for having taken an issue that is of such importance and made it complex in a way that was unnecessary to do.

This is an issue that we should have been able and should still be able to find common ground among all parties and make a decision to move forward in the interest of our children. And yet this important piece of legislation has been allowed to become polarizing, unnecessarily so.

I want to share and put on the record a communication I’ve received from Ms. Karen Sebben, who is with a very highly respected organization called Many Voices—One vision to eliminate bullying. I’d like to read it and ask members of the Legislature to consider her thoughts: “It has been brought to our attention that public comments from the Liberal Party are quite opposite from the comments made behind closed doors when it comes to anti-bullying legislation. This is very disturbing, as we were hoping all parties would work together for the common good of our students in this province.

We ask why it is not the intention of the Liberal government to work collaboratively with the opposition on anti-bullying legislation? Anti-bullying legislation of any kind must be non-partisan. The issue of bullying is a social issue and should be everyone’s concern. It should be tackled with the same vigour as the Ornge air ambulance fiasco. Sadly, we ask ourselves how many more losses we need to see before we agree on an anti-bullying bill that protects all students. We implore you to put aside your obstinate thought process and do what is right for the children of Ontario.”

Speaker, it’s that obstinate thought process that concerns us. We have two bills before the House: one introduced by the government, the other by my colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo. Both deal with the issue of bullying. The difference between the two bills is that the legislation being proposed and tabled by the member from Kitchener–Waterloo is strictly focused on the issue of bullying. The bill introduced by the government contains clauses that we fail to understand why the government felt necessary to insert into that bill.

We proposed to the government that what should happen is that both bills, having been tabled, should go to committee so that we can, in fact, work together collaboratively to ensure that we have the best possible piece of legislation that addresses the issue of bullying. The government agreed to that, and then issued conditions that essentially took off the table a number of areas that were of concern to the official opposition. That is not a way to work collaboratively on this issue. We believe very firmly that it is in the best interests of ending up with the best possible legislation that both of those bills should go to committee. They should go to committee now.

Unfortunately, we have no reason to trust that the government will do what it says it will do once there is second reading on this bill. I believe that if the government wants to indicate good will, they will agree to refer both of those bills to committee.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s unfortunate—in one sense, I suppose it’s a good thing—that the people who are watching the proceedings here can’t see the members of the government and can’t hear them, because what’s going on right now is bullying at its best. I’m making a recommendation, making a proposal; the minister, Ms. Wynne, continues to heckle me, doesn’t want to hear what I’m saying. She’s entitled, you see, to disagree with me, but one would expect that she would at least allow a member of the Legislature to express his or her views without being heckled and bullied by a minister of the crown.

I think we need bullying legislation for this place. It may put Ms. Wynne in her place. We would support that.

There’s something that has happened here. Those who have been following the proceedings have been watching the dysfunction of this place. They’ve been watching a government that fails, first of all, to respect the official opposition and the express will of the Legislature. They have refused our request to move both bills into the committee so that we can, in fact, work together and find a resolution to this important issue. The government has also refused to accept the will of the Legislature when we had a vote here that we should strike a select committee of the Legislature to deal with the issue at Ornge.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: We hear the cackles over there and we hear the bullying that’s going on. They don’t want to be exposed for how they’re suppressing the work of the Legislature. That’s why I have no choice. Because they refuse to strike the select committee of the Legislature, I have no choice but to move adjournment of this debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): We’re on the clock. I was about to stand.

Interjection.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member has moved adjournment, but I’d note for the member that the time on the clock was almost—I was ready to stand up. So this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming Dr. Elise Wong—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Moridi, you’d have to be in your own seat.

The member from London–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m really honoured this morning to introduce David and Jean Bonsfield. David and Jean Bonsfield are the family I lived with when I was a page back in 1991. So it’s really nice to have them here.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming Dr. Elise Wong, of the Ontario Dental Association, to the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Deputy Premier. As you know, Deputy Premier, the rate of growth in our economy continues to trail behind the national average. Our unemployment rates are higher than the national average and have been for some 63 straight months. Ontario has half a million unemployed people looking for work.

Deputy Premier, how can you possibly say that Ontario’s economy is doing well?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We had 46,000 net new jobs last month. And what has her party’s answer been? Today, we’re trying to debate the healthy homes tax credit. What do they do? They stall it in committee. When we want to talk about the economy in this House, when we’re debating the budget bill, what does your party do? You’re concerned about unemployment? Why won’t you let us debate it? Why are you shutting down debate? And, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections: Ornge. Ornge. Ornge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order please. I know you’re all having fun, but this is my first day and I would just ask us to be a little bit civil to each other. Okay?

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Calling out names and calling names and shutting down the House—maybe they want to take the advice that the Kitchener-Waterloo Record gave to the member for Cambridge this morning: “If this budget dies, all bets on the Cambridge hospital expansion are off.” Mr. Leone should keep this in mind and think long and hard before he votes to defeat the Liberals in the House.

Start debating. Start putting forward ideas. Quit the games, quit the name-calling and act like a responsible opposition and act in the best interests of your—

Interjections: Ornge. Ornge. Ornge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that despite the protestations of the Deputy Premier, the facts speak for themselves. Last year, Ontario’s economic growth sat at 1.8%, lower than the national average. Your own budget expects growth to be, in 2012, even lower at 1.7%, still lower than the national average. Even two years down the road, your budget hopes Ontario economic growth will sit at 2.2%, still lower than the national average.

Deputy Premier, don’t you think Ontarians deserve a plan that’s a little bit better than “possibly average”?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker: 345,000 new jobs since the bottom of the recession, more than the rest of the country combined.

But again, I ask the official opposition—we agree, the economy is first and top priority—why won’t you debate the budget motion? Why do you ring the bells? Why do you insist on calling names? Look at this behaviour, Mr. Speaker, from the party of William Davis, the party of John Robarts, the party of Leslie Frost. Look at this. They don’t want to talk about the economy. They are no opposition. They aren’t putting forward ideas. They’re playing games. They ought to be working with us and with the third party to move Ontario forward instead of this silly name-calling, the silly games in committee and preventing legitimate debate on the budget—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, back to the facts, Mr. Speaker. We have put forward a number of proposals for a jobs and growth plan, which have been consistently ignored by this minister and this government.

This budget does not outline anything that resembles a long-term plan to bring Ontario back to growth and productivity. For the past six months, we’ve been putting forward ideas to bring back Ontario, to put us back on to a road to prosperity and growth, and you’ve consistently knocked each and every one down.

Why is it, Deputy Premier? Can you tell us today why you’ve failed to include even one of our ideas in your budget?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ideas in the budget that are very consistent with what that member and her party have put forward, and most people know that. In fact, we’ve been criticized in some circles for being too much like you. As the Premier says, they say we’re spending too much, and they say we’re not spending enough. We think we’ve got it right, Mr. Speaker.

But I don’t understand a party—if you’ve got such great ideas, why don’t you stop the yelling? Why don’t you stop the name-calling? Why don’t you let committees work? Why don’t you let the budget debate unfold? Why don’t you quit scheduling nomination meetings? Why don’t you do what your own constituents are telling you? Why don’t you work for a better Ontario and stand up for this province, instead of the foolish, silly—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Sit down, please. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please. I know, again, that you’re having fun, but let’s put it this way: If you ask a question and you want the answer, I have to hear both sides. If the noise continues, I’m not hearing the question, neither am I hearing the answer. So I would just ask everybody to tone it down a little.

Next question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Alfred Apps, testified in the public accounts committee that Ornge did “nothing wrong”—did nothing wrong in setting up a web of spinoff companies that were siphoning off public funds. Then Mr. Apps proceeded to attack the Auditor General, and he called his report into question, referred to it as “misleading,” “incomplete” and “riddled with error.”

I ask the Deputy Premier, does he believe his friend the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada in this matter, or does he believe the Auditor General of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I said to the media yesterday in scrum that we have great confidence in the Auditor General, support his recommendations and, indeed, have moved forward on his recommendations. The minister has now brought forward legislation that incorporates many of the Auditor General’s recommendations. As I also said to the media yesterday, there are times, obviously, when the Auditor General brings forward things that none of us want to see, but we respect the work, continue to respect him and are most grateful for his work on this particular file.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: That’s encouraging, Speaker. Let me quote once again from Mr. Apps, who went on to say in his testimony, “To the extent of all matters within my knowledge, the board and management of Ornge more than did their job.” Even more revealing was his insistence that “the government was thoroughly, painstakingly and, in all cases, truthfully briefed in advance of Ornge taking any of these actions.”

Speaker, we have heard in this House repeatedly, for months, from the Minister of Health, from the Minister of Finance and from the Premier that they knew nothing about what was going on at Ornge; that’s why they couldn’t do anything. In light of this revelation from the Minister of Finance’s friend the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada, will he tell us why he stood by and allowed this scandal to take place?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ornge paid a lobbyist named Kelly Mitchell $400,000 to keep the Conservative Party informed about Ornge.

Let’s see who Mr. Mitchell is. He’s a top insider in Mr. Hudak’s leadership. He sat on the board of directors for Ornge and five for-profit companies, the same companies that paid Chris Mazza $1.4 million and obstructed the Auditor General. He also made $17,000 in contributions to PC candidates and personally donated $7,500. Among those who have benefited from them are the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Simcoe North, the member for Whitby–Oshawa, the member for Leeds–Grenville, the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington and the member for Thornhill.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has taken the appropriate—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Mr. Speaker, everyone listening to the Minister of Finance can see that he has no interest in answering the question. What he does do is, he takes the same approach that Mr. Apps took when he first started in his testimony yesterday, boldly defending the indefensible. But Mr. Apps ended up running out of this place when he was found to be telling us less than the truth.

I’d like to know today: Will the minister at least admit that he and the Premier and the Minister of Health knew full well what was going on at Ornge, and would he tell us, once and for all, why they chose to turn their backs and to ignore the scandal that was brewing under their watch?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government and the Minister of Health took the appropriate steps in a timely fashion to respond as information became available about Ornge. When we became aware of the situation, we asked the auditor to go in. The auditor went in and did a very good piece of work, Mr. Speaker. The minister has brought forward legislation that deals with many of the challenges that were raised by the auditor. We support the auditor in this. We continue to do that. The minister called in the police when it became obvious—after forensic auditors that we sent in did their job. The minister and the government have acted appropriately, in a timely fashion—as information became aware.

I am proud of the front-line workers at Ornge. I want to continue to build that service so all Ontarians can continue to have faith in that service which is so vital to all of our families and all of our communities in all parts of the province.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. We’ve put forward concrete ideas to make the proposed budget a little fairer for the families that make Ontario work. One of them was asking Ontario’s very wealthy to pay a little bit more and help ease the burden on everyday families. Can the Acting Premier explain the government’s hesitation around this very simple and fair proposal?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, I want to acknowledge the accuracy of the fact that the third party have put forward a number of helpful proposals. I want to acknowledge the fact that the leader of the third party has taken one of the items that we had a very sincere disagreement about off the table today. I recognize that that was and is an important item for your party and the people whom you represent in this Legislature.

We will respond in the fullness of time to all of the leader’s ideas, all of her party’s ideas. We’ll continue to work in a co-operative fashion because I believe that the third party wants to make this Legislature work. We take your suggestions seriously and we will respond in due course to all of them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government’s proposed budget leaves families falling further and further behind; there’s no doubt about it. It would have been easy to oppose it. For New Democrats, it would have been very easy. But I am proud to say that we New Democrats are doing our very best to make this minority government work.

People have told us that Ontario’s tax system is unfair and that those who can afford to pay more seem to be getting all the breaks. Why is the government reluctant to show them that that’s not the case?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the leader of the third party that they in fact have made very reasonable efforts to keep this Legislature working. They brought forward a number of ideas. For instance, the freeze on the corporate tax rate—which we built into the budget—was as a result of the strong efforts of that leader and her party.

There are a number of other items on the table that have been brought forward in good faith. We will continue to work with them, leading up to the vote next Tuesday, to try to find a way to find accommodation to keep this Legislature working in the best interests of all Ontarians. I know that that is certainly in the interests of the third party.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Final supplementary?

Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I think that our New Democrat team has been more than reasonable, and the Conservative benches have been more than clear as well. They don’t want the super rich to pay more; they want to see deeper cuts.

The ball is now in the Liberal government’s court. Do they agree with them or do they agree with us?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the leader of the third party of the areas that we do agree on. I know that she and her party support full-day learning; I think that’s something we agree on. I know that you continue to support smaller class sizes; I know that you support more home care; I know you support the Ontario child benefit; I know that you support doubling the contraband tobacco enforcement; and I know that you support $35 billion in infrastructure.

We are down to some issues that I concur we do have an obligation to respond to. We will do that at the appropriate time, working with the leader and her party. I think we’ve acted in good faith—we’ve acted on a number of your suggestions to date—and we look forward to resolving any outstanding issues before next Tuesday.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier, but I have to say that restating what’s in their unfair Liberal budget simply is not good enough, and I hope they’re aware of that.

In a letter to the editor yesterday, Monica from Toronto wrote this: “People who earn over $500,000 a year should have to pay an increase in their taxes. This would help pay for more spaces in daycare, which would be better because it would allow parents to go to work.”

Does the Liberal government agree with Monica that we should be choosing child care over millionaires?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We believe all Ontarians should work together. We believe that wealthy Ontarians, middle-income Ontarians and Ontarians of more modest incomes, working together, can build a better province for all of us.

We’re proud of our investments in child care. We are grateful for the support you have shown on a number of initiatives that are important, I know, to the people who you represent and the people who put us in the government benches.

We want to work together with all Ontarians. We think all of us working together will build a better province. It will build a better future. Child care is an important part of a caring society, and I look forward to further discussions with the third party over the course of the next several days.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The budget also leaves hospitals scrambling to provide services for everyday Ontarians and ignores folks who are struggling to make ends meet. Dianne from Carrying Place writes: “It once again puts the burden of paying the debt on those who can least afford it.... I do not see anywhere in this budget where those in the upper income brackets are paying their fair share.”

Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals agree with the vast majority of Ontarians that health care should come before millionaires?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member is putting forward an important point. There are a number of important initiatives in the budget. She’s raised some other initiatives that are important to health care.

But here’s what’s at risk if the budget is defeated: the Cambridge Memorial Hospital expansion, the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital expansion in Burlington, the Groves Memorial Community Hospital in Fergus—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —the North Wellington Health Care Mount Forest site renovation, the Renfrew Victoria Hospital dialysis program expansion, the St. Thomas Elgin general hospital renovation, the Brockville General Hospital expansion.

The leader of the third party has put forward additional ideas with respect to the provision of health care in this province. We take her party’s suggestions and ideas seriously, and I look forward to hopefully resolving the issues that stand before us over the course of the next several days.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government seems to be hemming and hawing over our very straightforward proposal to make the budget fairer. It’s leaving families wondering what planet the government is actually on. Jeremiah from Toronto writes this: “If ordinary Ontarians are losing services to close the budget gap, the wealthy need to bear some of the burden as well.”

Will the McGuinty Liberals side with us or with Conservatives who think that millionaires should come before daycares?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has put forward a number of ideas that are worthy of consideration, some of which we have adopted even in the budget itself—the freezing of the corporate tax rate.

We do have to make certain that we stay on track to balance the budget by 2017-18. That’s important to the people of Ontario too. Interest costs are now the third-largest item on our operating expense. If we fail to get back to balance in the timelines outlined, those interest costs will rise.

The leader of the third party has put forward some constructive ideas, some of which we’ve acted on, some of which we will likely continue to discuss over the course of the next several days. I hope we can come to a conclusion that allows this Legislature to do what the people of Ontario want, and that is to continue to work together to build a better future for all of our children.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Deputy Premier: Yesterday in the public accounts committee, former Liberal Party president Alfred Apps confirmed what we have known for a long time: the involvement of Don Guy in the Ornge scandal. Based on sworn testimony in committee, Alfred Apps admitted, under intense questioning, that Apps had hired Don Guy, Dalton McGuinty’s former chief of staff and election architect, to provide strategic advice on Ornge.

Speaker, can the Deputy Premier confirm for this House with certainty that Don Guy was abiding by all the requirements of the lobbying legislation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition has to come clean. Will they stop stonewalling on bringing Kelly Mitchell to the committee so that he can give testimony? Why are you blocking his testimony at that committee? The Minister of Health has been there. Everyone that we’ve been required has been there.

They are trying to silence Kelly Mitchell, Mr. Speaker. They don’t want his testimony in front of the committee because they know what he’s done. They know what his role has been.

I ask the member opposite, will you agree to have that person appear before the public accounts committee and explain the work he did for Ornge and the advice he gave to your caucus and your leader on this issue? It’s time for you to come clean on these issues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Look, Speaker, the Deputy Premier knows well that Don Guy would have been legally prohibited from lobbying or sharing government information during his mandatory cooling-off period. It seems curious that Don Guy, mere months after leaving as the Premier’s most senior adviser and election guru, could be retained to advise Ornge.

Speaker, the web continues to grow. Interestingly, during this same period, Don Guy was providing advice on Ornge, was being paid to run the Liberal campaign, and was advising other companies on how to lobby the McGuinty government.

Deputy Premier, will you commit to table a list of every company Don Guy was similarly advising on how to lobby your government? Secondly, would you tell us how you think it’s possible that Don Guy was in compliance with lobbying laws?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the member opposite, will Kelly Mitchell, who was paid $400,000 to lobby the Conservative Party on behalf of Ornge, be called before the committee? It’s a simple question. You can yell and you can scream and you can call names and you can act like children all you want—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would the member from Cambridge come to order, please?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s a very simple question: Will, in fact, you call Kelly Mitchell? Kelly Mitchell, who sat on the board of five different companies, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections: Ornge. Ornge. Ornge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please. At this point, the member for Simcoe North, I’m warning you.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Speaker, they can shout me down. They can’t shout down the truth. They need to call Kelly Mitchell before the committee and come clean about his involvement in this situation.

CHILD CARE

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Education. The budget put forward by this government failed to even mention child care. It can deny the existence of the current child care crisis, but experts say that without funding, thousands of spaces across the province will close.

We’ve put forward a reasonable plan to ask millionaires to pay a little more to support 4,000 child care spaces. Will the minister choose millionaires or child care?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance in this Legislature to speak about the strong record that our government has when it comes to child care.

When the federal government stepped away, it was our government who stepped up and provided $63.5 million to permanently fill the gap that they had left. And we did not have one word from the opposition at that time calling their friends in Ottawa and asking them to step up for Ontario families.

Since 2003, child care funding has increased from $532 million to $869 million, a 63% increase. At the same time, we are rolling out right across the province all-day kindergarten, which will have a full investment of $1.5 billion when it is fully rolled out in 2014.

Child care is an active file. We need to have a conversation with Ontario families and we look forward to doing that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to go back to the Minister of Education. The government likes to say it’s increasing funding for child care, but according to the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, child care funding “has been frozen for 15 years.”

The NDP has put forward a simple proposal: Invest an additional $50 million beyond the planned spending to support 4,000 child care spaces by asking the richest Ontarians to pay a tiny bit more.

Will the minister side with working moms and dads who need better child care or millionaires?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: As I have said, our record of support for child care has been very consistent. As we roll out full-day kindergarten right across the province, we have come forward with $51 million in funding for child care centres. We’ve provided $12 million over five years for capital funding.

Speaker, I can tell you that child care is a very active file. We’re looking at what a modern, sustainable child care system looks like when all of our 4- and 5-year-olds are in school. Our record for child care has been consistent. We continue to have important conversations about the future of child care in this province, and I look very much forward to continuing the important work that we are doing right now to design a modern child care system that lives compatibly with all-day kindergarten so that all of our kids can have the best that they can and everything that every parent wants for them.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, you introduced the Accepting Schools Act in November. Shortly after you introduced that legislation, the MPP for Kitchener–Waterloo also introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 14, on anti-bullying. At that time, you said and the Premier also said that you would be willing to work with the opposition and include elements of Bill 14 in the Accepting Schools Act.

When the opposition’s education critic, the member for Nepean–Carleton, had the second reading leadoff to the Accepting Schools Act she said, “Let’s put these two bills into committee.” She said that Ontarians want to work together.

Mr. Speaker, my students in Scarborough–Agincourt support the Accepting Schools Act. Through you to the minister: Minister, can you tell this House why you haven’t passed the anti-bullying legislation yet?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for her question because she has been an active participant in the debate on this legislation. However, it is very unfortunate that much of the debate time has been taken up with procedural games. The PC Party has disrupted the debate on this important legislation—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the minister to stick to the question asked on government policy.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: —six times, Speaker. In fact, this morning during debate on this very bill, we had the bells ringing.

What I have said on so many occasions is that this legislation must be in place—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Interjection: It’s out of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would agree with the member who made the comment that it’s out of order. But if you continue to make the noise, I cannot hear the answer. So I would ask the opposition, if you would like me to hear the answer so I can rule, then I’d ask you to keep it very low. Minister?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Speaker, we look forward to getting Bill 13 to committee. We want to hear debate on it. We want to have conversation at committee so we can make Bill 13 the best bill that it can be. That’s why I’m calling on the opposition to move Bill 13 to committee so that we can get to the important work of amending the legislation and incorporating elements of Bill 14. We always said we’d be open to making sure that we had the best bill, the strongest bill to protect all of our students. Let’s get that bill to committee, and let’s stop ringing bells.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s response. The minister is correct, and I have listened to the debate attentively in terms of the Accepting Schools Act on seven different occasions. What I’ve noticed is the PC Party has repeatedly said they want to work with us. In spite of all that, the bells have kept ringing, and this legislation which would make a real difference in the lives of Ontario kids isn’t moving forward.

Yesterday during the debate, the member of Dufferin–Caledon said, “What I would like to see is for the minister to stand up and say what kind of discussions she’s had with the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.” Speaker, through you to the minister, will the minister tell the House how she has tried to work with the opposition to pass this legislation?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I really appreciate the chance to speak on the record about this. I met with the member from Nepean–Carleton and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo on February 23, Speaker. After that meeting, I thought that we had an understanding to move the legislation quickly to committee so that we could start helping kids right away. Since then, my staff have met with the member for Kitchener–Waterloo on several separate occasions, and I’ve had repeated correspondence with her.

Last week, on April 11, I sent the member another letter urging her to help move this legislation to committee, including a list that had more than half of her bill incorporated into the Accepting Schools Act. She asked for more specificity, Speaker, and yesterday, I sent the member a list with the entirety of the amendments in legislative language.

I will say again, Speaker, on this side of the House, we are deeply committed to making Ontario schools a more accepting space so that all of Ontario’s students can be safe and protected and achieve their goals. We want to get this bill to committee. We want—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Please sit down.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. For the benefit of the Deputy Premier, who appears not to be very well briefed on what is happening in this place, he should know that Kelly Mitchell has already been called to the committee, and he should know that we will support Kelly Mitchell coming to the committee. That will happen, and that now hopefully will stop the buffooning that’s going on around this.

What I want to know from the Deputy Premier is: Will he agree and will the Premier agree to come to the committee and testify about what they knew?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Sit down, please. Order. Stop the clock for a second.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please, on both sides. Order.

I’m going to remind the opposition party one more time: When your member is asking the question, if you make the noise, I’m not going to hear the question. So I hope you want to hear the answer. Otherwise I will continue to name members.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, they just recently put a motion on the order paper to debate it next Wednesday. So it hasn’t been called.

You can play all the silly games you want. We want to talk about the economy. We want to build a better future for Ontario. Quit playing games. Start acting like the great PC Party of the past.

Oh, and by the way, we’ve also just determined that Kelly Mitchell has also registered to lobby the federal government on behalf of Ornge. We’ll be exploring those questions at committee, too. I’m delighted you finally put a motion on the order paper. Can we agree here and now to call him immediately rather than wait till next Wednesday to debate it? I wonder if we could do that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. The member from Peterborough, you’re not helping my cause.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Deputy Premier has no idea how committees work. The fact that we have to wait until next Wednesday simply reaffirms why we need a select committee of the Legislature to get it done. That’s why we need a select committee.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That motion that I referred to to call Mr. Mitchell to committee was in fact a government motion, and the Conservative Chair of the committee deferred dealing with it until next week. I don’t want to offend the sensibilities of the Chair or the House. I won’t use some language, but it appears as though they won’t want him at committee. Will you agree here and now to unanimous consent to call him immediately?

Mr. Frank Klees: Yes, we will. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to make the motion. I’ll call his bluff right now.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would you please sit down? Order. We’re in the middle of question period. I will move to the next question.

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would the member please sit down? Stop the clock. The member knows fully well that during question period there are no points of order. New question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Acting Premier. Does the government think it’s fair that people on social assistance, many of whom have disabilities, as he knows, many of whom have lost their jobs because of the recession, many of whom are struggling to put food on their children’s plates, should have their benefits frozen and real incomes actually cut while millionaires are asked to do absolutely nothing to help with Ontario’s financial problems?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have made no secret that the recent budget contained some very difficult decisions. But at the same time, I was very proud that we brought forward a budget that did not, as the Conservatives did, balance our budget on the backs of the poor. I am proud of our record in terms of combating poverty in the province of Ontario, the work we have done in terms of the Ontario child benefit, in terms of full-day kindergarten.

The member raises the issue of social assistance rates. We have raised social assistance rates some seven times. We have also changed the rules to make it easier for individuals to transition from social assistance to the working world. But at the same time, we admit—we acknowledge—that more work needs to be done, particularly in the area of social assistance, which is why we have brought forward one of the most comprehensive reviews of the system in decades.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Acting Premier: Put food in the budget, members. They’re here today, and they’re here with a clear message: We need to help vulnerable Ontarians. Some members on the government side actually agree with me on this. The Attorney General, for example, is quoted in his local newspaper as saying, “The people at the bottom end of the economic scale, the people that get ... ODSP ... have not had increases that keep up with what they’re requiring in life.”

Will the Acting Premier—and his own Attorney General—support our simple proposal to increase support for people with disabilities on ODSP, and ask millionaires just to pay a little bit more?

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member and her party do not have a monopoly on compassion for the most vulnerable in our society. I recall the most recent election, when I was asked to participate in an all-candidates meeting on poverty. To prepare for that, I picked up the NDP platform and tried to find the

section on poverty. It took me four tries to find a couple of sentences at the bottom of a page that I believe talked about natural resources or something else, and the main thrust of it was the social assistance review.

We recognize that we need a comprehensive transformation of social assistance in this province. That is why we have asked Frances Lankin, a former distinguished member of this Legislature and of the New Democratic Party, along with Dr. Munir Sheikh, who is a former head of Statistics Canada, to take a look at the social assistance system and report back on comprehensive changes. We look forward to that report; I think all members do. It’s going to provide a great pathway for how we want to move forward.

ENERGY RATES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Energy. My constituents are pleased with the work our government has done to modernize an electricity system that needed to be fixed. While we repaired transmission lines and invested in new supply, we also phased out coal, because it was causing smog in places like Guelph and making people sick, costing taxpayers $4 billion a year in health costs. These are accomplishments that we can all be proud of.

Families all across this province have been doing their part to achieve a clean, modern and reliable electricity system. They are investing in a system that can serve them today, but also tomorrow and 20 years from now. But my constituents are concerned about the cost.

Minister, can you please tell me what you have been doing to moderate costs in our electricity system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Guelph has been a leading advocate, not only in cleaning up the air in the province of Ontario, but in advocating ways where families and businesses can help moderate costs.

Here are a few of the things. Two of our largest agencies, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation, have launched a cost reduction exercise. They’ve already taken out half a billion dollars in costs, and they’re continuing to do work.

When we launched the results of our feed-in tariff, our green energy review just a couple of weeks ago, we strengthened our approach to green energy. We’re going to get more jobs out of it, but we also lowered the prices for the green energy we are bringing on.

Third, we launched an international comparison approach for our energy agencies to make sure that they’re working as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It’s all about finding ways to help families and businesses.

Fourth, we’ve launched a review of our local distribution companies; those are the ones that bring electricity down to families, homes and businesses. We’ve looked to see whether we can find savings there, whether there’s a better approach.

And fifth, we’ve launched a review of two of our major planning agencies, the OPA and IESO—all ways to take costs out of the system and help families and businesses.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I know that my constituents want to learn about the work that’s being done to drive efficiencies and find cost savings, both big and small. I think we can all agree that every dollar counts.

I know that much of the change in the price of electricity is due to our government’s commitment to replacing dirty coal-fired generation with cleaner sources of power by 2014. Coal is cheap, but it pollutes the air we breathe and it harms the health of Ontarians.

I know my constituents in Guelph were very pleased this week to learn that Canadian Solar is expanding its production and creating even more jobs in Guelph.

While it is important to moderate costs in the electricity system, it’s also important to provide families and businesses with programs that help them as we make this transition to cleaner power. Minister, can you please tell this House what you are doing to help families and businesses with the cost of their electricity bills?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It is what we’re doing together. In the budget that we have proposed, we’re maintaining the Ontario clean energy benefit—10% off the bottom line of the bill for families and many businesses to help them with those costs of electricity. We’ve got the energy and property tax credit, the energy portion of which is $204 of assistance. We’ve got the northern Ontario energy credit—again, special issues in the north, another $200.

We’ve got the industrial conservation initiative, which allows 150 of our largest energy consumers in the province of Ontario who employ thousands of people to save a significant amount of money by reducing the energy they use in our highest-demand times during the course of a year. It’s a great initiative.

We’ve also got the northern industrial electricity rate program, which reduces costs for businesses in the north, again, with special issues.

These and more initiatives are helping families and helping businesses.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. I’ve recently learned that the dignity and human rights of children with special needs are being grossly violated in Simcoe county schools. Shocking images of education assistants herding children like cattle with rugby blocker pads as big as me, and doing it in public, demonstrates something is broken in our school system. This deplorable method of restraint seems to have emerged because proper assessment and individual education plans have not been implemented.

Minister, you have an opportunity to protect the most vulnerable children in our communities by issuing a directive the moment we walk out of this chamber today. Will you please do the right thing and intervene immediately?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to say, first and foremost, that I understand that this board will be re-evaluating this decision, and that is the appropriate thing for them to have done.

I am very proud of the record of our government in ensuring that every child has a world-class education. This is an important—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order, please.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: —to ensure that all of our children have a strong-quality education.

Interjections.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: If I could be heard across the heckling, Speaker, I would love to share with this House the fact that in special education we have seen an increase, since our government took office, of 55%. We have seen an increase of over $893 million. And that’s not all. When it comes to autism support, when we got in here—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: —we removed the government’s previous age six cut-off—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Speaker, if this government wants to get serious about stopping bullying in schools, let’s get education assistants, the people who are employed by the schools, to stop bullying children who are the most vulnerable in our community.

In fact, all the following organizations adamantly agree: Special Education Advisory Committee, the Geneva Centre for Autism, Community Living Ontario—the list goes on and on, Speaker. This practice not only labels these students but also promotes a culture of fear in our classrooms. You’re doing that. You’re allowing that to happen.

Minister, the Simcoe county school board has failed to act, deferring this till June. OPSEU actually openly condones this type of restraint. This is why you cannot slough this matter off to the local school board. You must use your authority as a minister to stand up for the rights of children with special needs in Simcoe county schools immediately. Will you issue this directive this morning, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Sit down, please.

Minister?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Speaker, I’m not going to take lessons from the opposition on supporting students with special needs. We know the challenges faced by families with autistic children, and while we may not meet all of the requests of parents, we have a plan to help children access more autism services. They cut off children at the age of six, no questions asked.

We are supporting families, Speaker. We have quadrupled investment when it comes to autism support. We have almost tripled the number of children receiving that support. We are conducting research, investing $15 million in research, and we have more early years support and more EAs in our classrooms. I’m proud of our record, and I would contrast it to the opposition’s record any day, any time.

As I have said, Simcoe region is reviewing their process. They should do that, Speaker. But we will stand up for children with special needs—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please. Stop the clock. Please sit down.

New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The decision to sell off Ontario Northland puts real economic development at risk, not to mention 1,000 jobs. The cancellation of our public transportation system leaves families threatened.

We’ve put forward a proposal to help stop the sale of Ontario Northland. Will you please explain to the mayors and to the rest of northern Ontario why you choose to take millionaires over the seniors who need the train, the only train, to get to medical treatments in southern Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, this was a very difficult decision that this government had to make, but it’s a necessary decision. If we’re going to invest in health care and education, we have to make choices. Those choices are difficult. One of those choices was to divest the ONTC. We’re going to move ahead with that divestment.

I should let the member know that divestment is not foreclosure. There is business as usual as we move forward with this divestment. At the end of the day, we want a much stronger transportation system in place, a more sustainable transportation system in place, and we’re going to move in that direction. We’re going to work with our stakeholders to achieve that direction.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: My next question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The north isn’t the only region—

Interjections.

Mr. John Vanthof: My supplementary—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): You’ve got to ask a supplementary to the first question.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s the same subject.

The north isn’t the only region that feels let down by this budget and this government’s lack of consultation. The unilateral termination of the horse racing revenue-sharing program has left families feeling burned in places like Sarnia, Windsor and Niagara Falls—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member knows the rules. You’ve got to ask the supplement to the first question.

I will now move to the next questioner: the member from Peterborough.

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, I understand that you’ll be meeting with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada minister, the Honourable Gerry Ritz, later this week, along with your counterparts from Canada’s provinces and territories at the federal, provincial and territorial meeting.

With agriculture being an area of responsibility that’s shared in Canada’s Constitution, Ontario farmers look to the province to work with the federal government to ensure the continuing competitiveness and long-term sustainability of agriculture and the agri-food sectors. This includes the Growing Forward program, which I know farmers in Peterborough are particularly interested in, as the current agreement expires next year.

Speaker, through you to the Minister: Please share with this House your plans for discussions with the Honourable Minister Ritz and other agriculture ministers.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m pleased to note that the member is correct. We will be meeting tomorrow with the Honourable Gerry Ritz and my provincial counterparts, trying to set the table for agricultural policy over the next several years. At our meeting, we will begin negotiations on Growing Forward 2 and we’ll be calling on the federal government to renew certain parts of that agreement to enhance the vitality of Ontario agriculture.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as members opposite should know, virtually all agricultural programs are jointly shared between the federal government and provincial governments. We’re all key strategic players in that economic development. The Constitution requires us to be collaborative. I suspect that that reality, coupled with any sense of a shared purpose, will move us forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that very comprehensive and detailed answer.

Minister, I want to pass on to the farmers in my riding that we’re working hard to ensure the continuing support for the best interests of Ontario’s farmers. I know that farmers in Peterborough are also looking to our government to be firm with the federal government on several issues. Indeed, recent media coverage of trade negotiations has led to speculation that the federal government might sacrifice a vital part of our country’s agricultural support system—supply management—for the sake of other boards of trade.

Minister, in your discussions with Minister Ritz and other ag ministers across Confederation, can you please inform this House if you will be discussing your ongoing Ontario support for supply management?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want all members of this House to know that we will continue to press the federal government with respect to a commitment to supply management. In fact, I recently joined with the Quebec minister, the Honourable Pierre Corbeil, in writing to the federal minister on this issue. As two ministers representing 75% of Canada’s dairy, poultry and egg producers, we said: “Supply-managed sectors have demonstrated stability where other sectors have sought government assistance to overcome economic hardship. This price stability at market translates into significant benefits to farmers, to processors, to consumers and to the Canadian economy at large.”

I am hopeful and fully anticipate that Minister Ritz will reassure us, this government and all Ontarians that the federal government remains committed to supply management.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation.

On February 9 of this year the federal government issued a request for expressions of interest to gauge stakeholder interest in participating in the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s Chalk River nuclear laboratories. This is Canada’s premier nuclear research facility and the economic impact of its 3,000 highly paid and skilled jobs on the local municipalities and economy is enormous.

I’ve written both the federal minister and your office on this issue. He has responded; you have not. Based on his reply, they would be open to a dialogue with the province, but his office has not heard from you, either.

Minister, have you contacted Minister Joe Oliver? If not, why are you sitting on the sidelines while the future of Ontario’s nuclear industry hangs in the balance?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I have received the member’s letter and I thank him for sending me that letter.

I’ll tell you, we are really serious about ensuring that our nuclear industry in this province does well. That’s why we have been working very closely with the federal government to ensure that we move forward, through the leadership of the Minister of Energy, with our refurbishment of our nuclear units. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs in this province that depend on the nuclear industry.

I wish, though, that the PC Party would support the other jobs that we’re creating. Just in the last few weeks, IBM made an important announcement here in Toronto: 145 high-end jobs. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? They wouldn’t have been here if it were not for the program that we provided support for them on and that your party doesn’t support.

This last month alone, 46,000 jobs were created in this province, jobs that we’re very, very proud of. We’re going to keep creating jobs. The best thing we—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, it’s time to stop with the gobbledygook and answer the question. You have not contacted the federal minister. The nuclear industry research division at Chalk River is vital to the industry across Canada: 70,000 jobs, most of them right here in the province of Ontario.

If Chalk River Laboratories is revitalized as a national research facility, it will support tens of thousands of research projects with wide-ranging applications, including health, environment, energy, natural resources, nanotechnology, aerospace, automotive and manufacturing. Why do you continue to sit on the sidelines in this process and not speak directly to your federal counterpart when the new future of this research facility hangs in the balance? Get off your hands and start talking to Minister Oliver.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Sit down, please.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: This side of the House has shared this member’s concern for a long time about the lack of support from the federal government for important parts of the energy system here in this province. We’ve stood up for the energy workers of this province, whether it’s clean energy, whether it’s nuclear power, time and time again.

The federal government decided, in the middle of our consideration of a new build, to completely restructure AECL. Where was your voice then, when the nuclear workers of this province needed you? Today you stand up.

I’ve got a number, Mr. Speaker. It’s 1-613-992-4211. It’s Stephen Harper’s number. Give him a call. Finally, for once, stand up for the workers of this province.

HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre par intérim. Families across the province are concerned about what your budget is doing to their community hospitals and to their local health care services. With more than half of Ontario’s hospitals facing cuts or in absolute freeze on their budgets, in northern Ontario we’re already hearing about bed and program closures.

Can the Acting Premier explain why his government seems to be choosing millionaires over local health care?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m quite proud of the fact that the largest expense growth item in our budget is home care, more home care, and I appreciate the member opposite’s support on that initiative.

I’m also proud of the investments we’re making in Cambridge and in Burlington and a number of other communities—Leeds–Grenville—which the Conservatives want to vote against. Those are important initiatives for better health care in Ontario.

The Minister of Health has laid out an ambitious agenda to provide the right care in the right place at the right time, Mr. Speaker: better home care; better acute care; investing more in long-term care, which we’re all committed to. We’re going to continue to work on those things. We appreciate working with the third party to keep this Legislature alive so that we can continue to build on the enormous achievements this Legislature has made in health care over the last eight years.

NOTICE OF POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Norm Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I will be raising a point of privilege from today’s proceedings with regard to statements by the Deputy Premier that I take offence to, questioning my impartiality as the Chair of the public accounts committee. I note that there have also been tweets arising from staff of the Premier’s office with regard to this, so I will raise this in writing as soon as possible, likely early next week, Mr. Speaker.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent, as proposed by the Deputy Premier earlier, that Mr. Kelly Mitchell be called to testify at the public accounts committee, along with the Deputy Premier and the Premier.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I just want to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for his comments and that he would be filing an order.

With regard to Mr. Klees, he has moved unanimous consent to order Mr. Kelly Mitchell to appear before the committee next Wednesday, along with the Deputy Premier and the Premier. Agreed? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, I took it, when the Deputy Premier proposed that we would have unanimous consent to call Mr. Kelly Mitchell, that he was serious and that he would have the support—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would say to the member that I requested unanimous consent; I did not receive it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Who said no?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I want to know who said no.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Newmarket–Aurora on a new point of order.

Mr. Frank Klees: I highly resent the implication that we were not serious. I will make the following motion, and I will leave out the reference to the Deputy Premier, and I will leave out the reference to the Premier, because apparently members of the government objected to that.

I will ask for unanimous consent that Kelly Mitchell be called to appear before the public accounts committee, and that the Clerk be directed to

schedule him at the earliest possible time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I have a motion from Mr. Klees that Mr. Kelly Mitchell be called to the committee and that the Clerk be directed to request him to appear as soon as possible. Agreed? Okay, that has been agreed to.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would put a motion forward asking for unanimous consent that the Premier and the Deputy Premier be directed to appear before the public accounts committee by the Clerk at the earliest possible convenience.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has moved that the Premier and the Deputy Premier be called to the committee, and the Clerk—

Hon. John Milloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’m in the middle of a motion.

Hon. John Milloy: All right.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Do I have agreement? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting you before, but I think that if you review Hansard, the member did not ask for unanimous consent. He just put forward a random motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): That is not a point of order.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: With great pleasure today, I introduce a number of members from the Sikh community here and also invite everyone to attend the reception being held from 4:30 to 6 o’clock at the dining hall.

We have representatives from the Malton gurdwara. We have Manohar Singh Bal; we have Sukhdeep Dhaliwal; we have Manjinder Singh; we have Mr. Ghuman. Who else do we have here? We have Jasbir Singh, and I believe we have—those are all the five here? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that introduction, and I do want to help out my colleague from across the way to introduce our friends here in the House today.

Last weekend, Sikhs across Ontario and the world celebrated Vaisakhi, and many of our legislative colleagues are also amongst those celebrating, so I’d like to welcome the Canadian Sikh Association to Queen’s Park today. At 4:30, they will be hosting a reception in the legislative dining room in celebration of Vaisakhi. All MPPs are invited and requested to attend.

With us today, as my member across has explained, Manohar Singh Bal is here, Baljit Ghuman is here, Jasbir Singh is here, Sukhdeep Dhaliwal is here, and Manjinder Singh, as well as Rampal Singh.

To all of you, welcome to Queen’s Park. We appreciate all that you do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Introduction of guests?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome guests—they are not quite here; they’ve been marching from my riding of Davenport. They will be arriving in the Legislature soon, doing a media conference. It’s folks from the Put Food in the Budget campaign, who are working very hard to try to increase benefits for people who are struggling in this city, to increase welfare benefits. They will be in the media studio at 1:30.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d just remind the member, and I know many of us make the mistakes, but you can only be recognized if you stand in your own seat. I was having difficulty seeing the guy behind you to realize you are in the wrong place.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

I LOVE DANCE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Today we’re celebrating Canadian dance, a subject that this House is very familiar with because there is a lot of dancing going on in here.

In celebration of all forms of dance, today the Canadian Dance Assembly kicks off its six-year campaign, “I Love Dance.” I would like to support this campaign by reading its manifesto:

“We declare that dance, in all its diverse expressions, is a force for social good and human advancement.

“In support of this we uphold the following principles:

“Dance is an instinctive human birthright and a life-long contributor to health and contentment.

“Dance enlivens the body.

“Dance engages the mind.

“Dance inspires the spirit.

“Dance celebrates cultural, social and physical diversity yet soars above perceived barriers to foster cohesion and shared understanding.

“Dance as an art represents society’s highest aspirations and communicates profound truths that are beyond the power of words.

“Dance expresses the essence of what it is to be fully alive.

“For these reasons we advocate:

“Expanded opportunities to experience dance, as art, health, education, recreation or sport, whether as observer or participant, among all age groups and socio-cultural sectors.

“Wider appreciation of the multi-faceted contributions of the dance profession as a source of valuable knowledge and provider of inspiring performances.

“Broader acknowledgment of dance as a major component of our identity as a compassionate, imaginative, innovative and thriving community.”

WEST LINCOLN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Paul Miller: I am proud to stand before you today in support of the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital rebuild project. After years of promises and planning, the proposed Liberal budget will pull the plug on this much-needed upgrade, blindsiding many Hamilton and Niagara communities, including my own community of Stoney Creek.

I’ve heard from community members, patients, physicians and health care workers, who all agree that this decision is short-sighted and that Ontarians are getting shortchanged.

We need a long-term, efficient and sustainable health care system, precisely what this hospital rebuild represents. Instead of investing in vital services to improve the Niagara health care system, the Premier has chosen to invest in excessive salaries for hospital CEOs. These priorities need to change.

The Premier promised increased access to health care for the people of Hamilton and Niagara, who have already raised nearly $14 million for their hospital rebuild only to have the provincial support reserved at the eleventh hour.

Our communities fear that this Premier will continue to gut this province of its essential services. On their behalf, I challenge the Premier to keep his promise, to continue the partnership and to rebuild the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I rise today to share the great news that our government is increasing funding for students in Peel region for the 10th year in a row.

The increased funding has led to significant achievements in the education system, including smaller class sizes; higher test scores in reading, science, math; higher graduation rates and help for underperforming schools.

Since 2003, our government has increased GSN funding by 51% to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and an astounding 81.3% to Peel District School Board. Both of these boards are housed in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. That’s great news, Speaker.

Our government’s commitment to students in Peel region ensures that our students will continue to reach their full potential.

VAISAKHI

Mr. Bill Walker: Starting April 14, over 100,000 of Ontario’s Sikhs began celebrating Vaisakhi. This joyous celebration symbolizes that most significant day in 1699 when Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa.

Through the unification of the Sikh faith, Khalsa created a code of conduct and discipline for the faith. The code is based on values such as equality, honesty, justice, peace, courage and community service—values that all Ontarians cherish.

These principles have led the Sikh people to be some of the hardest-working Ontarians in the province, excelling in a variety of fields and consistently contributing to Ontario’s development.

With your dedication to volunteerism and civic activism, your organization is a strong community leader. Your efforts embolden Ontario’s heritage of cultural diversity and strengthen Canada’s multicultural fabric.

On behalf of the Ontario PC Party, I’d like to welcome our guests to Queen’s Park and wish the Canadian Sikh Association all the best as they continue to honour this valuable tradition in our province’s heritage.

VAISAKHI

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I take great pride in rising in the House today to honour the guests who have attended today and to invite everyone to the Canadian Sikh Association. We are celebrating, as members of the Sikh faith, the birth of the Khalsa. It’s a concept and a philosophy which advocates an extreme level of equality and justice for all. It’s a unique path which advocates a level of understanding and brotherhood and sisterhood, which requires the benefit and the amelioration of all people, of all nations, of all genders, races, creeds, religious backgrounds.

This celebration is celebrating the notion of social justice, advocated by the 10th guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who advocated a principle that we should rise in opposition of injustice against all people, regardless of their background, and it is imperative, as members of the human race, that we stand up for justice, we stand up for equality, and we fight for these rights in all our daily actions throughout our lives.

So I salute and I celebrate and I rise on this occasion of Vaisakhi, and I encourage everyone to participate in today’s reception at 4:30 in the dining hall, where we will learn more about the Sikh heritage and about the birth of the Khalsa.

LEONARD BRAITHWAITE

Mr. Michael Coteau: I stand here today to pay tribute to Leonard Austin Braithwaite, a true activist and champion of diversity, public service and civil rights, who died on March 28 of this year at the age of 88.

Mr. Braithwaite was born on October 23, 1923, in Toronto to West Indian parents, and he was raised in the Kensington Market neighbourhood. He joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1943 and proudly served his country with the VI Bomber Command in Yorkshire, England, during the final years of World War II.

After receiving his bachelor of commerce degree from the University of Toronto, Mr. Braithwaite received a master of business administration degree from Harvard Business School and later graduated as a lawyer from Osgoode Hall in 1958.

In 1963, the ambitious Braithwaite ran for the Liberal Party in the provincial election and became Ontario’s first black member of provincial Parliament to win the newly created riding of Etobicoke. As an MPP, Leonard Braithwaite pushed to end racial segregation in our schools and also called for young females to serve as pages in this Legislative Assembly.

Braithwaite’s honours include being appointed to the Order of Canada in 1997, being appointed to the Order of Ontario in 2004 and most recently winning the William Hubbard Award from the city of Toronto.

Leonard Braithwaite leaves behind a great legacy in our province, and on behalf of the residents of Don Valley East and all the members of Parliament in this provincial assembly, I’d like to honour him. Thank you.

PARRY SOUND AND AREA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

Mr. Norm Miller: I stand here today to congratulate each of the winners and nominees at last week’s Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce President’s Gala and Business Awards. The awards were held at the beautiful Stockey Centre overlooking Georgian Bay.

I had the pleasure of presenting the Tourism Award to the Anderson family and Island Queen Cruise. Founded in the 1970s, Island Queen Cruise has since grown rapidly, commissioning ever-larger ships to accommodate the growing number of visitors who wish to explore the 30,000 Islands region of Georgian Bay.

Business of the Year went to Distler Construction for the second year in a row.

Entrepreneur of the Year was awarded to Stephanie Norrie of Applause Party Rentals.

For the Community Leadership Award, there were two winners: Susan Tait of Georgian Bay Women’s Network and Barb Kerr of Investors Group financial services. Both have worked tirelessly building and leading community initiatives in Parry Sound.

Finally, the President’s Award, which is awarded at the discretion of Andrew Ryeland, the president of the chamber, went to new business owner Stephanie Delaurier of Kudos Kuisine.

Each of these fine businesses and individuals has made remarkable contributions to their community and each demonstrates that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Parry Sound.

CASSELMAN VIKINGS

Mr. Grant Crack: I’d like to take a moment to congratulate the Casselman Vikings, who are the Eastern Ontario Junior B Hockey League champions for the first time in their franchise history. The underdog Vikings recorded their second straight overtime win—4-3—over the Gatineau Mustangs on Thursday of last week to claim the best-of-seven series in five games.

The Eastern Ontario Junior B Hockey League was founded in 1966 as the Rideau-St. Lawrence Junior B Hockey League. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of playing in that very league in the early 1980s—I know I don’t look that old—for the Alexandria Glens. Although we came close to winning a championship, we never quite got there. So it’s quite an accomplishment for this young team.

There are 22 member teams that play to compete for the D. Arnold Carson Memorial Trophy. To celebrate this big win, the town of Casselman will be proudly holding a parade this Sunday, April 22, at 3 p.m., at which I will be in attendance. The players and coaches will be able to display their well-earned trophy and their pride to the entire town of Casselman and surrounding areas.

So, félicitations à tous les joueurs et à l’entraîneur, Raymond Lavergne, qui a bien guidé son équipe, les Vikings, à la victoire.

Raymond Lavergne has quite a history as well as a successful coach guiding my former team, the Alexandria Glens, to a number of regional titles as well. He is well-accomplished and a great coach. I congratulate them all.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, communities in Nipissing are speaking out against the proposed fire sale by this government of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. I have assured all groups that I will read their motions in this Legislature.

The townships of Bonfield and Chisholm have both passed motions endorsing the city of North Bay resolution, which calls on Premier Dalton McGuinty to honour his pledge and suspend the government of Ontario’s plans to divest the assets of the ONTC in order to permit affected stakeholders, in the form of a community task force, time to devise a more thoughtful business case that will keep the ONTC whole, while respecting the stated goals of the northern growth plan, and, Bonfield and Chisholm go on to say, that the province of Ontario start to immediately transition responsibility for the ONTC from the MNDM to the Ministry of Transportation.

North Bay city council passed a further resolution this week noting that the multimodal transportation study started under this government’s growth plan isn’t sufficiently developed to fully understand the implications of divesting the ONTC, and that the decision to divest was unilaterally made by the province with absolutely no consultation with local government, aboriginal peoples, businesses or the provincially appointed northern advisory council.

Speaker, they request a meeting with the northern stakeholders, as requested in correspondence from the northern mayors.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Norm Miller: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and move its adoption.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): Mr. Miller, Parry Sound–Muskoka, from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the committee’s report as follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee met on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, to consider the 2012 Special Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario on Ornge Air Ambulance and Related Services. During this meeting, the committee adopted a motion requesting that the House authorize the Speaker to issue his warrant for the appearance of Dr. Chris Mazza, former president and CEO of Ornge, before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in room 151, Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, and that, if necessary, the warrant can be served to Dr. Chris Mazza’s attorney, Roger D. Yachetti, Q.C.

Your committee therefore requests that the House authorize the Speaker to issue his warrant, as provided in

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, requiring the appearance of Dr. Chris Mazza before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Miller presents the committee’s report and moves its adoption. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Norm Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Chris Mazza is a key person involved in the creation of Ornge air ambulance, and it’s the committee’s belief that it’s important that he come and give testimony before the public accounts committee. For that reason, the committee has decided to ask for this Speaker’s warrant.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that the question on my motion for adoption of this report be put immediately without debate or amendment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Miller has asked consent for his question to be put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Miller, Parry Sound–Muskoka, has moved adoption of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, requesting a Speaker’s warrant for the appearance of Mr. Chris Mazza. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Report adopted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made in the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business, such that Mr. Milligan assumes ballot item number 41, Mrs. Elliott assumes ballot item number 35, Mr. McNaughton assumes ballot item number 35, and Mrs. Elliott assumes ballot item number 60.

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr. John O’Toole: I’ve been waiting for that particular order of the day. On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, I’m pleased to present a petition that reads as follows:

“Whereas under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, Ontario regulation 319/08, public health inspectors are required to undertake risk assessments of small drinking water systems”—I’m happy that the Minister of the Environment is here listening;

“Whereas many of these small drinking water systems are located in homes,” some “operating bed and breakfasts in rural Ontario;

“Whereas private homes that are the sites of bed and breakfasts already have potable drinking water used by the homeowners and their families every day;

“Whereas many of these bed and breakfasts have established the quality of their drinking water through years of regular testing;

“Whereas these home-based businesses are facing high costs” due to compliance with this new regulation, government regulation 319/08;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ministry of Health amend Ontario regulation 319/08 to give the testing track record of a small drinking water system greater weight in the risk assessment process;

“Furthermore we, the undersigned, ask that bed and breakfasts operated within a private home with a drinking water” system meeting all regulations “of a private home not be subject to regulation 319/08” when tests have proven with no negative results.

I’m pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents and present it to Brady, the page for my riding of Durham.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, this petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I have another 3,000 petitions to go with the many thousands I’ve already received.

“Whereas the Ontario horse racing and breeding industry generates $2 billion of economic activity, mostly in rural Ontario;

“Whereas more than 60,000 Ontarians are employed by Ontario’s horse racing and breeding industry;

“Whereas 20% of the funds generated by the OLG slots-at-racetracks program is reinvested in racetracks and the horse racing and breeding industry, while 75% is returned to the government of Ontario;

“Whereas the OLG slots-at-racetracks program generates $1.1 billion a year for health care and other spending, making it the most profitable form of gaming in the province for OLG;

“Whereas the government has announced plans to cancel the slots-at-racetracks program, a decision that will cost the government $1.1 billion per year and threatens more than 60,000 jobs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Call on the government of Ontario to protect the $1.1 billion of revenue the government received annually because of the OLG slots-at-racetracks program; direct OLG to honour the contracts with racetracks and protect the horse racing and breeding industry by continuing the OLG slots-at-racetracks revenue-sharing program.”

I agree with this and will sign my name to it, and Katarina will bring it down.

IMMIGRATION POLICY /

POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario entitled “Respect for Diverse Communities.”

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments;

“Whereas the settlement of new Canadians to the province of Ontario remains a function of the departments of citizenship and immigration at both the federal and provincial levels;

“Whereas Ontario still remains the destination of choice for new Canadians in our federation;

“We, the undersigned, ask that the province contact its federal counterpart, including but not limited to the Honourable Jason Kenney and his department, and notify them:

“That the proposed reduction in the number of centres in the GTA authorized to perform immigration medical exams, the IMM 1017, is ill-advised;

“That the reduction in number of centres in the GTA where services are offered in French is ill-advised;

“That the virtual elimination of centres where services are offered in the GTA in the languages of Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Farsi, Tamil and Arabic is ill-advised, and that it not only will inflict undue hardship on those cultural communities but is generally discordant with the Canadian values of openness, pluralism and diversity.”

Je suis d’accord avec cette pétition; je vais la signer et vous l’envoyer par notre page législatif, Shaumik.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Julia Munro: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt;

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the sensitive areas of the greenbelt and Oak Ridges moraine;

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier government to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permitting process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries;

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask that the Minister of the Environment initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to protect our water and prevent contamination of the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt.”

This is signed by members of my community who are particularly concerned. I have affixed my signature, as I am in favour of this, and want to give it to page Carley.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: It is my pleasure to present this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission provides services which are vital to the north’s economy; and

“Whereas it is a lifeline for the residents of northern communities who have no other source of public transportation; and

“Whereas the ONTC could be a vital link to the Ring of Fire;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the planned cancellation of the Northlander and the sale of the rest of the assets of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission be halted immediately.”

I proudly add my signature to these thousand and send it down with page Vincent.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to present this petition on behalf of parents of the Avalon Public School in the riding of Ottawa–Orléans.

“To the Legislature of Ontario:

“Whereas the current enrolment of Avalon Public School is 6