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

April 3, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Apr-03 (PDF)

L123 - Thu 3 Apr 2014 / Jeu 3 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 April 2014 Jeudi 3 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTING STUDENTS

ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 PROTÉGEANT

LES ÉLÈVES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

PAN AM GAMES

POWER PLANTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

POWER PLANTS

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

RONDEAU PROVINCIAL PARK

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

TOBACCO CONTROL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

VOLUNTEERS

BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ANDREW “ANDY” HOUSTON

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

EVENTS IN UKRAINE

SARAH BURKE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY

MARY ANN FOUND

AND BRENDA METCALF

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS /

SUBVENTIONS DU CONSEIL

DES ARTS DE L’ONTARIO

KEMPTVILLE COLLEGE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

BRIDGE BUILDING CONTEST

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHRISTMAS TREE DAY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE JOUR

DE L’ARBRE DE NOËL

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONTARIO’S

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU COMMISSAIRE

À L’ENVIRONNEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

STUDENT SAFETY, HEALTH

AND WELL-BEING

PRESTO FARE CARD

STUDENT SAFETY, HEALTH

AND WELL-BEING

PRESTO FARE CARD

STUDENT SAFETY, HEALTH

AND WELL-BEING

PRESTO FARE CARD

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

GREENBELT

LONG-TERM CARE

GASOLINE PRICES

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

SENIOR CITIZENS’ HOUSING

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MINIMUM WAGE

LYME DISEASE

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ADVERTISING ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PUBLICITÉ

DES ORGANISMES

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

SAVING APPRENTICES’ JOBS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 POUR LA SAUVEGARDE

DES EMPLOIS POUR APPRENTIS

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ADVERTISING ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PUBLICITÉ

DES ORGANISMES

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

SAVING APPRENTICES’ JOBS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 POUR LA SAUVEGARDE

DES EMPLOIS POUR APPRENTIS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VOLUNTARY BLOOD

DONATIONS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE DON

DE SANG VOLONTAIRE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTING STUDENTS

ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 PROTÉGEANT

LES ÉLÈVES

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 1, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 with respect to discipline and other related matters / Projet de loi 103, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne la discipline et d’autres questions connexes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item was last debated, Mr. Leone had the floor and had 20 minutes and 58 seconds remaining. The member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to resume debate on this matter. The last time I spoke to this bill, which was the beginning of my one-hour lead, was October 1 of last year, I believe, so it’s been quite some time. I’m pretty sure everyone remembers what I said on October 1, since it was a riveting speech. I remember it was that date because it was about 12 hours or so after I became the critic for education; the very next day, I had to start my one-hour lead on this particular piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation, as I noted then, is based upon a very thought-provoking report by the Honourable Justice Patrick LeSage. The LeSage report outlined some of the recommendations that were and should be implemented in reforming the Ontario College of Teachers.

I would say that, without a shadow of a doubt, we are very interested in pursuing what the

short title of this legislation is, which is the Protecting Students Act. I can say with absolute certainty that, on this side of the House, that’s exactly what we want to do: We want to protect our students. We are moms and dads, aunts and uncles, some of us are grandparents, who deeply care about children. I can state that our Leader of the Opposition has recently added an addition to his family. So certainly children are very important to our daily operation as parents as well as legislators.

At that time, way back in October when this bill was first debated, I started to talk about some of the things that Justice LeSage had stated. I’m not going to repeat too much of what I said back then, because hopefully everyone remembers, but this piece of legislation is an important and timely update to the Ontario College of Teachers Act,

an act that was established in 1996, I believe, under our previous government, and

an act that we certainly want to see improved.

Justice LeSage painstakingly took and investigated the review of the Ontario College of Teachers. His report, so people remember, is the Review of the Ontario College of Teachers Intake, Investigation and Discipline Procedures and Outcomes, and the Dispute Resolution Program. It was reported on May 31, 2012.

There have been a lot of changes that have happened to the Ontario College of Teachers throughout this process, some of which talked about the modifications of who sits on the board of directors, what representation should come from outside the teaching profession versus inside the teaching profession, and changes have been made. I think what Justice LeSage is saying in this report, and what the legislation seeks to do, is to make those reforms necessary to rebalance what’s occurring in our College of Teachers.

I’m going to go over a few of the provisions that this bill actually does include, and talk about what we appreciate and what we think needs some serious revision.

First of all, one of the key provisions of this legislation is to publish all decisions of the college’s discipline committee. The idea behind this proposal is to suggest that if there is an issue with, perhaps, a student raising something with a teacher, the complaint is actually published so people can view it. If there are disciplinary activities that have occurred, people have a right to know.

If a teacher teaches in one school board and they try to get a job in another school board, there is a process, there is a system, and there is a mechanism for understanding some of the disciplinary issues or complaints that may have arisen through that teacher’s tenure. We think that’s an important element that provides a degree of transparency in the system.

The bill also outlines clear rules for the use of an alternative dispute resolution process in confirming that no cases involving sexual abuse, sexual misconduct or child pornography would be eligible for alternative dispute resolution. These are actually very serious offences that may take place, and I think what we would suggest is that the focus must be on reinforcing and reassuring victims of these activities and these acts of sexual misconduct that we are there for them. We are going through a process—and it’s outlining a process in the legislation.

Certainly, Justice LeSage talked about some of those items in his report: How you deal with those very serious matters that arise that may have an effect on a person’s ability to go to school.

We’ve talked to some victims of sexual crimes in the past. Very recently, I was in an email exchange with a gentleman who has been a past victim of a sexual crime, and what he wanted me to assure members of the public and people who have been victims of these crimes is that we would do the most to protect those people. They have undergone life-altering experiences in a very negative context. Their psychological and mental health and their mental well-being has changed as a result of these sexual activities, and we have to reassure those people that we are behind these victims.

I think what we’re saying, when we’re deliberating over this bill, is that we have to take some concern and some time to really reinforce this idea that we are there to protect the victims.

This gentleman is part of a network of 12,000 men who have been sexually abused in some way, shape or form. They’re heart-wrenching stories, certainly stories that we don’t want any of our children to face as they grow up. It’s sometimes very troubling for parents to comprehend that these acts actually happen to kids, and we have to make sure that we’re doing our utmost to reinforce their protection. Certainly, Justice LeSage was talking about that.

Another major provision that this bill talks about is clarifying when school boards must inform the Ontario College of Teachers of cases where the board has restricted the duties of a teacher or dismissed them for misconduct. There have to be processes outlined. I think everyone would agree that some rules and procedures are put in place so that when allegations of activities have been made against a teacher, they are properly identified. Sometimes, there is an investigative process. Sometimes, there is some thought that needs to be put into the severity of the act.

I think there is a need for clear rules and responsibilities for school boards to notify the Ontario College of Teachers with respect to that.

Allowing the Ontario College of Teachers to take swift action and share information with the school board if it is determined that the subject of the complaint may pose an immediate risk to the student: Again, what we would say is that we have to make sure the student is in a safe, healthy, nurturing environment to learn. It’s not possible for students to be in a safe, healthy, nurturing environment to learn if they are under threat, and particularly if the teacher leading the discussion in the classroom may be the instigator or may be the person that is providing that anxiety to that student, based on a potential act.

We obviously want to make it as safe as possible for students to voice concerns, particularly when very serious offences have taken place. We see often in the media that victims of child sexual abuse have this reluctance to tell somebody that

an act has taken place. Sometimes, we see that five or 10 years later, when the child has had the strength to talk about those problems, this is when these are brought to light.

We have to make sure that what we’re doing is protecting that student, to ensure they’re in an environment that is optimal for learning, and that they’re comfortable in telling people that something may have transpired that requires specific attention by the education system, the school board, the school and so on. There have to be some protections put in place for those students to feel that they are in a safe and nurturing environment.

We have to understand that sometimes, when there are very serious allegations at play, we actually do need to come in and we do need to step in. It might be a misunderstanding of sorts. There could be some elements such that an investigation may lead to a particular outcome that is positive or negative. But we have to make sure that, at the very outset, we’re protecting students.

My wife, as I’ve mentioned before, is a child psychologist. The repercussions of having these students undergoing some serious and life-altering events have a negative effect on kids’ mental health. We know that mental health has certainly been a push that we’ve been moving forward. I think all parties agree that we need to do more, particularly with children, to help to create an environment where the awareness of mental health issues is elevated. I think we have to have a process in recognizing that there are elements where we will have to act as swiftly as possible.

Imposing timelines to resolve cases at the investigation stage, when appropriate: One of the things that I had not known is that sometimes these cases would be never-ending in terms of their time of closure. They could be open for long periods of time, and nothing is being done with those cases. Of course, when you are the victim of a negative experience in the classroom, you want to make sure that the issue is being dealt with as quickly as possible, and that there is some deadline by which a report has to be rendered, a decision has to be rendered, on a particular case.

We appreciate that this legislation provides that timeline. Certainly, whenever you have timelines, you’re going to debate whether the timeline is too long or too short, but at least we have an idea of when these items can be and should be discussed in an appropriate manner.

Another provision is to require that a panel hearing a matter relating to a principal or vice-principal must include a principal or vice-principal as well. Of course, the relationship with principals and vice-principals and our Ontario College of Teachers obviously has to be spelled out. There are issues where there are panels that investigate whether a principal or vice-principal is involved, and having an understanding from an administrator of a school’s perspective on a matter, I think, is an important provision to underline as well.

One of the last things I want to talk about with this particular piece of legislation is that if a teacher has their certificate revoked, they can reapply and have their certificate reinstated after only five years. I would suggest that members of our caucus are going to have some serious reservations about this particular provision.

The fact that if someone has engaged in criminal misconduct, has engaged in sexual abuse and child pornography, and these items have been investigated and the certificate for teaching has been revoked—what we would suggest is that if you have engaged in a serious and violent sexual crime, you should never be in front of the classroom anymore. We’re talking about protecting students in our classes. The very presence of somebody who has engaged in this activity is very, very serious.

What I would suggest is that word does get around. The fact is that we’re going to be able to put these matters on a website. We’re going to be able to put these disciplinary activities up for everybody to see. What would you do—what would any member of the Legislature do—if they knew that their kid’s teacher had engaged, and was criminally involved, in a child sex crime? I know, as a parent, that there’s no way I would want my student in that environment. There’s no way.

So we have a bill here, a piece of legislation, that says we are protecting students—the Protecting Students Act, 2013—and we are adding a provision in this legislation that says that after five years that your certificate has been revoked, you can apply to become a teacher once again. As a father of three kids, this is a provision that I cannot accept. I cannot accept the fact that somebody who may be teaching my child has the ability to come back after five years and reapply to be a teacher, and could potentially be a teacher in a school once again.

If that happened in my child’s school, I’m pretty sure that that teacher would never come back to that school. But that teacher might apply to another school; that teacher might apply to another school board. Even if that teacher doesn’t come back to my child’s school, he or she may be in another child’s school. I would have serious reservations with any legislation that could potentially harm another child in another district, in another school board.

So I think we have to have a serious debate about this. This five-year reinstatement provision that’s in this particular piece of legislation is, frankly, unacceptable, and I can say with a degree of certainty that members of the Ontario PC caucus, when speaking to this bill, will express their serious reservations about including a provision such as this in the legislation.

What I want to make very clear is that we are talking about people who have been investigated, who have been shown to have a manner or an activity that was questionable. They were investigated to the point that one of the items of penalty was the removal of their certificate of qualification to teach in the province of Ontario. So they have gone through a process whereby they had a serious offence and had their ability to teach in a school in Ontario revoked. Likely, there may have been a criminal process that was running parallel to what has transpired that may potentially have resulted in a charge.

We cannot in good conscience talk about instituting a piece of legislation that, after a teacher has gone through the process and that investigation has led to a disciplinary action so significant as the removal of their certificate of qualification to teach in the province of Ontario, we would even consider reinstating that certificate of qualification and putting children at potential risk. I would state, as I’ve mentioned, with a degree of certainty that members of the Ontario PC caucus, when debating this particular piece of legislation, will have serious reservations with this bill.

We think that this provision needs a radical modification to suggest that if you have been found guilty of a child sex crime, you do not teach in a classroom in the province of Ontario ever again. That is where we stand with this piece of legislation.

We appreciate the fact that Justice LeSage has gone in depth with a very serious, very thoughtful report on how to improve the College of Teachers, the intake, investigation and discipline procedures and outcomes, and the dispute resolution process. We appreciate the work that he has done. We appreciate that many of the recommendations that were stated in that report have found their way, finally, into legislation. We are disappointed that included in those provisions is the potential of having someone who has been convicted of a child sex crime reinstated in our schools.

We’re disappointed that it has taken so long for this debate to resume, because nothing is more important, for myself as a father and as a legislator, than to protect our children. We should be debating this because it’s so important to so many people.

Let’s not forget the victims of these child sex acts and crimes. Let’s not forget about the life-altering experience to the negative that these victims have had—thousands, tens of thousands of victims across the province and across the country. We cannot lose sight of what happens to them. We must do whatever we can to make sure that those acts do not happen to another child. We can do that by preventing those very people who have engaged in those acts from teaching in front of a classroom of young kids ever again.

We would like to see this Legislature come out with a forceful statement on behalf of victims of sex crimes to suggest that these teachers do not teach in front of a classroom ever again, and until that time we cannot support this legislation.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was rather interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about this bill. I think he said some very good points, that at the core of it there are some young children who get hurt. When a child gets sexually abused, it stays with them for the rest of their life. Most of them will struggle for the rest of their lives. A few will make it through, and we’re trying to learn from the ones who are able to cope. But for most of them, it means that this person—in this case here, this teacher—will have ruined this person’s life for the rest of their life.

You look at them through their lifetime and you will see that they will struggle throughout their lifetime. So the enormity of the crime is huge. How could you put it bigger than this? By your action, you ruin another person’s life forever. Their opportunity to be happy, to be productive, to have the life that everybody hopes for, is wiped away with one case of abuse. That’s all it takes. If it’s repeated, then the symptoms are way bigger.

Does it deserve fair punishment? Absolutely. But we have to find the right balance, where you punish those crimes to the full extent of the law, but at the same time, you protect teachers from being accused of a crime they did not commit.

The enormity of the crime is there. If they have committed abuse on children, they should be punished and I have no problem with this; live with the consequences of your actions. But if you did not, then—I don’t think we’ve found the right balance yet.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I welcome this opportunity to take a couple of minutes to comment on the remarks made by the member from Cambridge on Bill 103.

In essence, what I heard him say was that generally he was supportive of the bill. I think we all share some very common values. We know that the vast majority of our teachers do an excellent job of supporting our students, but of course there are rare circumstances where the teachers do require discipline. They need a fair and transparent process.

In terms of some of the areas where he had some issues, first of all I want to point out that there are a couple of instances where our legislation has gone even further than Mr. Justice LeSage’s recommendations. One of those is the mandatory revocation of a member’s certificate for specific acts of sexual abuse or a prohibited act of child pornography under the Criminal Code. So our provision for mandatory revocation goes above and beyond Mr. Justice’s LeSage’s recommendations.

In terms of the reinstatement of the certificate that has been revoked for sexual abuse, sexual misconduct or a prohibited act, the legislation we’re proposing says “for at least five years.” I think it’s important that we do have further discussion on this issue at committee. I’m informed that there has not been an instance, in fact, where a certificate has previously been reinstated. Of course, there’s the additional fact that such a teacher with such a previous lifting of their certificate would have to convince the school board to actually hire them.

I think we do need further discussion on that, but we know from across the province, whether it be the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association or the Catholic Principals’ Council of Ontario, we have had just very strong support for this particular legislation.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: I’m very pleased to stand up and speak to the member from Cambridge’s comments on this bill. I actually listened with great interest to his comments, and I have to agree. I find it very troubling that there’s any bill that allows for any allowance of any sexual predator into our classrooms after any period of time. I think if there’s anything that didn’t ever need any more conversation or any more consultation, it’s allowing sexual predators into our classrooms and into positions of trust after any period of time has passed, whether it’s a year, five years or 10 years.

I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that if I knew that my child—I have two—was in a classroom with someone who has been charged and convicted of a sexual offence against a child, I would not be very happy about it. I don’t think anyone who is a parent or anyone who cares a nickel about children would at all support allowing sexual predators—the possibility of a sexual predator—to be in a position of trust in a classroom, especially a teacher. I find that actually reprehensible.

I know we need to try to rehabilitate our criminals in society and all this. But you know what? The people they’ve affected—to get to the point where they’re a convicted child sex offender, they’ve destroyed that child’s life indefinitely, until the day they die. So to actually give them the leeway where they get five years and they can reapply to get a teacher’s certificate to go back in the classroom isn’t even remotely fair or square to the people they’ve hurt to get to that point in the first place.

If there’s any piece of this bill that I don’t think needs any more discussion in committee or needs any more discussion here, frankly, it’s that provision that allows a teacher, after five years, to be able to have the possibility to stand in front of a classroom and influence young people. I think that in itself, in that bill, just that piece of it is reprehensible.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It is indeed an honour again to stand in this House today and to make a couple of comments on the riveting presentation put forward by the member from Cambridge.

I do recall that it was six months ago, I believe—October 1—when the member first stood and began his lead on this. What I took out of what he said this morning was this: Never let anyone in this House forget the victims, because when a child is abused, that lingers forever.

I had a friend who was caught up in the Mount Cashel scandal years ago in St. John’s, Newfoundland. I didn’t know it at the time or until later in life, when he wrote a book detailing what had gone on with his abuse at the hands of a teacher, a priest, back when we were hanging out. I can see now how that affected him throughout his life. I think we never want to forget that.

My kids are of an age now where they’re having kids. I have two granddaughters now, and one coming at the end of the month. I just cannot accept anyone laying a finger or a hand on those kids. I don’t know what I would do. I think I might do something I would be severely punished for, Speaker.

But the other part of this is to not forget due process. I know that if you name somebody too soon, that stigma sticks for life as well. You can never get past the fact that you were named. You may beat the charge eventually, but if you were named, that stigma is there for life. We have to keep an eye on that as well.

Thank you for your time, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Cambridge, you have two minutes for a response.

Mr. Rob Leone: Once again, I’m pleased to also rise on behalf of my constituents of Cambridge. I know that every time the member for Windsor–Tecumseh speaks, he always mentions that. We should never forget the people who brought us here.

I’m also pleased that I finally got through my one-hour lead on this particular piece of legislation, after six months. I think that we’re hitting a milestone here by debating a very important piece of legislation.

I want to thank the member from Nickel Belt, the member from Oak Ridges–Markham, the member for Barrie and the member for Windsor–Tecumseh for their thoughtful comments.

I think that what I’m sensing is a degree of interest in talking about getting this bill right. I think that that is obviously the important factor here, that so much of this bill is so necessary that we have to modify, update, bring up to 2014 and modernize the Ontario College of Teachers. I think everyone sees that there is a particular need for that, and certainly Justice LeSage has outlined that.

But as the member for Windsor–Tecumseh did say, we can’t forget about the victims. This is, as many people have mentioned, a life-altering experience that a person will have. I say that not as a positive thing; I say that as a very negative thing. The repercussions on victims of child sex crimes are life-lasting and life-altering, and people have difficulty coping every day.

Like the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, who is going to be a grandfather once again—and I congratulate him in advance for that—as a father, this is something that touches to the core of what we’re doing here: protecting our kids every step of the way, each and every day that we’re here.

I will take part and listen with interest to the debate of this bill. I encourage members to debate and talk about the process and how we can improve this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to stand down the NDP lead on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Essex has requested unanimous consent to stand down his lead. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I thank you very much, Speaker, and I thank my colleagues in the House for granting unanimous consent.

Of course, our critic, Peter Tabuns, is not here at the moment, unfortunately, but I know he anticipates, not with excitement—he is looking forward to speaking to the bill and relaying our concerns but our ultimate support for the provisions built into Bill 103, the Protecting Students Act.

Speaker, one of the things from the outset that I’d like to remind the House is that the bill was originally tabled on October 1, 2013, a full—I heard six months. I haven’t done the math, but it seems like quite a long time ago, half a year ago, when we first introduced any action on behalf of this House to address the nature of the provisions of the bill: protecting students from sexual assault in our schools.

I question the priorities of the government when we see such a long time between the introduction of the bill and our ability to speak to the bill. That being said, we do welcome the opportunity at this point and hope that we can come together in a productive way to work out the details and to of course hopefully make the bill stronger.

Every morning when we enter the House, those who have 9 a.m. House duty have the ability to pray with the Speaker and to join in a moment of reflection. This morning, I woke up knowing that I was to speak on this bill, and I took that moment of reflection the Speaker offered us to be pensive about what this bill means to the children in our communities, in our province, who are at school.

I had an overwhelming feeling of, I guess, discomfort, thinking about how vulnerable children are in society. As the father of two young children, and being away from home so much, it’s not that I miss the good times with them, as a parent; it’s that I have this overwhelming feeling of fear in not being able to be there all the time to protect my kids. I know every other parent in this place feels the same thing, that we are so far away for so long that we aren’t able to offer that protection that I think is really the most important job a parent can do.

I also believe that protection of the public and safety of the public is the most important job that we can do, that we are charged with in this place; not simply tinkering with economic measures or the various other bills that come before this place. When they have an emphasis on public safety, and particularly the safety and welfare of children, it should be our paramount concern and our priority. Unfortunately, again, we see—I’ll have to point out the lag time between the introduction of the bill and the fact that we’re now just starting our leads on it.

It doesn’t bode too well in terms of the confidence that I have in the government to make this a priority. I’m happy to be able to express that sincerely.

The bill recognizes that children are vulnerable in our schools and that there are cases that exist still and may exist in the future that require us to take measures to enforce and to relay to abusers that we take this offence seriously. Particularly, sexual assault and violence against children is one of the most egregious and heinous crimes that a person could commit, not only in Ontario but around the world. I don’t think there’s any jurisdiction that sees these crimes as anything other than that.

So it is incumbent upon us to do absolutely everything that we can to protect them in our school system and to have the mechanisms in place to allow those teachers, within due process, to be charged and to suffer ramifications and suffer the penalties—and they should be harsh. Because again—as I stated, being so far away—we drop off our kids every morning and trust. We give our most precious goods to our educators and to the system, and trust that they in turn are protecting our children in the way that we would ourselves. This bill, I believe, gives them the tools to be able to do that.

That’s why New Democrats are supportive of the provisions of the bill but also, of course, seek to make it stronger and to enshrine and to codify the protection mechanisms and also the penalties that would be built within it.

The amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act largely mirror the 49 recommendations from the 2012 LeSage report. I want to commend the member from Cambridge, who is the critic for the official opposition, who I think had a well-nuanced speech on this bill. I think it was really not the partisan type of rhetoric that we would normally expect around all the bills. He took a very clear approach to what the mechanisms do and how they would work, and I want to commend him on doing that. I certainly appreciate the information that I learned from him today. So thank you to the member from Cambridge.

We seek to work with all members in the House to bring this bill, hopefully expedite the bill, to committee, where we can have a more nuanced debate and discussion, and take in more information, to ensure that we aren’t missing anything. In that, I think New Democrats hold the provisions of due process at the top. In our Criminal Code, we value due process. It is something that jurisdictions around the world look to us to seek guidance on, whether it be at the Supreme Court level or even simply in our provincial courts. We know that our process, in large effect, works well.

We can discuss the punitive measures ad nauseam here, but let’s ensure that process is there and that the rights and responsibilities of everyone are protected.

Many members made reference to ensuring that the identities of the accused prior to being found guilty or convicted should be protected, and I don’t think anyone can argue that fact. We simply have to run the potential scenario through our heads and understand the ramifications of being found guilty before due process. That’s something that I think we all understand in this House.

Of course, on the punitive side, I can’t argue with the member from Cambridge when he says, “How can we, in fact, allow someone who has been found guilty of a heinous crime against a child back into the system, knowing that there is a chance of them repeating that?” I understand that argument. I understand it outside of the context of our education system.

I understand that if someone—a murder case, a case of abuse that doesn’t involve a child; we certainly can’t understand, as civil people, as civil members of our society, that anyone should have the same rights or continue to have the same rights, especially when they’ve created so much long-lasting physiological and psychological damage to someone else.

But Speaker, we do live in a civil society where we recognize that we have systems, we have due process in our courts that allows people to redeem themselves, allows people to try to recover and allows people to pay their debt to society. Whether they do life in prison, or 20 years or 15 years, that is something that is recognized at all levels of our court: that we have a punitive system and that we also allow them to pay their debt. It’s one that I look forward to hearing on both sides of the spectrum at committee. It’s one that I think is a debate that the broader public should have.

But it’s one that is very contentious and, again, I took that moment this morning to reflect on that nature. It’s one that I can only imagine other members in this House are doing the same as they read the contents of this bill.

That provision would be the most contentious provision in the bill. Other than that, I think that many of them involve amendments, again, to the Ontario College of Teachers Act based on the LeSage report: one ensuring that a teacher’s certificate is automatically revoked if he or she has been found guilty of sexual abuse or acts relating to child pornography, and that the teacher can apply for reinstatement after five years. Of course, I just mentioned that it’s one we will need to debate and discuss and take in broader information about.

Again, I hope that we relay that to the people in our constituencies, because ultimately, they have sent us here to make these decisions. Let’s take in as much information from them as possible to make an informed and wise decision that follows, again, the principles of due process in our court system, in our legal system.

In other provisions, “Requiring school boards to inform the college when they have restricted a teacher’s duties or dismissed him or her for misconduct;” as well, “Allowing the college to share information with the school board if the subject of a complaint poses an immediate risk to a student”—I think that that makes sense. An information system to the schools is a safeguard that may relay some confidence to the public and to parents and one that I think makes some sense.

“—Requiring the college to publish all decisions from its discipline committee;

“—Imposing new timelines to resolve cases more quickly and efficiently;

“—Avoiding potential conflicts of interest by preventing union or association representatives from sitting on the college’s council, where college policy is developed and approved;

“—Requiring that a disciplinary panel include a principal or vice-principal when hearing a matter relating to the conduct of a principal or vice-principal.”

Now, those two provisions there will be interesting to hear more about. I look forward to potentially hearing from the Minister of Education about the effects of those provisions: “requiring a disciplinary panel include a principal or vice-principal when hearing a matter relating to the conduct of a principal or vice-principal.” I’m assuming that we will want to take in some institutional knowledge of someone who is in that same position when a disciplinary panel is enacted. That makes sense to me.

But on the other side, just prior to that provision is “avoiding potential conflicts of interest by preventing union or association representatives from sitting on the college’s council, where college policy is developed or approved.” I wonder if those two principles conflict, because unions or associations have an obligation to represent the labour rights of a teacher or of their representative.

They also have a fiduciary responsibility when there are economic impacts on that worker, and it’s not to say that those representatives on the unions or associations wouldn’t, in fact, be on side or would really be biased. I don’t think anybody would think that anyone would be biased, but I think they have an obligation to be represented there. I wonder if we’re missing an opportunity, again, to ensure there is due process and that all relevant bodies are represented when such an important situation is occurring, that we’ve covered all of our bases and all input has been taken in.

Again, I believe that this bill is something that is warranted, and it warrants our immediate attention and warrants us to make it a priority.

I hope that the bill receives, again, an expedited emphasis in this House where the minister makes it a priority and keeps the pressure on this so that we can ensure and infuse some confidence into the broader public, into parents like myself and like the member from Cambridge, like all others who rely on our public school system to provide a good-quality, safe education for our children but also protects them and understands that it is a universe that should be one that promotes the education of children and not, in fact, puts them into vulnerable situations.

Unfortunately, we have some historical reference of where systems have failed our children at large. We have, as the member from Windsor–Tecumseh spoke, the Mount Cashel event, and we have the history of the residential school system in Canada, where so many native children were abused, and we seek reparation for that. We seek to ensure that that never happens again. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is just finalizing their report and submissions. We’ve heard really, really touching testimony on how the system failed.

Here is an opportunity for us to ensure that that never happens again within our public education system. It’s one that I believe is welcomed by all members of this House. It’s a conversation that has really not had an opportunity to be spoken about at large, because—I really don’t know why we haven’t. So many times in this building, politics gets in the way of policy, which is really unfortunate. Here’s an opportunity for us to show the people out there that we can actually do the right thing.

I certainly offer my assistance to the minister and to the government to ensure that this bill receives passage but also that it receives full scrutiny and complies with due process in our democratic process, and also is as strong as it possibly can be, within the Charter of Rights—because we have to be cognizant of that too, of course—but also that all of the provisions that our families out there are asking us to put into the bill are fleshed out and reviewed.

Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. I truly appreciate standing up and giving some comments here.

M me France Gélinas: En francais, deux minutes?

M me France Gélinas: Ah non?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Non.

I certainly hope that members have understood where we’re coming from, here on the Ontario New Democratic side. I welcome comments from my colleagues.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to comment on the remarks by the member from Essex.

I wanted to pick up on a theme that he mentioned, which was co-operation on this. Every so often, this Legislature amazes me when we come together to do the right thing, and I hope that this is going to be one of these areas.

Mr. Justice LeSage made a number of recommendations. This legislation is around implementing those recommendations. I think we’ve heard, in some way or another, from all three parties that there is a lot of consensus around supporting what Mr. Justice LeSage told us and these recommendations.

I want to report to you, Speaker, that we have also had a lot of consensus within the system. We’ve worked very closely with the College of Teachers to implement the recommendations that could be done without legislation. We have also had a lot of co-operation from the various stakeholder organizations in the education sector. So I hope that we can all, both outside this House and inside this House, come together and make this happen quickly.

Just on some of the specific topics that the member from Essex mentioned: He mentioned the matter of frivolous and vexatious complaints. There’s no doubt that the College of Teachers gets complaints against teachers which are not founded. One of the things that the legislation does is allow the registrar of the college to deal with the frivolous and vexatious and get it out of the way more expeditiously so that you’re not taking an innocent teacher and dragging them through the mud.

On the matter of serious sexual misconduct, on the other hand, we have actually gone further than Mr. Justice LeSage recommended and have required mandatory revocation of the licence.

The member raised a couple of other issues. One is the matter of members of teacher union executives not sitting on the governing board of the college, and another is having principals sit on review committees when a principal is subject to review. Actually, in both cases, the same principles are at play. The purpose of the college is to protect the public, i.e. kids. On the other hand, when you come to review, you should have review by your peers. So the principles are consistent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: This has been an interesting day today. I’m quite impressed by the member from Essex, his collegial nature and his comments on our critic, Mr. Leone’s remarks from earlier this morning.

Mr. Leone, of course, is a teacher; he’s a university professor. He spoke of his family—he has a PhD. There are different descriptions of what that acronym stands for.

But I’d just say this: I think there’s agreement here. This bill, again, is another example of the Wynne-McGuinty government trying to slip something in here. This is what concerns me. It troubles me. The bill itself is in response to Justice LeSage—we’re all familiar with where the genesis of this came from—but I’ve heard it from my constituents as well.

The suspicious nature—when we’re dealing with children, there should be no tolerance. If someone has violated—if the crime has been proven, there should be process. We agree with that as well.

The college itself is backed by the union, basically. I hate to say that. In the Royal Commission on Learning that was done by the NDP some years ago, it said that the college should be a professional college, like doctors and nurses, to make it a real profession. But now it’s dominated by the unions so that the number of votes are—I’m a little off topic there; they need to be at arm’s length. If the court has found them guilty, they should never be allowed in a classroom again. Okay? They should be on the list of sexual offenders, predators, if it’s been proven in court.

At the same time, teachers are exposed to vulnerable accusations from people who have other motives. Because I know—my wife and daughter and other members of my family are teachers—it’s a tough job, a very difficult job. But they are leaders, and in that role, they’re respected and they’re held in esteem. And if one of them violates it, it’s ruining the whole profession, so they should be dealt with swiftly and firmly. That’s why I can’t support the bill under

section 6—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

M. Michael Mantha: Ça me fait plaisir de me lever et d’ajouter des commentaires à ceux de mon collègue d’Essex, qui a donné un vraiment bon aperçu du projet de loi et des « concerns » qu’on a comme parti néo-démocrate. Mais aussi, un des sujets qu’il a apporté à notre attention ce matin c’est les priorités du gouvernement. Quand on regarde ce projet de loi-ci, qui a été présenté au mois d’octobre, voilà six mois, ce qui est beaucoup de temps, c’est un projet de loi qui « deserves » l’attention nécessaire. C’est important car on parle de nos enfants à l’école.

Nous voilà où nous avons eu un vraiment bon projet de loi dont on devrait discuter, mais ça fait six mois qu’on ne s’en est pas parlé. Ce que nous questionnons comme parti néo-démocrate : où sont les priorités du gouvernement?

L’autre sujet qu’il a apporté à l’attention de la Chambre, c’est le processus, et faire certain qu’il y a une méthode pour questionner et faire une investigation, non seulement pour la personne qui est probablement coupable d’actions inappropriées envers nos enfants, mais faire certain aussi que les plaintes qui ne sont pas justifiées sont aussi explorées pour faire certain que la bonne représentation est donnée à ces personnes-là, tout en gardant l’idée en tête qu’il y a un processus.

On a une cour judiciaire pour prendre soin des personnes qui sont trouvées coupables et puis que jamais, jamais, on n’excuse que les personnes trouvées coupables—qu’elles sont traitées à la plus haute démarche de notre loi et puis qu’elles absorbent toute pénitence envers elles sur leurs actions envers nos enfants.

Avec ça, aussi, mon collègue et moi avons regardé les implémentations du rapport de M. LeSage. Oui, il y a beaucoup de ces implémentations-là qu’on regarde à implémenter. Merci.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill 103. I want to thank and recognize the thousands of teachers in our public school system across Ontario in terms of supporting our students’ learning needs.

Today is the 63rd annual Sounds of Toronto, a high school music concert at Roy Thomson Hall. Every year it is a successful event bringing all high school students together to perform. I know that hundreds of teachers and students across the Toronto District School Board have volunteered in supporting our student learners. So I want to do a shout-out for them.

With regard to Bill 103, it is there to support and protect our students’ safety. This is of utmost importance. As a former school board trustee, I recognize the importance of the students’ safety, because without safety in our classrooms, without safety in our school environment, a child cannot learn. The proposed legislation, if passed, will ensure greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in terms of the teacher disciplinary process, and furthermore, it lines up with other self-regulated professions. I’m not sure the member for Durham understands that.

At present, in the College of Nurses, as a member of the College of Nurses, if a member is found guilty in terms of sexual abuse: automatic revoking of the licence to practise—end of story. They have to be proven before the courts and there’s a due process that the member talked about earlier.

The other piece here is in the explanatory note. I’m not sure that some of the members have read it. I want to read it on record.

Section 3, of the explanatory note: “The new subsection 17(2.1) provides that a panel of a committee that hears or reviews a matter relating to a principal or vice-principal must include at least one person who is or was a principal or vice-principal.” Again, that ensures transparency.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Essex, you have two minutes for a response.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank the Minister of Education for clarifying some of my questions. Again, I look forward to having, a little bit, even, a clearer perspective on these two provisions when it comes to the reforms to who is represented on the college and also—but I do understand the nature of having someone, a principal, attend a disciplinary panel. So thank you for that, members from Durham, Scarborough–Agincourt et mon ami, le membre pour Algoma–Manitoulin.

Again, I can’t reiterate enough that this should be a priority in this House for all members. I will do my part to ensure that our caucus and our party applies enough pressure on the government to make it a priority. I see it as something that I think will resonate within the broader community and parents across Ontario, one that is needed, of course, to promote safe schools, to promote the values that we hold near and dear to our school system—that it is a safe place and we do not accept any form of abuse.

We do not tolerate it, and we will impart or push the full extent of the law, and use the full extent of the law, and strengthen those laws to ensure that our children feel safe and our families and parents and feel safe sending our kids to school, and that it is an environment where only learning and love and happiness exists. This is how we can do it, through some of the mechanisms in this bill.

I look forward to it receiving a vote through second reading and going to committee, where we can hear more testimony from experts who I’m sure are looking forward to discussing this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member from Burlington.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’m pleased to rise to join the debate around Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 with respect to discipline and other related matters. The lawyers are probably happy with that one, but I think I’ll stick with the snappier name, the Protecting Students Act.

This legislation is, of course, geared to making certain key changes to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and reflects some of the important recommendations of the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, stemming from his 2011-12 review of the college’s investigation and disciplinary procedures, the outcomes of same and also dispute resolution programs. In August 2011, he was retained by the Ontario College of Teachers to review its intake, investigation and discipline procedures and outcomes, and its dispute resolution program, and to consider whether or not they protect the public interest.

He was also asked, more specifically, to examine and consider issues including communication and publication practices; impartiality and timelines; training and legal support; appropriateness of disciplinary outcomes; confidentiality; and the handling of concerns about its members. As part of that process, he undertook discussions with key stakeholder groups and other interested parties and reviewed relevant reports.

Some of the recommendations of that report have been acted on already. Last January, the college began posting the outcomes of disciplinary procedures on their website, in the interests of transparency. But of course, some of the recommendations require legislative change, which is why we are debating Bill 103 here today.

As Justice LeSage noted in his report, it is an enormous privilege to self-regulate. As John F. Kennedy once said, to whom much is given, much is expected.

In his report, Justice LeSage concluded that the college faces two essential challenges: transparency and efficiency. Moreover, the college, like any self-regulating body, is in place first and foremost to safeguard the public interest. To this end, all of his recommendations focus on allowing the college to be more transparent and efficient, thereby serving the public interest most effectively. These are measures designed to enhance parents’ confidence in the system; empower educators themselves to regulate their own profession more effectively; and improve and optimize the investigation and disciplinary process, which had become burdensome and non-transparent over time.

It is also hoped that Justice LeSage’s report will help differentiate, in the minds of the public and parents, the distinct roles and functions of the College of Teachers and individual school boards. It is hoped that this increased understanding improves not just institutional transparency but also familiarity, comfort, confidence and trust.

So we turn to Bill 103. Were the bill before us to be approved, all of Justice LeSage’s 49 recommendations would be implemented, either through the proposed statutory amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and associated regulations, or by the Ontario College of Teachers through bylaw or policy.

Some of the notable provisions of Bill 103 include:

—publishing all decisions of the college’s discipline committee;

—outlining clear rules for the use of the alternative dispute resolution process, and confirming that no cases involving sexual abuse, sexual misconduct or child pornography would be eligible for alternative dispute resolution;

—clarifying when school boards must inform the Ontario College of Teachers of cases where the board has restricted the duties of a teacher or dismissed them for misconduct;

—empowering the Ontario College of Teachers to take swift action and share information with the school board if it is determined that the subject of the complaint may pose an immediate risk to the student;

—imposing timelines to resolve cases at the investigation stage, when appropriate;

—requiring that a panel hearing a matter relating to a principal or vice-principal must include a principal or vice-principal; and

—ensuring a teacher’s certificate is automatically revoked if they have been found guilty of specific acts of sexual abuse, or for acts relating to child pornography.

On this final point, I should note, as other members of my caucus have, that if a teacher has their certificate revoked, they are at liberty to reapply and have their certificate reinstated after a five-year period has passed. This is a jarring and unsettling detail, Speaker. The notion that teachers who have ruined the lives of children will be able to rejoin the ranks of educators after just five years is problematic. I think most parents, and indeed most people across Ontario, would argue that this penalty is far too flimsy. We must ensure that tougher penalties are in place for those who target and take advantage of the most vulnerable among us.

The repercussions of these kinds of incidents can linger for years, if not a lifetime. Just as the influence of an exceptional teacher can open a young person to new possibilities, a negative influencer such as an abuser could wall them off and skew their entire world view.

Childhood and adolescence is a formative period, as we are all well aware, and Bill 103 does not appear to truly take that to heart. We need to protect students from violence, both sexual and nonsexual, and the idea that a teacher who has committed such

an act could go back to work after five years is chilling, to be perfectly frank.

In addition to this glaring flaw, I think that the detail around incident reporting could be made more robust. It is essential that we do our best to ensure that our young people are safe.

While I was encouraged to hear the minister speak about the need for an open and transparent investigative process with regard to cases of sexual abuse or child pornography, I would suggest that making this aspect of the process stronger and fairer only raises more questions about why the penalties attached to these offences are so slight. If the most even-handed and level-headed legal process concludes that a teacher has committed these grossly inappropriate or indecent acts, why then would we leave the door open to the possibility of repeat offences?

As it turns out, we have heard government members speak out along these same lines, saying we need to make sure that type of situation is never repeated again. The minister herself indicated as much, saying, “We don’t believe there is any reasonable circumstance where there is a confirmed case of sexual abuse or child pornography where a teacher should be able to keep their teaching certificate.”

This invites the question: If that is indeed the government’s thinking, why has this legislation included the five-year reinstatement provision? Is it a failsafe against an investigative and review mechanism that is sufficiently flawed that measures such as this are needed? Is it because on some level they worry that in rare cases the complaints process invites abuse for false complaints? If that is so, maybe we need to go over these aspects of the legislation and repair them at source so that the legislation serves both students and educators to the best of its ability. This bill does not go nearly far enough.

Steeper and stiffer penalties will draw the lines clearly and protect professional standards.

For our part, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party would prohibit any teacher found to have committed sexual violence against a student from having their certificate reinstated. We owe that much peace of mind to Ontario parents and to children.

At the same time, we also can’t offer enough praise for the excellent work that our educators do, often under trying circumstances and while trying to balance a range of interests. We are blessed to have the perspective of a number of educators and school board trustees in this very Legislature. In our own caucus, I believe there are a number of former teachers and members either married or related to teachers. This seasons their debate and helps to really enrich the quality of discussion around bills such as this one before us today.

Teachers, of course, are regularly called to go above and beyond, and to that benefit of our children and our society they do so unflinchingly. We have all seen the limits of this conviction in tragic news stories around school shootings where teachers have laid down their lives for—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce Don Standen, his son, Matt Standen, and a local reporter from our area, Denis Langlois. Welcome to Queen’s Park and have a fabulous day.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce, sitting in the west members’ gallery, Thomas Blackmore, who is here today to watch the proceedings. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Thomas.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I just noticed that Tim Jones from Artscape is here. I’d like to welcome him to the chamber today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome Jason Nicol to the public galleries today. Jason is the father of our page from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Kathryn Nicol. Welcome, Jason.

Hon. Michael Coteau: On behalf of my colleague from Don Valley West, I’d like to introduce Myung Joo Kim, mother of Justin Kim, who will be joining us later today in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Rob Leone: I notice that my good friend Tommy Blackmore is here today to witness question period in its fine form.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure today to welcome, in the west gallery later this morning, members from the company TransAlta, from Alberta, who are visiting us here today—and many members have installations in their ridings—they are: Mr. Brian Heaman and Ms. Laura Arnold. I ask you to welcome them to the Legislature today.

Mrs. Gila Martow: A class from Thornlea public school in my riding is supposed to be visiting today. I’m not sure if they made it yet, but I wanted to introduce them.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to extend a special welcome to Mr. Wayne Clancy, who is president and chief innovation officer for Future Strategies Inc.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to draw the attention of the members of the assembly to Mr. Don Jaffray, the executive director of the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton. He’s also a member of our cabinet committee on poverty reduction. He’s here to watch the House today.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome Tim Jones from Artscape, Meagan Boyle and Clark Rabbior to the Legislature this morning. Welcome, Tim, to your first question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to draw the attention of the House to the Speaker’s gallery. With us, we have a former member from the 37th, 38th, 39th—and Speaker for the 39th—Parliament, from Elgin–Middlesex–London, Speaker Steve Peters—my other brother that’s not Joe.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery, I have visitors from the riding of Brant: the manager of developmental services for the Family Counselling Centre of Brant, Mr. Keith Anderson, and his guest, Robert Rowe. Welcome, and we’re glad you’re here with us.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Acting Premier: Today the OPP claimed that they don’t know exactly when 20 of the 24 computers were illegally accessed by Peter Faist. How can you stand in this assembly and say definitively that no computers were accessed after February 11 when the OPP stated today they could have been accessed up until March 20? Can you tell me exactly what you know that the OPP doesn’t?

Hon. John Milloy: I think members of the Legislature are aware that an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police appeared in front of the justice committee this morning. He had two messages for that committee. The first is that the investigation is centred on the former chief of staff to Premier McGuinty and that, in fact, it had nothing to do with the current Premier. In fact, I invite members to go on the Globe and Mail website. They may enjoy the headline of the

article that’s up about that appearance, “No Evidence Wynne Oversaw Document Purge, OPP Says.”

The second thing, and this is just as important, that the OPP conveyed to the committee is that politicians should stay out of OPP investigations, that politicians have no business in OPP investigations and that a politician getting involved in an OPP investigation may, in fact, put that investigation in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member should follow the advice of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would suggest that the honourable minister actually check the transcripts. I actually sat through committee, and here’s what else he said. He said those computers could have been accessed up until March 20. He said that the Premiers’ transition from Mr. McGuinty to Ms. Wynne happened almost immediately. He said that people that were staffing the transition between Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty happened almost on a daily basis. He also said he enjoyed appearing before our committee.

I’m going to ask you again: what could you possibly know about the access of these computers that the OPP doesn’t know? How can you stand here in the Legislature and say without a shadow of a doubt that no computers were wiped under the watch of the Wynne administration? Are you now taking a page out of Laura Miller’s book and calling the OPP liars?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. I know that this is a certain time in our history where things get heated. I’m going to offer caution to all members. There is my concern about parliamentary language, and let’s just make sure we don’t go there.

The Acting Premier.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m quite happy to quote from officer Duval of the Ontario Provincial Police, who appeared in front of the committee. Let me give one exchange he had with the member from Toronto–Danforth. Here is the quote: “I can tell you that based on the information-to-obtain that I produced, it’s centred on the action of Mr. David Livingston only.”

I’d also like to share with the honourable members what the officer had to say as well: “I’ve been an officer for 17 years. It is an unusual request for a detective or an investigator to testify on the evidence that’s been uncovered, as we are doing during this investigation. It’s very unusual. But please understand that if you require me to answer questions on specific evidence, I could potentially threaten the prosecution on any criminal offences that may resolve from this investigation. There is a significant public interest in preserving the integrity of a criminal investigation.”

I know that the honourable member likes staying up late watching Ellery Queen on television, but let’s leave this to the Ontario Provincial Police.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I actually have a Netflix program for the minister to watch, Orange Is the New Black. I hope you look good in orange.

I’d like to say this to the minister: What the OPP detective constable also said to the assembly is that while David Livingston is right now the person of interest, they could potentially expand their search warrants as well as potential ITOs. That means you’re not out of the clear yet, my friend.

I have a question for the Acting Premier. If they’re so concerned—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Education will come to order, the Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order, and it’s a little late, but the Minister of the Environment will come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Why didn’t the government launch an internal investigation into the destruction of documents, or the alleged destruction of documents, after the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, stated in her report in June 2013 that that had happened? Were you afraid of what the results might be because you knew Peter Faist was still on the payroll with the Liberal Party?

Hon. John Milloy: I would remind the member that when the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report came out, we responded almost immediately to all of her non-legislative recommendations. Action was taken to put in place the proper regime for record-keeping. I would also point her to a piece of legislation which has been introduced in this Legislature which responds to some of the legislative recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

This Premier—

Interjection.

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

Hon. John Milloy: Premier Wynne has taken her obligation very, very seriously, and we have seen significant activity over the past year to make sure that documents are properly maintained by this government.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Acting Premier: It’s very clear that the Premier did not take her job seriously. She pretends she wasn’t Premier of Ontario for six weeks between February and March of last year.

On March 19, your deputy director of human resources, Emily Marangoni, advised the manager of information technology to remove the special administrative rights used by Peter Faist. How did Emily Marangoni know to have this access removed on March 19, and why did she do so on March 19? Answer the question.

Hon. John Milloy: Let’s go back to this morning. We had an officer of the Ontario Provincial Police appear in front of the committee—he himself admitted that this is an extraordinary situation—in which he outlined two things. First of all, the investigation involves Mr. David Livingston—there are allegations which are not proven; this is a very serious matter—and the time in which Premier McGuinty was in office. The second thing that he stressed is that it is not for members of Parliament, it is not for elected politicians, to try to play amateur detective here.

Let us allow the Ontario Provincial Police to undertake their work. They will reach whatever conclusions they reach, and then we will be in a position to respond.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the Acting Premier wants to talk about amateur hour, he should read the ITO reference to his government and their previous Premier and what bureaucrats said about their government.

But anyway, I will go back to this: What we know is that the OPP could charge further individuals. We do know computers could have been accessed up until March 20. We do know that the Premier’s transition took place almost immediately, and it confirmed that when Kathleen Wynne won the leadership on January 26, she took access to that office almost immediately.

When was the first time the Premier, the Minister of Government Services, who is also the House leader, and the Deputy Premier met with David Livingston or any member of her transition team to discuss the deleted emails and the gas plants scandal? Let us know, please.

Interjections.

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

Acting Premier?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I will go to Officer Duval of the Ontario Provincial Police and quote his words: “I can tell you that based on the information to obtain that I’ve produced, it centred”—obviously he means the investigation—“on the action of Mr. David Livingston only.” In fact, the member from Toronto–Danforth goes on and says, “Have more warrants been executed than this?” And the officer says, “No.”

You’re not getting anywhere across the way with this. Again, let me remind members what some of the media are saying about this dog and pony show. Globe and Mail, April 1: “The Conservative leader’s aggressive attempts to score points without the facts to back them up are reminding Ontario voters why they haven’t warmed up to him.”

The Toronto Star, April 1: The Leader of the Opposition “went far beyond what the facts show.”

Toronto Star, April 1: “Every time” the leader—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I can go on.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you can’t.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The reality here is that this is a government that is not telling the true story to the people of this province. They’re not telling the whole story to the people of this province; it is very clear from the OPP’s ITO. We know, for example, that these computers could have been accessed up until March 20. We know that the transition took place very quickly between the former Premier and the current Premier. We know, for example, that many members of that former Premier’s staff are still working with this government, including in that minister’s office.

Now, let’s talk about David Nicholl. You threw him under the bus yesterday. When is Kathleen Wynne going to send you out of town, too?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy, I’m trying to address. As I warned earlier, this is getting desperately close. That was too close for my comfort, and I’ll ask the member—and all members—to refrain from making any references whatsoever to truth-telling.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m a very patient individual. I’ll quote Officer Duval once again. In an exchange with the member from Toronto–Danforth about the investigation, he said, “I can tell you that based on the information to obtain that I produced, it’s centred”—meaning the investigation—“on the actions of Mr. David Livingston only.”

But let me go back to my quotes. I never thought I’d do this, but I’m going to quote Margaret Wente in this morning’s Globe: “Despite the rantings of the Progressive Conservative leader … there’s nothing to link” the Premier “to the gas plant scandal....

“Even my conservative friends ... think” the Leader of the Opposition “is bad news. He comes across as a small-town bully. His political misjudgments just keep piling up. His attacks on” the Premier “over the gas plant scandal are both shrill and unnecessary.”

I think Margaret Wente speaks for herself.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Does the Liberal government believe that Liberal operatives should be offering their full co-operation to the OPP’s investigation into the gas plant scandal?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I will go to the OPP officer, Mr. Duval, who appeared in front of the committee, and I will provide a quote of what he said this morning: “It is my understanding, however, that the OPP has received co-operation from senior government officials in this matter. There has never been an issue.”

The government has provided full co-operation. In terms of the committee itself, members are aware that the Premier has appeared several times; I’ve appeared in front of the committee; the Minister of Energy. We are offering the fullest co-operation to the Ontario Provincial Police as they undertake this very important undertaking.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact is, this morning at committee, the OPP confirmed that Liberal operatives, including one who worked for the Ontario Liberal Party up until this very weekend, declined to provide a statement to the OPP. Does the Acting Premier think that’s acceptable?

Hon. John Milloy: I would urge anyone who the OPP approaches to be fully co-operative. As I said, on this side of the Legislature, when it comes to anyone who is involved with or works for our government, we have been fully co-operative. The OPP confirmed that this morning.

I think there have been other references that were made in front of the committee about the co-operation with this government. We certainly take this matter seriously, but at the same time, I provide the same caution to the leader of the third party: What we learned this morning from the Ontario Provincial Police is that it’s best for politicians not to involve themselves in an investigation and to allow the OPP to reach conclusions independently and not jeopardize the proceedings.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can the Acting Premier tell us why key Liberal operatives, Liberals who he and his team worked with for many years and through many campaigns, may have refused to talk to police? Does he know why they would have wanted to refuse to talk to police?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, all I can do is quote the officer—I apologize to the inspector; I should have used his proper title. Inspector André Duval with the OPP said, “It is my understanding, however, that the OPP has received co-operation from senior government officials in this matter.”

The OPP have clearly stated at the committee this morning, and also in the documents before the court, that in this case the accusations are against one person—they are unfounded accusations—Mr. David Livingston, the former chief of staff to the former Premier. The OPP obviously has freedom to ask or question any individual. Of course, I would encourage everyone to co-operate fully with them.

Speaking on behalf of the government, I can say that our government is co-operating, as was outlined by Inspector Duval this morning.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. We learned today that the government’s own cybersecurity unit was conducting an active internal investigation of the wiping of data in the Premier’s office. Was the Premier’s office aware of this?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, there is an active OPP investigation going on. As has been outlined in the documents that were produced on Thursday in the court, it involves the actions of the former chief of staff to the former Premier, Mr. David Livingston. They are serious allegations; everyone acknowledges that. They are unproven.

What we learned at committee this morning are two things. First of all, they involved that period of time when Premier McGuinty was Premier, not the current Premier. The second is that we should not be conducting police investigations here on the floor of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That’s why they should have called a public inquiry a year ago, Speaker.

The Premier has indicated that she was in the dark about key details of computers being wiped in the Premier’s office until newspaper reports emerged, Speaker. Now, how is that possible if the government’s own cybersecurity unit was investigating?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, last Thursday, there were some documents made public about an investigation that was being undertaken by the Ontario Provincial Police. That document spoke about one individual who there are accusations about, and that was confirmed in front of the committee this morning. What it said, Mr. Speaker, was that they were pursuing these accusations, potential wrongdoing on the course of Mr. David Livingston, the former chief of staff to the former Premier. What we heard this morning, Mr. Speaker, was a confirmation of that. It did not involve the current Premier, who has answered numerous questions here in the Legislature and to the media.

The other piece of advice, Mr. Speaker, is that politicians should keep their noses out of this, and we shouldn’t be having a police investigation here on the floor of the Legislature.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Speaker, I hope the Liberals have learned a lot more than that from what’s going on with the gas plant scandal cover-up.

Speaker, the Liberal government keeps insisting that they will be open and accountable—that they are open and accountable—and that they will be sharing all information. But what people see are key Liberal operatives refusing to respond to OPP requests for interviews and a Premier who is frantically firing people and acting shocked when the public hears details of multiple investigations going on under her nose and in her office.

Is this the brand of Liberal accountability that the people of Ontario expect? Is this good enough for the people of Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: No, Mr. Speaker, what they are seeing is theatrics on the part of the opposition, who are trying to position themselves as police officers. This is a very serious matter, and the fact of the matter is, there is a tradition in this province that when the police are undertaking their work, politicians get out of their way.

I have some quotes for the NDP as well. Let me quote the Toronto Star on March 30: The leader of the NDP “indulged in conventional opposition mischief by implying police were ‘now focusing on questions about the period after’” the Premier was “‘sworn in and became Premier’—a clear misreading of the OPP documents.”

The Globe and Mail, March 31: “There is nothing in the documents that suggests any records were deleted after Ms. Wynne was sworn into office on February 11, 2013.”

Let’s let these third parties speak for themselves in the analysis of the mischief that is going on from the opposition.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan American Games. Minister, you’ve commissioned a shipyard in Belfast, Maine, to custom-build you a 45-foot limousine boat for the games. Let me remind you: Limousine boating is not a Pan Am sport. Neither is exotic Liberal spending.

Since there’s no limo boat line item in the Pan Am budget, can you please tell the taxpayers, Minister, how much will this ship cost?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, another question, another—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Michael Chan: —the Pan/Parapan American Games. Speaker, what the member opposite is doing is, he wants to tear down the Hamilton stadium; he wants to tear down the Milton Velodrome; he wants to tear down the aquatic centre; he wants to tear down the athletes’ village.

The members opposite, Speaker, want to run down our athletes who have been training their whole lives to compete in these games. They want to run down the coaches who prepare our great athletes. They want to run down our games planners and everything they work so hard for. Speaker, they want to tear down our relationships with PASO nations. They want to tear down the spirit of the games.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Minister, if there is anyone responsible for tearing down and destroying the spirit of the Pan Am Games, it’s you.

Minister, hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending. You have awarded yet another foreign contract, to Trefoil Marine, to build your lavish limo boat plus three water taxis. Clearly, you don’t know anything about this, so let me fill you in. This company is renowned for tech-savvy and high cost. Even the company president has said, “People would look at the price and say, ‘They’re out of their mind,’ but that’s the price they go for.” And just because you want to be cool in front of your dignitary friends doesn’t mean you can help yourself to unlimited taxpayer funds.

Minister, I’m going to ask you again: How much money is your limo boat costing to build, transport here, and operate?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do.

Carry on.

Hon. Michael Chan: We are working very hard to deliver the Pan Am Games. According to the president of PASO, the international body for Pan Am—the president said, “Ontario will host the best-ever Pan and Parapan American Games”—in Ontario.

Look at our standing. So far, the capital projects are all on time, on budget or under budget. Recently, we re-forecasted the budget down $49 million. That’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Michael Chan: Recently, again, we rolled out the transportation framework and we rolled out the security framework. We are building the best-ever games in Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. When Peter Faist was allegedly in the Premier’s office deleting emails, he had a contract with the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus.

Can the Acting Premier tell Ontarians who was paying Peter Faist for his work at that time? Was it the Liberal Party or the caucus?

Hon. John Milloy: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I’m a very, very patient individual. We have commented before on Peter Faist and his work that he did for the Liberal caucus under the former Premier, and the work that he did under the Ontario Liberal Party.

The honourable member is standing up here today and asking what I believe are detailed questions related to an ongoing police investigation. I’m quite shocked, considering the fact that he was in committee this morning and would have heard Inspector Duval give a very clear warning to members of the Legislature of the fact that you respect the police investigation, and you do not conduct a police investigation on the floor of the Legislature.

In fact, he may himself be jeopardizing the police investigation by engaging in this type of behaviour in the Legislature. It really is beneath that honourable member.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I believe these are straightforward questions, and I expect a straightforward answer from the Acting Premier.

OPP documents allege that Peter Faist came into the Premier’s office and wiped out computers, and was under contract to the Liberal Party and caucus. Will the government provide Peter Faist’s invoices for his work that day and for any other work wiping out government computers?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, we have spoken in the House about Peter Faist’s involvement both with the Liberal caucus service bureau and the Ontario Liberal Party—the first, under the former Premier, and the second, up until last Sunday. We have offered this information to the proper authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make clear that we will let the police reach whatever conclusions they want. We have no indication that the invoices or any of the work done are in any way related to the allegations about the former chief of staff in the former Premier’s office.

Again, I warn the honourable member, as Inspector Duval said this morning, “If you require me to answer questions on specific evidence, I could potentially threaten the prosecution on any criminal offences that may resolve from this investigation.”

I think all members should take the advice of Inspector Duval to heart.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last year, the government announced a number of changes to social assistance across the province. These changes were a first step in a plan to reform Ontario’s social assistance programs, with the objective of removing barriers and increasing opportunities for everyone to participate in the workforce.

Since the start of the process to reform social services in the province, many of my constituents in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell would like to know what changes they can expect. Some constituents have mentioned that there might be a merger of Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program. Speaker, though you, can the minister clarify if this merger is in our government’s plans, and could he let us know of the good work being done to reform social assistance in Ontario?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m delighted to respond to the honourable member’s question. I want to speak a bit about our future plans for social assistance reform. In particular, I get a lot of questions about the merger of OW and ODSP. Our government is committed to making social assistance work better for our clients. Our plan is guided by the advice we received from the Lankin-Sheikh report and by the conversations we’re having with clients, advocates and other partners.

Let me be very clear about something: Our government has considered the recommendation that both programs be merged, but we believe keeping them intact is the best way forward. For this reason we will not—I repeat, not—be merging the two programs. We’ve heard loud and clear from virtually everybody that this isn’t the way to go. So we’re looking forward to improving the programs as they exist.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you very much, Minister.

There’s always an interest in the way social assistance programs are delivered across this great province, and providing services in an effective manner is important. Ontarians expect services that are easy to access and are responsive to their needs. However, it’s absolutely crucial that social assistance recipients understand that reform is necessary at times to ensure that the system works better for the long term.

Speaker, it’s very quiet in here. The minister indicated that Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program will not be merged.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It was. Please finish.

Mr. Grant Crack: The minister indicated that Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program will not be merged. Could he please tell us if there are still ways we can improve how the programs operate or if recipients should expect the status quo?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The Speaker needs help, but not necessarily that kind.

Absolutely not. It means that instead of spending time on merging programs, we’re focusing on making both programs work better at supporting people and removing barriers to employment. Our multi-year reform plan has four objectives: to motivate and support people to be successful in the workforce; to provide more adequate assistance; to deliver modern, responsive services; and ensure public confidence in the system. We are making progress on harmonizing the rules and benefits. We are making practical improvements to benefit clients—

Interjection: We’ve come a long way.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —like testing peer mentors to help clients achieve their employment goals. Indeed, Minister, we have come a long way.

Social assistance affects almost 900,000 people every day. Reform is taking time. We are doing it right by consulting with the people.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last November, the members of this House unanimously passed my private member’s resolution to set up an all-party committee to study transportation needs in rural and northern Ontario. We are now into the spring session and over four months of no action from your government. Minister, will you agree to honour the wish of this House so this committee can be set up?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Interjection.

Hon. John Milloy: Okay, I’ll take it. Oh, I guess I can’t.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You cannot. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen Murray: The government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s interesting. The fact of the matter is that the honourable member is talking about a process question. The fact is that our government has been very proud of its record of activity when it comes to northern Ontario, when it comes to rural areas, when it comes to the subject areas that he puts forward, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think we necessarily need another committee in order to take the type of action which I know that the Minister of Transportation has taken and is going to take over the coming months as we deal with these transportation issues throughout these areas throughout the province. We don’t need another committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that’s the typical answer that we get when we talk about rural Ontario.

Again, back to the Minister of Transportation. Hopefully, he’ll pay more attention and give me a good answer this time. Minister, you know that presently in rural and northern Ontario, public transportation is essentially nonexistent. You have heard through me and through rural and northern residents, as well as anti-poverty groups including the United Way, how critical it is that we action this transportation study.

Following the cutbacks by Via Rail and Greyhound bus services and your government’s divestiture of Ontario Northland, as many as two million people in some 390 communities north of the GTA today can’t readily access transportation to get to work, to doctors’ appointments or to visit family and friends.

Again, Minister, will you do the right thing? Will you set up this all-party committee immediately?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Acting Premier.

Hon. John Milloy: The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I just want to try and get my head around what the member is trying to suggest here, because when his party was in power, the last few years they were in power, they spent $1.4 billion on infrastructure, which was an all-time low. Today, we’re spending $14 billion a year on infrastructure. We are spending $10 in rural Ontario for infrastructure for every $1 the Conservatives spent. So this party that’s supposed to be pro-rural spent 10 cents for every dollar we spend on rural infrastructure.

The reason the honourable member has so many problems is because his party in power did what his federal party continues to do: cancel Via, cut back service, cancel projects, and that’s why we have a problem. We don’t need a committee; we need to keep spending the way we are and investing in rural Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Liberal government has denied knowing anything about the police investigation. But today, in the justice committee, our witness, Detective Constable Duval from the anti-rackets branch of the OPP, indicated that the OPP was interviewing current political staff in this building and during business hours.

How is it possible that the government had no inkling of what was happening while police were roaming the halls and conducting interviews of these people?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I suggest that after question period, the honourable member may want to go to the Globe and Mail website and read the headline of their coverage of what Inspector Duval said today and the conclusion they reached: that in fact none of this activity occurred under the current Premier.

He may also want to take a lesson from Inspector Duval when he warned legislators that their job is not to interfere in police investigations. It may even hamper it.

What’s interesting is that the member from Vaughan asked a number of questions of the inspector. The first set of questions involved the scurrilous allegations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, if they were true or supported by the ITO. Inspector Duval gave a very simple answer: “No.”

Then the member from Vaughan said, “I notice in reviewing the ITO and looking at the list of names that in fact”—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I trust the discretion of Detective Constable Duval in answering the questions that he thought were appropriate, and I ask the Acting Premier to answer this next question.

There were OPP investigators at Queen’s Park over the course of weeks. There were around half a dozen visits and at least 14 interviews conducted in this building, but somehow the government claims that they knew nothing about this investigation until last week.

Does the Acting Premier understand why Ontarians would have a difficult time understanding this or accepting this?

Hon. John Milloy: I think it has been a matter of public record that the OPP have been investigating for some time.

What happened last Thursday is that some documents were made public by the court. In them were some accusations, very serious accusations, against a former chief of staff to the former Premier, and at that time, the Premier indicated that that’s the first she had learned of them; I think for most Ontarians it was the first that they had learned of them.

But, again, let me go back to the exchange with Inspector Duval and the member from Vaughan: “So to be clear, if an individual’s name is listed in this ITO, does that necessarily mean they have committed a crime or they have actually engaged in any wrongdoing?” “No.”

Then the member from Vaughan said, “I noticed in reviewing the ITO and looking at the list of names that, in fact, even members of the PC caucus and the NDP caucus are listed in the ITO. Just out of curiosity, why are the names in the ITO?” The inspector answered, “Some of them were witnesses for this police investigation.”

The fact is, the police have undertaken their work, and as Inspector Duval cautioned, we should allow them to—

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

Interjections.

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

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le Ministre du Développement économique, du Commerce et de l’Emploi, the Honourable Eric Hoskins. Unlike my colleague from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, I actually don’t mind the quiet.

My question concerns our government’s commitment to become North America’s leading jurisdiction for social enterprises, to encourage businesses to have a positive social, cultural and environmental impact while, of course, generating revenue. That is our positive plan to create jobs and grow our economy.

In September, Ontario launched its social enterprise strategy, a comprehensive plan to grow the sector, which already represents 10,000 social enterprises across the province, 68% of which have a focus on poverty reduction. We are creating the conditions for businesses to thrive in a socially conscious way, especially important in my own riding of Etobicoke North.

My question is this: Can the minister please inform the House about our accomplishments in social enterprise?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Social enterprises, as the member just said, are businesses and not-for-profits that have positive social, environmental and cultural impacts. Ontario is already a leading jurisdiction in social enterprise, but our goal is to make Ontario the number one jurisdiction in North America for social enterprise.

We have created the Office for Social Enterprise in my ministry to support this initiative. As part of our strategy, the government has launched a $4-million social enterprise demonstration fund that builds the capacity of our early-stage high-growth social enterprises.

We also are working to connect social enterprises with global investors. It will be a $1-trillion market globally within the decade. We want our social enterprises to be able to tap into that market, so we partnered with Social Capital Markets, with MaRS and with the Royal Bank of Canada to host an international social finance conference just last month here in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Minister, speaking doctor to doctor, I appreciate your overview. I know my community of Etobicoke North will be pleased to hear that our government has been active in connecting investors and social entrepreneurs, especially since many social enterprises hire youth and other vulnerable communities. My own riding, like many members in this House, having a large youth population, I have many conversations with constituents about the strides that we are making for their jobs and social enterprise strategies.

I believe it’s important that we have taken the initiative to establish an office to coordinate social enterprise activities across government. This, of course, will streamline the process.

My question is this: What are the other supports that we have developed to help the social enterprise sector develop and thrive in this globalized economy?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: We have also supported the establishment and launch of the Social Venture Connection, an exchange which is the first North American social finance platform that connects impact investors with investment-ready social enterprises. We have also announced we are moving forward with social impact bonds.

But I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge again Tim Jones, the CEO of Artscape, a great social enterprise here in Toronto that strengthens arts and culture. Tim was recently awarded a very prestigious international honour from the Schwab Foundation and has been named Social Entrepreneur of the Year. Congratulations, Tim. He’s just an example of one of the many talented social entrepreneurs and social enterprises here in this province that we are working hard to support.

RONDEAU PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. With cottage leases set to expire at the end of 2017, the Rondeau Cottagers Association has fought to keep the 120-year-old community intact. You have been co-operative, as have previous MNR ministers. The cottagers were relieved when you told them that there was no appetite to throw them out.

However, a letter to the cottagers dated March 25 from assistant deputy minister Tracey Mill stated that it is the ministry’s goal to “restore and rehabilitate the park to its natural state. This will continue to be the goal of the ministry for the years ahead.”

Minister, cottagers are rightly concerned that her statement means that the cottages are doomed for demolition. These are mixed messages. Minister, my question is: Is the removal of the cottages within Rondeau imminent and, if so, will you make the final—

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

Minister.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. The member opposite knows full well that we have been working together on this. Senior staff from my office met with him on February 12 of this year to discuss this issue.

I don’t believe the messages are incompatible in the sense that we’re doing everything that we can to ensure that the ecological integrity of the park is maintained. As the member opposite knows, there’s a high number of endangered species in this park area. This is the last area of Carolinian forest in the province, contained within this park, and there are 285 cottage leases in this park, as well, that have been extended over 21-year periods of time for a number of years.

We need to get this right. As the member knows, we are committed to working with him and the cottagers to find a solution moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: The 420-foot dock at Rondeau Provincial Park was extensively damaged by ice over this harsh winter. A local petition to save it has gathered over 1,000 signatures online, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have added their support for the repair of the pier. The Rondeau Cottagers Association is even open to negotiations to help pay for the repairs.

This pier was used for swimming, fishing, walking, and even enjoyed by many residents in my community and tourists—for decades. The “big dock,” as it’s called, is unique to Rondeau and a main attraction.

Respectfully, Minister, in the words of the anglers in my riding: “Are we going to fish or continue to cut bait?” Can you say today that the historical structure will not be removed from the park, and repaired this year?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, thanks to the member for the question. One of the challenges with respect to this park, as the member knows full well, is that cottagers in the park have benefited from payment in lieu by the ministry, which has totalled almost $900,000 a year in taxes being paid to the community of Chatham-Kent in lieu of taxes that probably should have been paid by cottagers.

The ministry is under incredible pressure with respect to these types of infrastructure investments. We have these types of needs all across the province, and we want to prioritize and use our resources as best as possible to remediate and improve these types of infrastructure projects.

Again, we’re committed to working with the member, and I look forward to a solution moving forward. As the member also knows, there were environmental and economic studies that were supposed to be done. They are nearing completion. We should be able to release those in the next several weeks, and we’ll have more to say about that. I look forward to working with the member.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Acting Premier. Does the Acting Premier think that the people of Ontario should be paying for partisan ads that promote the governing party instead of the public interest?

Hon. John Milloy: Absolutely not, which is why when we came to power we were so offended. One of the first things that we did was to undo the practice of the former Progressive Conservative Party, which used taxpayers’ money. I remember, as an Ontarian, being disgusted by the countless flyers of a partisan nature that I was receiving in my mailbox, which were put forward by the government and paid for with taxpayers’ money but were in fact promoting the Progressive Conservative Party.

That’s why, when we came to power, we passed legislation—in 2004, I believe it was—to make sure that in those three key areas of radio and TV, newspapers and billboards—that those ads would be looked at by the Auditor General to make sure that they serve the appropriate purpose that they were put out for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Acting Premier: That legislation has got loopholes so big, you can drive a train through the darned things.

I ask you again: We know that in the last three months you spent $30 million in partisan ads put forward by the government and by the broader public sector, and you continue doing it. I’m going to ask you the question once again: Are you prepared to close those loopholes, in order to stop those agencies from spending money that could, quite frankly, be used for better things?

Hon. John Milloy: I think we have to be careful here. We brought in a new regime when it comes to advertising, quite frankly disgusted with what had gone on under the previous government. We expect all taxpayer-funded advertising to apply to that regime or to adhere to that regime. At the same time, we asked the Auditor General to focus on those three key areas: radio and TV, newspapers and billboards, and to ensure and provide that double-check, that double peace of mind, that in fact these ads are appropriate.

There is nothing wrong with government advertising. They talk about valuable government services. But the fact of the matter is, we have brought in a regime that I am very proud of, particularly in the face of what we saw in the province of Ontario for eight very long years.

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. According to the 2011 census, almost a quarter of First Nations people in Canada live in Ontario, more than in any other province. Some 80% of the aboriginal population in Ontario lives off-reserve, with 62% residing in urban centres.

My riding of Scarborough–Guildwood has one of the highest off-reserve aboriginal populations in the province. The population is young and growing, with 36% comprised of youth aged 19 and under, compared with 25% for non-aboriginal, and a historic growth rate of 32%.

I know aboriginal people living in urban areas face unique challenges like higher unemployment rates, lower health status and a lower rate of high school graduation than non-aboriginal. Approximately 37,000 aboriginal people are living in Toronto alone, with large populations in Ottawa, Sudbury and Thunder Bay.

Can the minister tell us how government is working to improve and deliver services to aboriginal people living in urban centres?

Hon. David Zimmer: Just this past Monday, I was pleased to announce, along with the Minister of Infrastructure and the Ministers of Health and Culture, that the province is transferring a

section of land on the site of the Pan/Parapan Am Games athletes’ village to Anishnawbe Health Toronto. A world-class health care and dynamic aboriginal community and cultural centre will be built here following the games.

I’m very excited to share that my ministry and I will be taking on the responsibility of acting as the lead facilitator in this important initiative. We will work directly with Anishnawbe Health to bring together appropriate aboriginal partners so the hub meets the diverse needs of the aboriginal people. This hub will serve as a place for learning and innovation and for sharing traditional and modern culture and knowledge. It can provide a variety of services. We are working for a space where the aboriginal community can gather in this great city. The aboriginal—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Minister. It’s great to hear such good news. This really points to the whole government approach Ontario is taking to support the aboriginal community. Projects like this are the building blocks to a relationship built on trust and mutual respect with urban aboriginal peoples in Ontario.

We know that a constructive, co-operative relationship with aboriginal peoples in Ontario leads to improved opportunities and a better future not only for aboriginal people but for all people living in Ontario.

Given the landmark nature of this announcement, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can the minister expand upon the land to be transferred? When will the community health centre and aboriginal hub be built?

Hon. David Zimmer: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my friend from Scarborough–Guildwood, who I know shares a great passion for the culture of indigenous people.

We’re very excited about this. This is 2.4 acres of land. It has been legally transferred. It’s in the ownership now of the Anishnawbe health foundation, which is working through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and with other urban aboriginal groups and partners to see the development of this site as a legacy project after the Pan Am Games. So construction will start.

What’s going on now is that Douglas Cardinal is the architect they’ve selected for the project, and the planning will be going ahead for comprehensive cultural, performing, visual arts and employment entrepreneurship, as well as wellness and the practice of traditional medicine. We think this will be transformative to the future of aboriginal people.

I want to thank the Minister of Health and the minister of heritage and culture, and my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, for their leadership on this.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, it’s your job to ensure that law and order is maintained in Ontario, but you are failing to do that when it comes to cracking down on contraband tobacco. Promises like increased fines are meaningless if you don’t give the OPP and municipal police forces the authority and resources to stop illegal cigarettes from reaching the streets. As you stand idly by, hundreds of millions in tax revenue go up in smoke, and the livelihood of about 75,000 Ontarians in the convenience store sector is threatened.

Can you tell me exactly what enforcement tools and resources you have given police to butt out illegal contraband tobacco?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite, as the critic to my ministry, for asking a very important question. I also very much look forward to working with both the critics, the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from London West, on important issues around community safety.

These are very important issues. Obviously, I am getting briefed on them one by one to have a better understanding as to how we ensure that, on issues like contraband tobacco, we are as effective working in partnership with other police services, working in partnership with the RCMP so that we curtail the import of contraband and the use of contraband tobacco in our province.

I look forward to the ideas from the member opposite in that regard because I think, frankly speaking, it is a shared responsibility for all of us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: Almost every speaker on Monday, when we debated your Bill 131, mentioned that the government is lacking on the illegal tobacco trade.

When you look at the issues in the province, you have essentially done nothing. The latest Ontario Convenience Stores Association’s study shows that I’m right. Your failure to give police the tools they need means illegal cigarettes now comprise nearly half of the market in some locations.

More than 70 municipalities have passed resolutions asking you to get illegal smokes off their streets. Jurisdictions like Quebec prove that if police have the power to enforce, revenue goes up, and the supply of contraband tobacco goes down.

But it starts with you doing your job and putting hard-working Ontarians ahead of criminals. When are you going to do your job? When are you going to crack down on illegal cigarettes?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I have full confidence, and the government has full confidence, in the job that the OPP and other, local police services do when it comes to cracking down on illegal tobacco. There is a very robust relationship between the OPP, the RCMP and other police services from other provinces and municipal services in making sure that we are taking concrete steps in illegal activities around contraband tobacco.

If you look at the results, since 2008, for example, more than 223 million illegal cigarettes, 2.5 million untaxed cigars and 74 million grams of untaxed fine-cut or other tobacco products have been seized by Ministry of Finance investigators and inspectors. There is a lot of work that is already being done among police services on a complicated scheme, in fact, that is employed.

We have full confidence in our police, in the RCMP and other municipal services, that they will continue to do the work and make sure illegal tobacco is controlled in our province.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last summer, the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs promised to reform the Ontario Municipal Board. But the government’s review says that this “consultation will not discuss or consider … eliminating or changing the OMB’s operations, practices and procedures.” The government is bowing to developers who do not want any changes to the OMB.

It is another bait and switch. People are tired of hearing this government promise one thing to communities and then deliver something else on behalf of developers.

Will the new minister do what his government has promised and review the OMB itself?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister without portfolio, please come to order.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. I do understand very clearly that this particular member has expressed a specific interest in this issue for quite a period of time.

What I can tell him is that there has been significant consultation that has been undertaken on this specific issue. If I remember correctly, the consultation began in the fall of last year and concluded in the early winter of this year, somewhere around January 2014. That consultation has been completed. The detail is within the ministry.

Within a shorter period of time, I would hope, I’ve asked ministry staff for information back on this piece. They have the consultation. They are reviewing the materials, and at some point, I would hope in the not-too-distant future, they will get back to me with what they believe the next steps will be when it comes to this particular issue.

We in the ministry are somewhat still uncertain as to what the member’s PMB would accomplish, and so we are taking this all into consideration. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future we will have something more to bring forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Consultations and the changes that you’re planning mean nothing without changes to the OMB itself. The OMB will still decide whether an appeal goes forward or not.

Last year in Waterloo region, the OMB ignored the province’s Places to Grow Act and approved a sprawling development 10 times bigger than what the rules allowed. The OMB does not respect official plans or even provincial statutes.

When will the government keep its promise and rein in the unelected, unaccountable and out-of-control OMB?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I go back to the original point I was trying to make. The member opposite is putting forward a position; in fact, I think it was in the media not so long ago—was Kitchener-Waterloo region where he was? He was speaking to them about his desire to see the OMB completely dissolved. When he was in Kitchener-Waterloo, he suggested to them that we should do away with the OMB, but at the same time, we need to create some other mechanism to deal with these issues.

We already have a mechanism. You disagree on what that mechanism is and whether it should continue to exist, but at the same time, you seem to be suggesting we need something.

What we are doing, as part of that land use planning consultation that was done across the province, is considering potential changes to the OMB as it is currently constructed. We will have information coming back on that in the not-too-distant future. There is a provincial interest here to be maintained. We believe in that position, and hopefully very soon—I don’t want to put a timeline on this—we will be in a position to discuss this at greater length.

VOLUNTEERS

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Six individuals from my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt will be receiving an Ontario Volunteer Service Award for 25 years of service to a non-profit organization. One of these volunteers, Warren Kanagaratnam, is receiving this award for his outstanding work with the International Movement for Tamil Culture.

Volunteers, who donate their time, energy, skills and knowledge to causes close to their heart, are true leaders and heroes in our community. Ontario has a long and proud tradition of volunteerism. It is estimated that Ontarians volunteer over 860 million volunteer hours annually.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please inform the House how our province recognizes these valuable individuals through the Ontario Volunteer Services Awards?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for the question, and I look forward to joining her on April 16 at her Volunteer Service Awards in Scarborough.

This year, over 11,000 volunteers will be presented with the Ontario Volunteer Service Award; 55 ceremonies will be held across this great province from now until the end of June. I would like to remind and personally invite all members of this House to please join their local communities as we celebrate the recipients in handing out the awards across this great province.

Mr. Speaker, our province is the number one destination for newcomers. When newcomers ch