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

September 11, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Sep-11 (PDF)

L056 - Wed 11 Sep 2013 / Mer 11 sep 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 September 2013 Mercredi 11 septembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICER ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE DIRECTEUR

DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

TANNING BED LEGISLATION

TANNING BED LEGISLATION

MINING INDUSTRY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

POVERTY

PULMONARY FIBROSIS

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

HEALTH CARE

PULMONARY FIBROSIS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MINING HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORLEANS CHILD CARE CENTRE

EAST NEPEAN EAGLES

STOUFFVILLE SPIRIT

PULMONARY FIBROSIS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTER-PROVINCIAL IMPORTATION

OF WINE, BEER AND SPIRITS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’IMPORTATION

INTERPROVINCIALE DE VIN, DE BIÈRE

ET DE SPIRITUEUX

MOTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

PETITIONS

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

FAMILY SAFETY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

TIRE DISPOSAL

TIRE DISPOSAL

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICER ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE DIRECTEUR

DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICER ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE DIRECTEUR

DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Mr. Sousa, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to establish a Financial Accountability Officer / Projet de loi 95, Loi créant le poste de directeur de la responsabilité financière.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s a pleasure to kick off the debate on government order G95. Just to remind members, the actual debate of this legislation, the Financial Accountability Officer legislation, is under a slightly different format right now because of a motion that was passed by this House in June, which was tied to the budget deliberations. Members may recall a programming motion that outlined a series of steps to be taken to pass the budget bill and that also called on the government to introduce legislation on the whole issue of a Financial Accountability Officer as soon as we returned from the summer break.

So the bill that my colleague the Minister of Finance introduced on Monday reflects the motion that was passed by this House, and outlines what the terms of a Financial Accountability Officer would be. It also, as I say, follows a different format, in that there will be a prescribed period of debate here, and then, should it pass second reading, a prescribed period of debate at both committee and, should it be successful there, at third reading.

Very briefly, the Financial Accountability Officer is in many ways the mirror image of the Auditor General, another officer of this Legislature. While the Auditor General takes a look at initiatives and undertakings by the government at the end of the process and reports his or her findings, the role of the Financial Accountability Officer—similar to what we saw in Ottawa through the formation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer—would look at initiatives and undertakings at the beginning of the process and report on his findings of the costs and some of the implications that are involved.

I must say that when this idea was first raised around the time of the budget negotiations—in fact, we will be the only province in Canada to have such a budget officer, such a parliamentary officer—I think there was a great deal of enthusiasm on our side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, no one likes an Auditor General’s report that comes out with criticisms and concerns about an initiative. I think any minister who is in that position, any government that’s in that position, says to itself, “I wish there was someone at the beginning, a neutral third party, whom we could have gone to, to get the type of advice and input that would have allowed us to foresee any of the challenges or problems that arose.”

So that, very simply, is the role of this Financial Accountability Officer. He or she will be an officer of the Legislature, will be chosen if the legislation passes through the usual process, will be another step toward a more open and accountable government and, I think, will be an aid to the government of the day and obviously an aid to every member of the Legislature. Because the other piece of the puzzle is that MPPs here in the House can prevail upon this officer of the Legislature to get his or her advice on private members’ bills, and obviously on government initiatives and on a range of issues that face the government.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to kick off the discussion today. As I said, it’s going to be slightly different because it has been prescribed by the order, but I look forward to a good debate over the course of the next day or so. Certainly we, on this side of the House, are very enthusiastic about supporting this piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join this limited debate on this piece of legislation brought forward by the Liberals as a quid pro quo for the NDP’s support in propping up their tired, old, corrupt government through the last budget session. In fact, the NDP made it clear: They went public and said, “We will support this government even though we think it’s corrupt, bordering on evil. We will support it. We will support it if you give us this.”

Now I must say that I detect just a faint aroma of buyer’s remorse on the part of the NDP. However, that could just be that PR stuff going on again; you know, that messaging for the public where Andrea Horwath, the leader of the third party, stands up in the Legislature and berates the government for the corrupt way they are behaving but—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—says, “If there’s more on the table, you guys will stay in power. Don’t worry about it. We hate you, but we don’t hate you that much.”

It’s interesting how the political system works sometimes, Mr. Speaker. You see the government House leader there, talking about this legislation. He’s almost an apologist; he’s almost like, “Well, we had to do it.” But when you look at the legislation itself, ask yourself, what is it really accomplishing? I’ll tell you one thing.

Mr. Jonah Schein: It’s about accountability.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’ll tell you what I say to the member for Davenport: Accountability starts right here, right here in this Legislature. It’s about time that maybe the government was accountable for its actions.

Now, I’ve read this bill, and it’s a pretty thin gruel. I’ll tell you one thing: There is nothing in this bill, not a smidgen of any indication in this bill, that had this bill been passed 10 years ago, almost 10 years ago on that ill-fated day when Dalton McGuinty seized the premiership in this province and began to take us down the pathway to ruin, financially—there is nothing in this bill that would prevent another $1-billion to $2-billion eHealth scandal. Nothing would prevent that. Nothing would prevent that. There is nothing in this bill that would prevent another billion-dollar scandal like Ornge.

Nothing in this bill would prevent an eHealth or an Ornge scandal, and maybe we’re going to talk a little bit more about those if I have time. How much time do I have?

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, my goodness gracious.

Mr. John O’Toole: You only have 10 minutes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My deputy whip says I have 10 minutes; the clock says I’ve got 36. I’d better listen to him.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, the sheriff’s back in town. It appears that we’ve got about nine sidebars going on, and I would like to hear what the member from Renfrew has to say.

I would also appreciate if people would not forget to acknowledge the Chair when you come in and out of this chamber. I would appreciate it. Also, further to that, any members who are talking out loud might want to get back in their seats. Thank you very much.

The member from Renfrew, continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. I would certainly appreciate that myself as well today, because you may be able to tell that my voice is a little bit weak today, and I don’t want to strain it unduly trying to keep above the din of my friends in the third party. They’re a noisy group.

As I said, nothing in here is going to prevent eHealth or Ornge, and is there anything in this piece of legislation that would have prevented the government, in the dying days of the 2011 election, in order to save the seats of many of their members in Etobicoke and Mississauga and Oakville—is there anything in there that will prevent them from once again subjecting us to what we know now today is at least a $585-million bill? And when that auditor’s report comes out, whenever that happens—we’re hoping it comes out maybe before Christmas, if the Premier doesn’t try and bury it.

That bill could likely go to maybe $800 million, maybe $1 billion. Is there anything in this legislation that would prevent a tired, corrupt, self-serving government from doing that again? Nothing—nothing, I say, Mr. Speaker, in there that would prevent this government from doing exactly what it did before.

Listen, there is nobody, nobody, no party that is more committed to accountability than the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario under our leader, Tim Hudak. In spite of the fact that they’re going ahead with this placating legislation to satisfy the NDP, accountability starts with the 107 members of this Legislature—pardon me; it starts with the government, because they’re the ones with the hand on the wheel, and it extends to the 107 members of this Legislature. We have a responsibility to be vigilant in watching the government.

We will continue to do our part to ensure that the taxpayers of Ontario are represented well in this Legislature, that their financial interests are paramount when it comes to the actions of this Legislature.

In spite of this legislation that they’re bringing forth today, I question the commitment to accountability of this government. In fact, they’re still spending it the same way. Isn’t it lovely that Kathleen Wynne’s transition officer, Monique Smith, gets a nice appointment to Washington, with cushy surroundings—little to do, but lots of money to be paid. Where’s the accountability there? Where are the savings elsewhere in the budget that pay for “Ms. Smith goes to Washington”? I guess we’re going to get a movie out of that, maybe.

Speaker, this government continues to behave exactly the way it did before. It will continue to behave this way after this accountability officer is appointed, because they know only one way. Whatever it takes to keep the Liberal Party in power is what they will do, and the interests of the Ontario public be damned. That’s the way they behave. Shame on them. It’s got to change.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m very proud and pleased to be able to make a few remarks on the second reading of the Financial Accountability Office legislation. It’s interesting: In spite of Liberal sabre-rattling in the last couple of days, they really wouldn’t have much to talk about if it wasn’t for the New Democrats. I think that’s obvious even today, with the second reading of this bill. The fact is the Liberals have laid out some priorities for this session: for example, cutting auto insurance premiums; for example, getting young people back to work; for example, creating a Financial Accountability Office.

I have to say that these things have one primary thing in common, and that is that they were all put forward by the NDP. Speaker, I would put to you and to this House that, in fact, the Liberal government doesn’t really have an agenda, but we were happy to give them some ideas to cobble something together for the people of this province this fall.

So what we’re doing, what New Democrats are doing, is we are going to be rolling up our sleeves and we’re going to do the hard work of actually leading in this province: making sure Ontarians are getting some results on the issues that concern them; making sure that the promises are kept to young people, to be able to get their first crack at a decent job; making sure auto insurance rates actually do come down and are not just another promise by a Liberal government that’s more interested in lining the pockets of the industry than they are about protecting wallets of drivers; making sure that people get the home care that they deserve in this province.

For years and years now, I’m sure every MPP, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, has received horrifying complaints about the way that their loved ones are being passed over, if you will, when it comes to needed home care services. That is not acceptable. That has to stop, and New Democrats are the ones who are going to make sure that the home care system is improved so that people can get the care that they need for their vulnerable relatives when they need it, at an appropriate time.

Of course, what we’re talking about today is the Financial Accountability Office. Now, this office isn’t for the NDP, it’s not for the PCs, it’s not for the Liberals. This office is an office for the people of Ontario.

One of the things we heard very loudly and clearly in the discussions that we engaged in with Ontarians over the course of the budget process was that they were fed up with the Liberals’ track record. They were very, very cynical—had become very cynical—about the Liberal scandals that continued to unfold over the last decade. What does that look like? I’m going to give you just a couple of examples, and they don’t even really, I don’t think, reflect a number of other things that have occurred.

For example: hundreds of millions of dollars wasted at Ornge, so that a well-connected Liberal insider could build an empire that quickly fell apart and left egg on the face of the government; a billion dollars wasted at eHealth and no electronic health records system to show for it, certainly not in a timely fashion; hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on gas plants that needed to be moved because the arrogance of Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Duncan refused to pay attention to the real situation that the people in those ridings were concerned about. They ignored the people because they had ultimate power.

Then when they saw their power possibly slipping away is when they decided they were going to move those gas plants—not because of what the people wanted, not because of the impacts on community, not because of what mayors were saying, but because it threatened their political power. How shameful.

Broken promises are a big, big issue here in this province, and they have been for years. We’ve watched as Liberals have broken promise after promise after promise after promise. Liberals, for example, said the HST would not cost families, but actually, it cost families about $1,500 annually, each—$1,500. That’s, from the Liberals’ calculation, a no-cost deal for families. I think families see it a little bit differently.

Now we’re waiting to hear the new plan that the Liberals have to increase the costs on families again with taxes and tolls that could actually cost them another $1,000 annually—money that they simply don’t have.

So as people lose trust in a government that is cynical, that is politically self-interested, that seems to only be able to make decisions that are going to affect them positively and simply ignore the realities and the concerns that everyday families have, what we believe is that we have to start rebuilding trust. We have to start rebuilding trust, because the cynicism out there is thick. The way you do that is you start to bring some real accountability to this place.

Now, I know that the previous speaker railed on about how you can just trust the PCs to be able to bring some trust back here, bring some accountability back here. Well, I’m sorry; I think it’s quite obvious—in fact, just over the last week or so, if I dare say—that that’s actually not the case, and it has been proven quite clearly. What I think we need to recognize and acknowledge, though, is that there are tools of accountability that can be brought to bear here, and those tools of accountability can be brought to bear not just on this government with its horrible, horrible track record, but also any on political party that forms the government in this province.

So it’s not just the current, reigning Liberals, but the New Democrats, when we’re to form a government; if the PCs were to form a government. Any government in this province would now have the extra accountability that comes with the Financial Accountability Office, and we are very, very proud of that.

You know, it’s pretty interesting, Speaker: The Liberals talk a good game when it comes to transparency, but what they really continue to do—and we saw it again yesterday in question period from the Premier—is that they continue to keep trying to protect their political insiders. It’s very, very obvious. The Conservatives: Well, they make a lot of noise, but they really can’t seem to get anything done around here. It’s New Democrats who are delivering real transparency in this province, and Ontario will judge politicians based on what they do, not just what they say.

What do they do? The Liberals will spend anything, and it’s not their money they’re spending. They will spend anything in terms of the public dollar to try to get elected. The Conservatives? They’re stuck on the sidelines, and if they had their way, Ontario wouldn’t have a Financial Accountability Office. New Democrats take a different view. We are the ones who are actually going to be delivering the results on the Financial Accountability Office.

So what is it? The government House leader downplayed the importance of this office; I notice he didn’t really speak about it very much at all. This is an extremely important office. In fact, this is an office that is so useful and so diligent in the work it can do that Stephen Harper actually wanted to get rid of the one it’s modeled after in Ottawa, called the parliamentary budget office. It’s no wonder that the provincial PCs, cousins of the federal PCs, don’t want to see a Financial Accountability Office in Ontario, because their friend Stephen Harper didn’t like the one in Ottawa.

What we did is we looked at that office, the parliamentary budget office in Ottawa. We looked at that, and we spoke to Kevin Page, the person Mr. Harper ran out on a rail. We asked him, “How do you make that parliamentary budget office better?” So not only did we take the model from Ottawa, but we wanted to make sure that we learned the lessons about what had gone wrong in Ottawa and tried to improve what we brought forward for Ontarians.

What the office was able to do in Ottawa, even though it probably wasn’t as effective as it could have been—the reason it wasn’t is because Mr. Harper refused to provide documents that were requested by the officer, something we’re not going to allow to happen here in Ontario.

The Harper Conservatives claimed that buying F-35 fighter jets was going to cost $9 billion; the people of Canada would be on the hook for $9 billion to buy F-35 jets. The parliamentary budget office, in advance of that transaction being finalized, did the work, did the research—uncovered the truth, if you will—about what the actual cost of the F-35 contracts was going to be. Lo and behold, the figure that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page, came up with was $30 billion—more than $30 billion. So a minimum of three times more is what the parliamentary budget office pegged the cost at.

You can imagine that Mr. Harper was not happy with that. He was not happy with the accountability and the truth coming out. So you can see why the provincial Conservatives here would have a similar dislike for that kind of transparency, if you will.

The Harper government also claimed that old age security was unsustainable in this country. This was a claim of the Conservatives, because it was their political agenda to start getting rid of old age security in the country. What did the parliamentary budget office see when they looked into it? The parliamentary budget office showed that in fact the Conservatives were not being truthful with the people of the country. In fact, old age security was sustainable and is sustainable, and today it still is sustainable.

What that did—and I’m hoping that there are some seniors out there right now who are watching this—is it basically saved Canada’s old age security system, a system that seniors rely on to a great deal and that we want to make sure seniors of the future are going to be able to rely on as well. The only reason it was saved in Canada is because the parliamentary budget office unveiled the lack of efficacy, if you will, in the figures and the plans that the federal Conservatives were bringing forward.

What’s another lesson that we learned from the parliamentary budget office when we looked at how it could apply to Ontario? We found that in fact even though Mr. Harper did create the parliamentary budget office, as I said earlier, he refused to respond to requests for information and release of documents that were sent to him. So what we did, when we looked at the Financial Accountability Office here in Ontario, is we insisted that our Financial Accountability Office be able to order access to documents, plain and simple.

We’re going to make sure that the Financial Accountability Office has access to all of the documents that it needs to get the job done—again, not to get the job done for the government and not to get the job done for the PCs or for us, but to get the job done for the people of this province.

What else? The parliamentary budget office showed that independence, being independent from the political influence of the government or any other political party, was essential. So we made sure that the Financial Accountability Office would be an independent office that was not subject to political pressure from the government particularly or either of the other political parties.

So what kind of impact could the FAO have here in Ontario? What kinds of things could have been avoided? A Financial Accountability Office is a practical, reasonable solution to a real problem that we have here in this province, because what it does is it provides forward-looking assessments—I think the government House leader mentioned that in his remarks—of government plans, government ideas and government announcements so that we know for sure whether or not the government is putting forward something that’s laden with a whole lot of spin and a whole lot of underestimating in terms of costs, or if in fact the real deal is being presented to the public.

Those forward-looking assessments will help us to prevent the kinds of scandals that have happened here in Ontario from happening again. It will help us save precious public dollars from being wasted on either political opportunism or simply half-baked plans that the Liberals are so famous for bringing forward. They’re tired of governments saying one thing about the books when the truth is really something quite different. Every year the government, for example, gives us unreal deficit projections so that of course then they can beat those projections.

It’s all a bit of a game and everybody laughs and the press gallery chuckles, but the bottom line is it’s really not fair to the people of this province to set out unrealistic numbers, to play a silly game to then pretend that you’re doing so much better than even you projected you were going to do. Let’s grow up about it and be honest with the people about what the numbers are so that we can all kind of get behind some of the initiatives to deal with the pressures we have in this province.

The government consistently lowballs and misleads about costs. The gas plants, for example—they claimed it was going to be $230 million: $40 million for Oakville and $190 million for Mississauga. Now, the auditor showed, again in hindsight, that the costs were much, much higher than that. When the Oakville report comes out within the next several weeks, I believe, we’re probably going to see even a higher figure than what we see now.

The cost of nuclear refurbishment—again, the government lowballs that figure on a consistent basis, to try to pretend that somehow the costs aren’t really there.

Saving the ONTC: The government inflated the costs of saving the ONTC because their political agenda was to get rid of the Ontario Northland, to cut all of those people from the north out of their passenger rail system.

The real cost of secretive private power contracts: We consistently have been pushing the government to unveil the costs of their secret private power deals. Samsung was, of course, the biggest one. But we’ve been consistently FOIing the cost of these private power deals. In fact, if we’d have had that information, we might not be in the soup that we’re in when it comes to the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The PC government, if we want to go back a little ways, did the same thing. They handed away the 407 for a short-term gain, a short-term communications win with the people of this province. The PCs can ask anybody if they think that Ontario got a good deal when it comes to them handing the 407 over to a private consortium. Most people would say, “No, that was not a good deal.” If the Financial Accountability Office were up and running in Ontario when they made that pretty stupid decision, we wouldn’t have had it happen, because the people would have seen what the reality was behind the suggestions that the Conservatives brought forward at the time, that this was the right thing to do.

One more example: In 2011, a lot of people wanted me to say that I would agree to the gas plant cancellations. We were on the campaign trail; the pressure was enormous. As a political leader, I was scrummed by the media and I was asked, “Will you cancel those gas plants?” I said I will not tear up a contract that I have not seen and that I don’t know what the financial implications are. That’s what I said on the campaign trail. That’s what’s on the public record; that’s what’s on the media record.

I said that because I watched as the Conservatives talked about tearing up the Samsung deal, not knowing at all what the cost of tearing up that deal would be. For some time, New Democrats have said that one of the things we have to be careful about is tearing up contracts sight unseen because we don’t know what the implications of those things are going to be. I think that one of the things we know for sure is that the Financial Accountability Office will help us to be able to get a handle on what the implications of some of those decisions will be in the future.

So in conclusion, what this will do is it will give the Legislature and Ontarians access to real costs and independent assessments of the plans that this government is making and that all future governments are going to make. This will stop waste; I have no doubt in my mind that this will stop waste in this province.

What it will also do is—I believe and I certainly hope—it will help people to start having some more trust in government again, starting to restore the sense of trust in government. I think that’s the bigger piece of what this legislation does. I can tell you, everywhere I go, that’s what I hear from everyone: “You can’t trust any of them. You can’t trust the Liberals. You can’t trust the government.

You can’t trust any government.” Of course, what we’ve seen with what’s happened federally with the Senate—we’ve seen some of the municipalities go through some pretty amazing shenanigans, we’ve seen what’s happened with the shenanigans of the Liberals here governing in Ontario. People are just fed up. They don’t believe that they can trust government anymore. And it’s our job not to flap our mouths about accountability, not to pretend that we’re transparent and accountable because we say it, but to actually do something to bring accountability to this Legislature.

I’m glad that that’s exactly what we are going to do.

New Democrats brought this idea here to Ontario. We’re proud that we’re debating it today, and we look forward to the day that this legislation is passed, which will be coming very, very soon.

But I do want to say that we’re going to look closely at the details of the bill because we want to make sure that the government doesn’t try to water it down, that the government doesn’t try to manipulate things so that it doesn’t actually do the kinds of things that it has the great potential to do, which I spoke about in my remarks.

We’re also going to be letting people have their say when it comes to the public hearings process because I think that there are things that are always added that are positive when it comes to public hearings, because ultimately it’s the public that we’re putting this in place for. It’s their legislation. This is their House, and it’s up to us to make sure that they’re welcomed in to participate in the process of putting—particularly this piece of legislation, which is going to help them, I hope, to rebuild their trust in government.

So, Speaker, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity, and again New Democrats are very, very proud of this Financial Accountability Office legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: It is a pleasure for me to be here, this being our first week back in the Legislature after our summer recess. Of course, as parliamentary assistant to our Minister of Finance, I am very pleased, very privileged, to stand here in my place in the House for second reading of the Financial Accountability Officer Act, 2013.

There’s a lot of stuff that I do want to say with respect to the contents of the bill, but I couldn’t help but pay close attention to what I heard from both the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the leader of the third party.

I think I’d like to begin my remarks today by perhaps saying a couple of things to preface the elements of the bill itself that I know deserve the support of this Legislature.

First of all, of course, I’d like to say to Premier Wynne, to Minister Sousa, to our government, generally speaking: Congratulations on moving forward with this initiative. It’s a very important initiative that’s going to help ensure that this Legislative Assembly can provide the level of fiscal transparency and accountability, going forward, that the people of Ontario have every right to expect.

I also do want to spend just a second talking a little bit about the process that led to this being included in budget 2013 and specifically give, I suppose, a little bit of credit to our friends in the third party, not with specific regard to this particular element, because the leader of the third party did speak to that at length, but the general notion that underpinned that sense of collaborative interest and spirit during the course of the budget deliberations back in the late winter and early spring.

When I think of the conversations that I had the chance to have over the course of the summer with many members of my community, I think it’s quite telling to hear from people living in Vaughan and business owners living in Vaughan, who watched very closely the budget deliberation and the process back in the spring, the stark contrast between the way that the members of the third party and the leadership of the third party dealt with trying to move the agenda forward positively for Ontarians, working closely with our government, standing in stark contrast to what we saw from the members of the official opposition, the leader of the official opposition, who took a very unfortunate, very strident position very early on in the process, saying that that party—I think very, very unfortunately, Speaker—had no interest in participating in a collaborative or constructive way to try to move agenda items forward that might be of interest to their constituencies, to their way of thinking.

The fact that there was no desire to play any meaningful, co-operative role and make sure that Ontario’s economy stays on track, continues to perform as well as it has in the last couple of years, I think, was extremely unfortunate.

I should say that both in conversations I had with residents of Vaughan and also in conversations that I had at events like the AMO conference in Ottawa and elsewhere over the course of the summer, it was very clear that there is a great deal of disappointment that members from the official opposition, the leadership of the official opposition, did not see fit to try to play a constructive role.

I did speak a second ago about the importance of moving forward with items like this, like the Financial Accountability Officer, because of the importance of making sure that we provide the level of transparency and accountability that people across Ontario expect and deserve. But I think it’s important to put the right historical context into play in the course of this discussion, this debate at second reading.

I know that the member of the Ontario PC caucus who spoke earlier and the leader of the third party did reference their version of history, but I think it’s important to recognize that the proposal to create this particular position with this legislation is in fact a very natural evolutionary step for the Ontario Liberal government.

When you track back—in fact, it’s probably hard for many observers out there who haven’t been following politics closely for the last number of years, or perhaps people who are in their late twenties or early thirties, who were a great deal younger back in the early to mid- to late 1990s—it’s probably very hard for individuals like that to recall that we once had a government in Ontario that saw fit to go into an election campaign and not to reveal to the people of Ontario that there was close to a $6-billion deficit that was looming. In fact, the government of the day back in 2002-03, acted in a way that was completely unacceptable.

It’s important to note for the historical context of this bill and this position of the Financial Accountability Officer that in introducing the 2004 Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, this government, the Ontario Liberal government, made sure that that would be fixed, that it could never happen again that a government would head into an election campaign not being straightforward and honest with the people of Ontario.

Again, residents in my riding, people who don’t pay that close attention to politics or who might be a bit younger, probably have virtually no recollection that there was a time in Ontario when a government of the day would spend tens and tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars on government advertising that actually saw fit to put forward or promote their own partisan interests. That’s another example, Mr. Speaker. In 2004 this government, the Ontario Liberal government, fixed that with the Government Advertising Act, to make sure that misusing taxpayers’ dollars for government advertising to promote partisan purposes could no longer take place.

There are other examples in the course of this evolution that I’m talking about to put this particular bill in its historical context. We’ve improved issues relating to procurement and expenses by increasing the transparency of government agencies. Just last year, Speaker, we dramatically enhanced the reporting and disclosure of salaries components of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.

We did these things, and we’ve done many, many more over the course of the last number of years, because, as I said at the outset of my remarks, it’s important that the people of Ontario understand their taxpayers’ dollars, their dollars, are being spent wisely. That’s what’s important to the people of my community, and frankly, it’s important to myself and to my wife and our own household as we seek to make sure that we are spending appropriately in our own household, making the investments we need to make.

It’s important that Ontarians see that their government is doing that, and that’s why we have moved forward; we included it in the budget this past spring and we’re moving forward with this particular legislation.

In terms of one of the other reasons we do these things, it’s to make sure that Ontario’s economy, which is so important to so many other things that we want to accomplish, continues to move along the right track. I said this just a couple of minutes ago. I think there’s fairly strong evidence—in fact, some that was just presented yesterday by Minister Sousa—that we are, both in the economy but in so many other areas, moving in the right direction.

Just yesterday, when Minister Sousa presented the public accounts for the year 2012-13, he was, I know, delighted to reveal that Ontario’s deficit now stands at $9.2 billion. That is $5.6 billion lower than was projected in the 2012 budget and a further reduction of $600 million since the 2013 budget.

It was also interesting to note in that reporting of public accounts that, for the first time in more than a decade, total government reported spending fell from the previous year. At $122.6 billion, spending was just under $4 billion less than was planned in the 2012 budget. We see evidence of the positive results that this is having for the people of Ontario and for the economy of Ontario. We see the real gross domestic product is now 2.7% above its pre-recession peak.

And perhaps what is the most important indicator to the people living in all of our communities across the province: Ontario has created more than 477,000 jobs, nearly half a million jobs, since June 2009, which means that we have recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession, and in fact the current level of employment here in the province of Ontario is more than 210,000 jobs above the high point before the recession.

So I think it’s very, very important to make sure that we at all times in this discussion and debate keep one eye on that historical context that I talked about, and take into account that this is a very positive evolutionary step in making sure that we, on this side of the House, working with both other parties and working with people across Ontario through extensive consultations, keep our eye on the ball, that we keep moving forward and keep finding creative ways to make sure that people’s tax dollars are being spent wisely. As I said, the Financial Accountability Officer is the next step. We are definitely on the right track.

There are some elements with respect to the office itself that I think bear mentioning. I believe some of this discussion came up when the leader of the third party was making her remarks. It’s important to note that there are various aspects of this office, this officer, this position that we are proposing in the legislation. First of all, it’s very, very important to note—and I know the government House leader did say this—that this legislation proposes that this position of the Financial Accountability Officer will be an independent officer of the Legislature. That’s extremely important.

I think that’s what the people of my riding and the people across Ontario expect. They want someone in this role who is not going to be reporting specifically to one government, one party of the day. I know the leader of the third party did reference this.

It is important that we create a position in the most appropriate way possible to make sure that it provides sustainable support to the Ontario Legislature regardless of who’s in power, regardless of what stripe the particular party in power may have.

That’s why it’s very, very important that he or she, whoever the person might be, if this bill is passed, is an independent officer of this chamber, this Legislature—and to take into account that being an independent officer of the Legislature, he or she will be in a position to serve all members of provincial Parliament, regardless of whether they got elected just a few weeks ago; whether they’ve been here for many, many years; whether they’re Liberal, they’re NDP or they’re Conservative. This independent officer of the Legislature will serve all MPPs.

He or she will be able to assist committees and provide MPPs with financial research regarding, for example, the costs or the benefits of public bills.

These are just some of the examples that are provided for in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, again, with an interest to make sure that we are creating a position that will provide sustainable support to this Legislature at the same time as having the impact of making sure that the people of Ontario, people in my riding, people who I heard from over the course of the summer, are aware of the fact that we are moving forward in a manner to try to make sure that their tax dollars are spent appropriately.

I do want to spend just a quick second talking a little bit about the selection process itself. Of course, in order to make sure that you produce a final product, be it in construction, be it anywhere else, you want to make sure that the architecture and the engineering is sound. When you look at the proposed selection process in this legislation, I think we can see that the plan is to move forward with a selection process that will be robust, that will avoid any criticism, unfounded or otherwise, with respect to how we arrive at selecting a particular person to take on this position, should the legislation pass.

It’s important to note that the selection panel will include, as I understand it, one member of provincial Parliament from each of the parties in the Legislature and the panel will be chaired by the Speaker of the Legislature, who will be a non-voting member.

Also, it’s important to note that the length of the appointment for this position will be five years, with an option to reappoint, which I understand is similar to what occurs with other positions that we have, like the Ontario Ombudsman. It’s very similar to that kind of set-up, which I believe also will help provide the people of Ontario with a sense that this is a position that’s moving forward not just with the best of intentions but with the best of that architecture and engineering that I talked about a second ago: making sure that we get this right. That’s what I know our government is committed to doing.

The leader of the third party did mention this, and I think it’s important as well: Should the legislation pass, we look forward to the fact that ministries and government agencies will be required to provide the fiscal and economic information that’s required for the Financial Accountability Officer to be able to do his or her job. Of course, there are some notable exceptions, some appropriate exceptions for that: personal information, personal health information.

But it’s important to note, as the leader of the third party did say in her remarks, that this is a position that will be provided and afforded with every opportunity to do the kind of job that the people of my riding of Vaughan and the people of Ontario expect and certainly deserve.

I do want to spend just a second going into slightly more detail with respect to the actual mandate that this bill provides for this new position. I said earlier that it’s an independent officer of the Legislature providing advice to all MPPs, but I want to make sure it’s clearly understood that what we envision is a position that will provide independent analysis to the assembly about the state, for example, of the province’s finances—finances that are, according to the report provided to public accounts by Minister Sousa yesterday, moving forward in an exceptionally strong and responsible way.

The independent analysis that this officer will be able to provide will include information about the budget and trends in both the provincial and national economies.

It’s also important to note that the bill provides for a mandate for this officer to be able to respond to requests from any member of the Legislature, any member of the assembly or any committee of the assembly, and also to undertake research into the province’s finances and trends, as I said a second ago, in both the provincial and national economies; undertake research into the estimates and supplementary estimates that are submitted to this Legislature; undertake research into the financial costs or benefits to the province of any public bill that is before the assembly; and also undertake to estimate—and I think this is extremely important—an opportunity up until this point not provided to members of this Legislature in such a clear way.

This bill provides a mandate for a Financial Accountability Officer who will be able “to undertake to estimate the financial costs or benefits to the province of any proposal”—any proposal, Mr. Speaker—“that relates to a matter over which the Legislature has jurisdiction, including any proposal made by the government,” whichever government may be in power—again, a non-partisan, independent officer of the Legislature—“or by any member of the assembly.”

I think it’s extremely important to note that by putting this particular legislation forward—and that’s why it was a tiny bit disheartening for me to hear the opening remarks by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I know that member has been here a lot longer than I’ve been here, and I do have a great deal of respect for the experience that all members bring to this floor.

But I think on a matter like this, on something like the creation of a Financial Accountability Officer, I would really implore every member of the Legislature coming forward to discuss this over the next number of hours and days to take a step back from that partisan hat that we all like to don from time to time, and instead take a look at the broader view and take a look at making sure—if there is something specific and substantive in this legislation you’re not comfortable with, discuss it. Discuss it productively; discuss it constructively.

But frankly, Speaker, to get up in the House on something that’s so important to the people of all of our communities—the notion of financial accountability and transparency—and to provide not much more than quite a bit of fanciful bluster, I think, is something that’s a bit unfortunate.

I hope, as the debate proceeds, we’ll hear an awful lot more from members of all three parties about why this is the right way to move forward, and hopefully members will support it.

By putting this particular bill forward, it’s also important to underscore that Ontario is leading the way as the first provincial government in Canada to propose the establishment of such an office. As I’ve said earlier, our government believes that the creation of a Financial Accountability Officer would enhance the information and resources available to all members of this Legislature and, indeed, to all Ontarians.

As someone who has been in this Legislature serving the community of Vaughan for just about 12 months now, I think it’s very important to note that the information that will be provided and the resources that will be provided for by the creation of this officer will help all of us here in this House to make better decisions, to make more informed decisions, about the fiscal impacts specifically of proposals that are put forth here on behalf of the people of all of our communities.

I think that will result in better decision-making, which I know is something that, again, Ontarians have a right to expect out of their Legislature. I think it will help all of us not just chart and plan a course but actually succeed in achieving along the way, along that particular course, a very strong and prosperous economy while making sure that we continue to protect the high-quality public services that the people of Ontario expect and deserve.

That’s why, Speaker, I think it’s really important to say once again, as we continue to have this debate at second reading, as this particular legislation continues to work its way through this legislative process—for all members on all sides of the House to take a look back to the process that culminated in the 2013 budget and, frankly, to perhaps take a tiny bit of a page from the work that was done around a certain party, the third party in this Legislature, playing a more collaborative and constructive role than we saw from the official opposition; to put aside what took place in the spring, to put aside a lot of the partisan, adversarial, confrontational stuff that takes place in this House.

I know that behaviour has its place, and I think we all enjoy the cut and thrust of debate and discussion in this House, and I’m just as guilty as the next person of being interested in pursuing partisan goals; there’s no doubt about that.

But on something like this, whether you represent Vaughan, Scarborough–Agincourt, Richmond Hill, Oakville, Scarborough–Guildwood, Ottawa South or any other riding from across the province of Ontario, I don’t think there’s any doubt that in talking to our residents, the people that we have been sent by to work here in this place together—I don’t believe there’s any doubt that the people of Ontario want to see us move forward in that evolutionary process.

This is a learning process. This is all about making sure that we get the job done correctly for the people of Ontario. We deal today with more technological creativity and advancements than ever before. This is why it’s important for us to get the job done correctly on this bill, to have the kind of discussion, the thorough discussion and debate that we need here in this chamber.

I call on all members from all parties to work together, to work with us, to have the kind of debate that we need, to have the kind of discussion we need, but then to get this bill passed to move forward with the creation of a Financial Accountability Officer. I know the people of my riding of Vaughan and the people right across Ontario will greatly appreciate us getting the job done on this bill, and that’s why I’m pleased to support it, Speaker. I thank you very much for the time today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: I do want to put some context around this Bill 95, the bill that we’re discussing today. I did listen carefully to the remarks by the minister originally, but I think we should also keep in mind where this actual office came from. It didn’t come from Mr. Del Duca or the Liberal government.

It actually came from the NDP, as part of the coalition and assurance that the NDP would get some promissory note from the budget process to buy their support, and they did buy the support through two things: the accountability office as well as the 15% reduction in auto insurance which, by the way, the viewers should be very, very wary of. When they talked about it in the last week or two in the media, it’s going to be implemented over a number of years. How about never?

That’s another broken promise, and that’s the context that—I think the leader of the NDP used the words, “They can’t be trusted.” That’s a very true thing here.

I do want to put some context around this in a broader sense. In my response to the minister on the introduction of the bill on Monday, September 9, I related three things where there’s accountability or broken promises. The first one—let’s keep it in mind now—is the scandalous spending of political promises during the election in 2011, where they cancelled the two gas plants. That, to the moment, is $585 million. We’re looking forward to the next auditor’s report on Oakville, and I’m putting on the record now, through you, Speaker, that the cost is going to be in excess of $1 billion.

That’s $1 billion taken out of health care, taken out of education, taken out of the civility of this province. They’re living on borrowed time.

The second one is to keep in mind an ongoing inquiry on the scandalous Chris Mazza, on the Ornge helicopters. These were people making millions of dollars a year. The Ornge helicopter business is still in committee, and the expenses there are another scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money.

The third thing that people should remember in Ontario, in the context of trust, is eHealth. They promised eHealth, and they’ve spent billions of dollars on eHealth, and it’s still not working.

So they can’t be trusted. In fact, they’re completely incompetent, completely incompetent. I would suggest—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. McMeekin is talking about reading the auditor’s report. I’m going to start with the next auditor’s report.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. The minister is actually talking louder than the speaker, which is unacceptable. And the member from Durham is quite aware that he doesn’t refer to the person by their name; it’s their riding. I would appreciate it if you would follow the guidelines. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the auditor did report in the pre-election—the viewers should know this. This is the pre-election, 2011 report by the Auditor General, and the Auditor General said in the pre-election how much trouble they were in. He said that they were actually in a structural deficit. That means their growth in expenditures is faster than the growth in revenues. He went on to say the change that had to be made is much like what Tim Hudak has been talking about on our side: a public sector wage freeze. Here’s what it said: Health care spending, up until that point of 2011, was about 7% growth per year.

He recommended it go to 3.6%. Education was 4% to 5% and should go to 3%. Post-secondary is 8% and should go to 2%. These are costs that the Auditor General said. They went on to promise many things, none of which they delivered—none of which they’ve delivered. Another one—there’s the auditor’s report on the cancellation of the gas plant in Mississauga, and we’re waiting for the second plant on Oakville to be reported.

There was a report issued prior to that, in 2012, and this was the Drummond report, and this Drummond report is an important reference point. There were 362 recommendations that the McGuinty, now the Wynne, government—and there’s no change; they’re the same policies—had to do to balance the budget, because, again, we have a structural deficit. How bad is it? We’re spending $32 million a day more than we’re taking in as revenue. Each child, each page here, every person in Ontario, man, woman and child, owes $19,000 of the debt.

The debt has grown to almost $3 billion, and that debt is being serviced by—the third-highest expenditure in the budget is interest on our debt. It’s almost $11 billion a year to service the debt. That’s not paying it off; that’s to service the debt.

That’s in the context of the budget today, and the interest on debt is very low. The amount of interest is low. Interest is low because that’s how they’re stimulating the economy through monetary policy. Here’s the deal, though: The interest is going to go up. So if it’s $10 billion today, and interest goes up 1%, it will be $14 billion a year to service the debt. It’s scandalous.

There was a report issued right after Mr. Dwight Duncan—he resigned after his budget. This is Ontario budget 2012: A missed opportunity. They went on to say that he failed. This is a report that’s worth seeing. It was issued in May/June 2012. It went on to say a couple of very important things. It says, “Had Duncan actually seized the opportunity to balance Ontario’s books, he could have done so in just two years—the same time horizon as the federal Liberals in the 1990s.” He went on to suggest several recommendations, many of which are echoed almost daily by Tim Hudak.

I look forward to our new critic of finance, Vic Fedeli—or, pardon me, our member for Nipissing. He will have, I’m sure, a few remarks on this as well. But I think the context here was started by the NDP: It’s a matter of trust.

What else has happened here? If you look at what they’ve done that many people know—I get a lot of calls on this, and I’m going to stop here shortly. I get many calls on this: “How come gasoline is such a high price?” Let’s just take that one commodity that is a nondiscretionary consumption. You basically have to have gas to drive your car. You could say, “Stop using your car,” but they want to put $50 billion into transit—which is a good thing. They haven’t got the money, but where are they going to get it? It’s going to be taxes or user fees or something.

But here’s the deal: When they changed the HST—this is just one example. HST was made up of harmonizing the GST, which was the goods and service tax of 5%, and the provincial sales tax, which was 8%. So you harmonized them; it was 13%—8% of which was the provincial portion. When you apply that to gasoline, that’s eight cents more per litre, and gas is about $1, $1.30 or $1.50. So that’s 12 cents per litre of gas, every one of them, the money going to Kathleen Wynne and Charles Sousa.

On your energy bill: It was announced on September 1 that we have the highest energy costs in North America. One of the causes of that is Bill 150, the Green Energy Act. It’s called the global adjustment. The global adjustment on your electricity bill—listen up, now. Close your eyes, open your ears. It’s eight cents a litre for the global adjustment. That’s not the electricity you use; that’s to pay for or subsidize wind and solar.

They’re paying about 50 cents per kilowatt hour for solar and they’re selling it for five cents. So how are they subsidizing that difference between 50 cents and five cents? It’s called a global adjustment—which is shutting businesses down in my riding. Bowmanville Foundry is one example, where their global adjustment is a larger cost to them than the cost of the electrons they’re actually using.

This government has messed up so many files, not just Ornge helicopters, not just the gas plant issue. The entire energy file is completely messed up. I say to you that they bought peace at the very expensive price of the very standard of living that Ontario has today.

I’m going to stop there because it’s not my privilege to take all the time, although I have more to say. I would only say this in conclusion: When people in Ontario are thinking about it, the real job of government is to say no at the right time for the right reasons. Any person—and I think we’re all civilized people here—would love to say yes to every ask. But our governments today around the world have to make important, difficult decisions. I don’t believe they have the courage to do it because, first of all, you can’t trust them.

When you lose trust, you lose the right to lead, and in a democracy, that’s when you have an election, to solve that problem. I think this example here was actually Bill 95, on the Financial Accountability Office. The idea was put forward by the NDP; good for them. They sold out to the Liberals, because they’re on the same team. They’d spend you out of house and home.

I have more to say, but I’ll leave it to my peers to say it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand up in support of the Financial Accountability Office. Of course, it’s not surprising that we’re hearing such frustration from the PCs. It must have been very frustrating for them to go door to door during the by-elections during the summer and basically have nothing to show for two years of sitting in this House.

The “selling out” line is an old line. It’s an old line, because we didn’t sell out. We stayed focused on the real priorities of the people of this province. We brought forward ideas on home care and on youth employment, and all of the aggression and frustration that the PCs are expressing motivated us to bring forward this idea of the Financial Accountability Office.

If you’ve read the legislation—I mean, you said no to the budget before you read the budget, but if you read this piece of legislation, you would see that it’s progressive and that it would address many of the concerns that you have. But, instead of actually putting the people first, putting the interests of the people of this province first, you have put your own interests first and fought for an election that nobody wants right now, unless, of course, we’re to believe that the Liberals are thinking, “Oh, maybe it’s time to have an election.” All this election talk is not good for the people of this province. We need to stay focused on jobs. We need to stay focused on the economy.

The Financial Accountability Office brings back confidence to the people of this province, because we have a trust issue. Every one of us has a trust issue. All of us may do really good work at our constituency offices, but what we do here by putting progressive legislation forward is our key job as legislators, and we are proud. I mean, New Democrats obviously are proud of the work that we were able to accomplish.

That is, in many respects, the potential of a minority government. If we brought forward the idea of a Financial Accountability Office in a majority government—no one was listening. That’s very clear from the last 10 years. That’s very clear from the track record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years. I don’t need to rehash all of the scandals, because they’re so prevalent. They are on the minds of every Ontarian.

The PCs will say to the people of this province that it’s too late to build trust. Well, that’s not how we feel as New Democrats. We actually feel that it’s never too late to rebuild trust. We feel that it’s never too late to right a wrong, and that’s what the Financial Accountability Office has the potential of doing. It really is surprising for me to hear that the PC Party is actually going to vote against enhancing their rights to access information.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s amazing, isn’t it?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s incredible. You can have access to information. You have seen how hard it is to get information from the Liberal government, and yet, the Financial Accountability Office would give you greater power—not just power for yourselves, but power for the people that you serve, so that you have the information to influence and to impact public policy and legislation.

Of late, much has been made about MPPs’ right to documentation of the business of the government. It has been a long, hard fight. We hear it often from the PCs. The work being done over the last year at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, for instance, and at the Standing Committee on Estimates to fully understand the costs of the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville is important and necessary, but has also served as a study on the rights of this Legislature.

I just want to share a story with you. I had the opportunity to sit at estimates yesterday and ask the finance minister some specific questions on policy, on legislation, on their ideas around energy and on infrastructure, for instance. At one point, the Minister of Finance cautioned the committee members, both the PCs and the NDP, and said, “You have to be careful about the questions that you’re asking, because you’ve never had this information before.”

It was, in many respects, a very patronizing comment, but then he went on to say that this is a shared responsibility; our economy and the state of our finances of the province are a shared responsibility. It’s only a shared responsibility when you have the information in front of you. Then, it is truly a shared responsibility, and all of us bear the brunt of that responsibility in this House. And all of us have had difficulty accessing key information on gas plants, on energy, on infrastructure, for instance. Look how long it took to get the real story about the Ornge air ambulance scandal. Meanwhile, people’s lives were impacted in a very negative way.

The reason I bring up the responsibility of government is to, of course, ensure that Ontarians have transparency and have true accountability and that the government and all future governments—that’s a real key piece. I was asked this question on Monday. This idea: “It’s going to impact you, too.” Yes. Yes, it is. And that is good. It will hold all future governments accountable.

There are so many examples of when, actually, a Financial Accountability Office could have been used in the last 10 years, in the last 20 years. For instance, if the selling of the 407 highway, the toll highway, had a full financial analysis, do you think that that deal would have gone through? Because that was a bad deal for the people of this province. It’s a bad deal today. Think of the profits that we have lost as a province that we could have invested in education, that we could have invested in health care—billions of dollars.

You want to talk about scandals. The Financial Accountability Office brings to this Legislature an independent level of accountability, because the Liberals have brought in other ideas about financial accountability, and we actually heard the Premier last week say, “Just because you say something over and over doesn’t make it true.” Yes, we know that. We know that based on their entire track record, right?

When you talk to people in the community, in our own constituencies, all of us recognize—if you’re really listening to the people of this province—that there is a serious trust issue. People want to trust the government. They want to see progressive ideas happen in this Legislature that they can actually support.

This idea of a coalition—it’s like people have not recognized that this is a minority government. In a minority government, the rules have changed. You just can’t play the same old games. You have to come to the table with ideas, which we have done. Actually, you know what? When you can influence a budget the way that we have in the last two budgets—we’ve showed up to work in this Legislature, we have put people first and we have gotten real results.

I understand the frustration from the official opposition that they haven’t been able to get results—because getting an election is not a result. It is not something that people value. People out there right now just want us to build confidence in our economy. They want to get back to work. They want their students, actually, not to pay exorbitant post-secondary fees. They want their children to access a public education system that is safe, that is healthy and that is inclusive. There is so much work before us as legislators.

Today, I’m listening to some of the sabre-rattling from the Liberals: “Oh, the opposition. They don’t want to work with us.” You know what? Quite honestly, if the NDP comes to work, the work gets done. The PCs have basically written themselves off. They have rendered themselves irrelevant in the development of policy and legislation in this province. They don’t want to play. But we are here and we have ideas, and the ideas that we have come from the people of this province, and that makes for a stronger Legislature. That makes for a stronger Queen’s Park. That’s what people expect from the people that they elected: to work on their behalf.

A lot has been said about the cost, for instance, of the FAO. It is actually the lowest official office cost in the Legislature. So talk about value for money. It’s forward-thinking. For instance, a good comparable would be investing in physiotherapy for seniors so that they don’t fall, so that they don’t end up in the ER, so they don’t end up in a long-term-care facility. It’s a preventive, early intervention measure that we can take to ensure that the money that comes into this place is spent responsibly.

Earlier, the House leader went on to say that this is a mirror of the Auditor General. It is not. The Auditor General looks at things after they’ve already happened, and it exposes the lies and exposes the incompetence. The Financial Accountability Office, actually, is forward-thinking—so we would have had an opportunity to look at the contracts on the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants. We would have realized that cancelling those plants had a huge cost, and it would have actually projected even the future costs—because we don’t even talk about that anymore, about the transmission from Napanee, for instance.

That is a scandal. It’s a scandal that was preventable, and all of us actually knew that at the time. Yet the Liberals went ahead, as we’ve heard in the gas plant justice committee. They went ahead and they cancelled it anyway without regard for the true cost to the people of this province.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge that today is the 12th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States and suggest that we remember today those who lost their lives in this tragic event and the bravery of the first responders who put their own lives at risk to help others. I’d like to ask that the House observe a moment of silence in recognition of this anniversary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier is seeking unanimous consent to stand for a moment’s remembrance of the anniversary of 9/11. Agreed? Agreed.

Please, all rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Mike Colle: I have the family of the page from Eglinton–Lawrence, William Howard-Waddingham. His family is here: his mother, Kelly Waddingham; Martha Howard; and Brigid Waddingham. I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today the parents and family of William Howard-Waddingham. Welcome.

Mr. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce some very distinguished guests from India today. I want to introduce Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa. Mr. Dhindsa is currently a member of the Rajya Sabha, which is like a Senate, in India. He’s a former member of Parliament of India and a former Union Minister of Sports and Chemicals and Fertilizers. He is also the general secretary of the Shiromani Akali Dal. Welcome.

He also has some other guests joining him today: Harbans Singh Jandali is the general secretary of the Ontario Khalsa Darbar; Beant Singh Dhaliwal, president of the Shiromani Akali Dal, Canada; Dalbir Singh Sidhu is a great friend and organizer and a community worker; Inderjit Bal, a very good friend of mine; Inderjit Singh Dhugga; Karan Singh Ghumaan; Bikramjit Singh Goraya; Pavittar Singh Gill; Harsharan Singh Ghumaan; Jasbir Singh Lalli; and Satpal Johal is a TV and radio host.

I really want to extend a very warm welcome to them.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my pleasure to introduce an international delegation that many members are going to be meeting with today. They are from Taiwan. If I may introduce them, they’re over here. They’re students from the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. They are with their teacher Wen-Hsin I: Meng-yun Tsai, I-Ling Huang, En-Ling Chang, Pei-Chi Wu, Hsueh-Han Lien and Yeu-Wei Harn. They are with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, with Justin Lee and Henri Chuang, who are well known to many members here. Later today, the director general, Winston Chen, will be joining us.

We would like to welcome you warmly to our assembly.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m very pleased and privileged to introduce a couple of health care trailblazers from the community that I’m from, Hamilton; first and foremost, Dr. Peter B. Dent, who was instrumental as a founder in Hamilton of the McMaster Children’s Hospital and the Hamilton Ronald McDonald House. Peter is here on the government benches with his daughter Ashley.

Welcome. We’re very proud to have you here.

We also have with us a trailblazer from a different side of the health care field—a community health centre: Denise Brooks, the executive director of the Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre. A number the people from that organization are here as well, and I’d like to welcome you here to the Legislature as well.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to introduce a friend of mine from the town of Tecumseh: Mario Spagnuolo, who is here. Mario is one of the most dedicated educators in the province. He’s up here for a conference this afternoon. He came a little early to watch democracy in action so he can report back to his children in the school system how we conduct ourselves during question period. So I hope we do a good job for him today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome people from the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. Joining us today are President Robert Davidson, Michael Jarvis, Henry Lowi, Larkell Bradley, Ron Lillie, Jean Lillie, Connie Detzler, Hugh Detzler, Laurie Fowler and Roger Chandler. I know they’ll be meeting with many members today. We’re delighted to have you in the House.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to also welcome my constituent Mr. Robert Davidson who’s here today. He’s also president of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. The foundation will be hosting a reception this afternoon in the legislative dining room from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to welcome the hard-working and tireless people from the co-operative housing federation, who are here to speak in support of Bill 14 at public hearings later today. I’d like to welcome Dale Reagan, Harvey Cooper, Simone Swail, Judy Shaw and Keith Moyer. Welcome.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, would you help me welcome my sister, Sister Marijke Gerretsen, who has been teaching in Japan for the last 40 years. She’s here in the public gallery, together with Sister Yoko Ikeda. They are here with a group of 19 students from the Sakura no Seibo Junior College in Fukushima, Japan. They’ve been here in Ontario for the last two weeks to learn about our way of life and on a cultural exchange as well.

M me France Gélinas: Well, my leader introduced the executive director of Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre, but Mrs. Brooks never travels alone. She has a few friends with her, and it would be my pleasure to introduce them.

I’ll start with Margie and Dan Goold; Lynn Simmons is here; Floydeen Charles-Fridal; Maciej Kowalski; Tibor Lukacs; Vicas Sood; Attila Csikos; Rosella Russo; Rhonda Castello; Alma Harris; Ursula Samuels; Sybyl Don-Martin; Wendell Fields; Tim Button; Jason Whalen; Tom Kaler; Catherine Hines; Sherry Proper; Francia Cenpeno; Sofia Ramirez; Paul Henry and Sean Gibson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Dr. Peter Dent here. Peter is a legend. He’s the founder of McMaster Children’s Hospital and the Hamilton Ronald McDonald House. We are delighted he’s joined us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do want to remind all members that I make a noble attempt to try to have all of you introduce your guests here because that’s very important, and it’s the people’s place. I’m going to remind you to keep your comments to the introduction and avoid as much of the

preambles as possible, which allows me to stay within the agreed-upon time that we’ve worked out. But I will try to be as sensitive as possible, because there are some that are time-sensitive; they either have to leave or go. I’m trying to work with everybody in this. If everyone can co-operate back, I don’t think we’ll have any complications with this—because it is an important thing for us to do, which is to introduce all of our guests who come to us in the people’s place.

I thank you for your co-operation and thank you for your patience in making my job a little easier to try to get these introductions done for everyone.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Momentarily, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Doug Holyday, will be tabling a motion calling on the government to make good on its promise to the people of Scarborough in the recent by-election to build a subway line, as requested by city council. I want to congratulate the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for bringing this to the floor so quickly.

My question to you, Premier, is, will you support the motion? Will you actually keep your promise to the people of Scarborough?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have to say it is refreshing to hear the Leader of the Opposition coming forward and talking about transit. I think that’s great. I think that’s just wonderful.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, since we came into office, we’ve been investing in transit. There are projects happening all over the province. In fact, there is building going on in Ottawa, in Kitchener–Waterloo. There’s building going on within the GTHA. There is transit money being used across the province as a result of the gas tax investments that we have made. There is a lot of work that is happening right now. I think our commitment to building transit is evidenced by the work that is happening.

We have been working with the city of Toronto on this file. We’ve listened to the members from Scarborough. We’ve listened to the people of Scarborough. We’re committed to building a subway in Scarborough. We’ve committed $1.4 billion and another $320 million for the station. We will build that subway.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Suppplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, back to the Premier: I listened carefully to the Premier’s response. I simply asked if you were keeping your promise. I didn’t hear either a yes or a no.

I’ll tell you why I’m concerned. Premier, it was in March 2012 that we brought forward a motion in the House, standing in my name as Leader of the Opposition, to build subways in Scarborough. That was our motion, and we brought it to the floor over a year ago. I’m proud of that.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We’ve been consistent.

Mr. Tim Hudak: We’ve been consistent. You, Premier, and your transportation minister voted against it.

You referenced yesterday your canoe trip over the summer. You probably saw a lot of carp flipping and flopping in the river that you were in. Are we seeing the same thing here today? You’re not going to flip-flop? Are you flip-flopping? Honest to goodness, it’s hard to tell where you stand on the issue. Just yes or no, Premier: Are you going to keep your promise, or are you going to flip-flop yet again?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, we have been committed to building transit, and we will continue to build transit. We’re committed to building the subway in Scarborough.

The piece that the Leader of the Opposition is missing in this is that we have to work with partners. We have to work with the municipalities. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is coming into this discussion talking about one project to which we are committed. In answer to your question, we’ve said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. We’re back to that little habit that we were out of during the summer break, which is that I’m hearing people from that side heckling while the question is being put, and while the answer is being put, I’m hearing heckling from this side.

I’d like all of us just to simply stop the heckling.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’re actually not getting answers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew doesn’t help his case at all for today.

Answer, please?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition is coming in on one project in one region, as opposed to understanding that building transit is—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s a system.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a systematic approach that has to be taken, and we have to work with partners. But we’re committed to building transit in Scarborough, and we’re committed to building the subway in Scarborough.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t know, Speaker; I’ve never seen this kind of quality of verbal gymnastics in a simple yes-or-no question. Are you going to keep your promise or not?

The Premier said, “Well, you have to work with partners.” I remind you, Premier, that just a couple of weeks ago your Minister of Transportation, Mr. Murray, went out there and, all of a sudden, launched his own brand new plan that nobody had heard of, that council did not support, that the TTC did not support, that Scarborough residents didn’t support and that Metrolinx didn’t support. Nobody supports that plan.

The promise in the by-election was absolutely clear: a line going from Kennedy up to Sheppard through Scarborough City Centre. Your minister invents a new project with less money, fewer stops and lower quality.

Listen, the people of Scarborough have run into brick walls for far too long. We’re going to put you up against that same brick wall with Doug Holyday’s motion. Are you going to keep your promise, or are you going to flip-flop right out of the gate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the Leader of the Opposition might want to have a conversation with the new member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and talk about exactly what has gone on at city council over the last couple of years, talk about how contentious this issue has been, and understand from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore where the money is coming from, where the $1.4 billion and the extra $320 million is coming from, for the project. That would be from this government, from the provincial level; not from the city and not from the federal government.

I think if the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore and just understand the context that has been in place for the last three years, as we’ve gone back and forth with the city of Toronto, that might be very helpful for him, because he’s coming in late in the game on one project.

We’re committed to building the subway in Scarborough, and we’re committed to working with our municipal partners.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for calling you “Madam Speaker” yesterday. That really stems from a long-time habit I’ve had at some other establishment.

My question today, though, is for the Premier. A few months ago, your Minister of Transportation said that it would be difficult for Metrolinx to proceed if Toronto city council and the TTC are not supportive of the transit options that have received municipal approval. Now your government has ignored the city of Toronto by offering a shortened version of the Scarborough subway. Madam Premier, why have you decided to move forward without the city of Toronto and the TTC?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

I’ll be waiting for the last person to try to get the word in because it’s quiet.

Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I also predicted a few weeks ago, or a month ago, that the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore would be here representing the mayor’s views, and he’s doing exactly what we said and he’s doing exactly what Conservative politicians in this House, conservative politicians at city hall and Conservative politicians in Ottawa do with subways in Toronto. They pass motions; they never write cheques. Here we have classic civic-provincial-federal conservatism on subways—yet another motion.

I would suggest to my friend from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and his friend Mayor Ford, who have such great relationships with Mr. Flaherty, that maybe they can together get Mr. Flaherty to write a cheque for a subway in Toronto.

We are not, Mr. Speaker, going to build subways in Scarborough on motions and rhetoric and press releases. We need money. The only people putting money into subways, Mr. Speaker, are the Liberals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: It’s going to be very difficult to build a subway in Toronto or anywhere else without the government of Ontario’s support. The trouble here is that the government of Ontario has been all over the lot on both sides of this question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Carry on.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot be on all sides of this equation. This is not a merry-go-round; you can’t get off whenever you want. I just want to know: Are you really onside this time? Are you really going to follow your plan, or are you not?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we have come to understand that Conservatives love to fill in subways. They bizarrely champion them, but they never like to pay for them. The other thing we know about Conservatives is, they don’t like to read. They don’t read budgets and they don’t read plans, because if they had actually read a plan, the Leader of the Opposition would know he was dead wrong again. The line on that map has not changed in one single plan. We’re following the same route that we ever had. The only change, Mr. Speaker—we have never changed our position once. The flip-flopping carps are over there.

What is the price tag for that whipped-up, out-of-the-blue thing that the member for Etobicoke Centre—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s $3 billion, Mr. Speaker—$3 billion. The fiscal prudence for Conservatives is when you can build a line—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to gently remind all members: When I stand, you sit. I’ll say it again so that the minister is looking at me when I say it.

This is a gentle reminder for everyone: When I stand, you sit.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Premier, you wanted LRTs. Then you changed your mind. You asked council for support, and then you acted on your own. Last year, you voted against a motion supporting the Sheppard subway extension. Then you flip-flopped on LRTs. Then you flip-flopped on the Scarborough subway.

People in Scarborough don’t want you to break another promise you made during the election, so we’re back to trust. After the gas plant scandal, we know Liberals will do anything it takes to win votes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am asking for quiet, and it should be obvious that no one else would add their two cents’ worth, like the member from Durham, while I’m speaking.

The member from Oxford, I hope we don’t have to go to the medic to take care of your hand, or else repair that desk.

You have a short wrap-up for your question.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario do not trust this government. Premier, with your chronic flip-flopping, the transit voters of the city of Toronto can never trust you. You’ve got to make a solid decision and you’ve got to stick to it.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have to apologize to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I had suggested he had moved to the centre. I was clearly wrong.

Mr. Speaker, $16.4 billion in 15 rapid transit projects: a consistent plan, our Premier, we have not moved off of one inch.

There are more Conservative MPs and city councillors, and now one MPP, and together, they can’t come up with 4% of the solution. The member opposite and I both were mayors. Both of us know we start conversations with one third. Why doesn’t the member opposite ask the federal government why in Kitchener and Ottawa, the federal government pays one third of transit costs, but in the 416, in his area, 4%?

The gap between us and the transit system the people of Toronto deserve is one word: It’s “Conservative.” When you vote Conservative, you get—

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

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The people of Ontario have sent us a pretty clear message: Focus on delivering results that create jobs, improve their health care, make life more affordable and make government more accountable. Does the Premier have a problem with any of this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Our investments in people and in business and in infrastructure are designed to do precisely what the leader of the third party is talking about: to grow the economy, to create jobs and to make sure that we help people in their day-to-day challenges. That’s the kind of initiative that is included in our budget. That’s the work that we have been doing over the last eight months and before, and that’s the work that we will continue to do, I hope, with the co-operation of people in this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People look to the government for leadership, and what they’re seeing these days are some pretty cynical games, whether it’s playing political games to make their budget numbers look good or using a plan to protect youth from cancer risk as a political football. People actually expect better from their government.

Will the Premier stop playing these same old political games and start focusing on results that people need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I’m not sure what the leader of the third party is referencing, but if she is talking about the announcement that the Minister of Finance made yesterday about our overachievement on our budget and on our deficit, and if she is talking about the way we are managing the finances that the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You may be volunteering yourself.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact that the Auditor General has signed off on the numbers that were released yesterday, I think, should give the leader of the third party and, certainly, the people of Ontario some confidence when we say that the 2012-13 deficit is now down to $9.2 billion, that we’re $5.6 billion lower than was projected in the 2012 budget—a further reduction of $600 million since the 2013 budget—and that, for the first time in a decade, total spending fell from the previous year. Spending is down, as we said it would be. We are constraining spending, and we are overachieving on our targets. That’s good news—

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

Stop the clock. I’m going to mention the member from Renfrew and the member from Peterborough. I don’t want to have to come back to you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This week, we started debating the Financial Accountability Office. I’m sure that office will have some things to say about Liberal numbers, but as we go forward, we’re going to keep working to ensure that home care wait-lists are actually going to go down in this province, that auto insurance rates are going to go down and that youth unemployment is going to go down.

People remember this government’s track record. They know that Liberals only moved to protect youth from tanning beds because it would, according to a Liberal staffer, “make a fabulous headline” to detract from gas plants. Now, they know that this government is only moving on youth jobs, home care and accountability because New Democrats demanded it. They want to see results, but they’ve lost trust in this government.

Is the Premier ready to focus on results for the people who elected us, or are we going to see more of the silly political games that the Liberals like to play so much?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, first of all, I just want to say that, on this side of the House, we have a lot of confidence in the Auditor General. When the Auditor General signs off on numbers, we really support that. That’s why that scrutiny is so important.

In terms of the deep cynicism around the actions of the government, I just want to say that our commitment to improving kids’ lives, all of the changes that we’ve made in education, the supports that we’ve put in place for communities, the fact that we are continuing to implement full-day kindergarten—all of those are evidence of our commitment to the future, to making sure that the investments that we make improve young people’s lives into the future. The measures that are included in our budget are an extension of that.

The leader of the third party chose some issues as we went into the budget last year that she knew perfectly well we wanted to take action on. We’ve taken action on those, and they will improve people’s lives.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This next question is for the Premier as well.

A simple step the Premier could take today would be to ensure that the committee looking into wasted millions at the gas plants is able to actually do its job. When the Premier was rejecting calls for a public inquiry that we were calling for earlier on, she insisted that this committee was going to be able to have all of their questions answered, but we all know that hasn’t been happening. For two days, the Premier has refused to say in this House whether she will do anything about it.

Is the Premier going to open up the gas plant committee so that Ontarians can get answers about Liberal political interference, or will she keep protecting her Liberal friends?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have a lot of respect for the procedures of this Legislative Assembly. I do not control committees. I think it’s fairly clear that Chairs of committees take their advice from the Clerk, and then the committee makes those decisions. The fact is, in a minority Parliament, we don’t control the committees. The committees are a reflection of the makeup of the House. In fact, the NDP and the Conservatives can work in committee, and they can make those decisions.

I’ve been clear that my position is that the committee should have the opportunity to ask the questions that it wants to ask. So I turn to the committee and I say I hope that they will work to ask the questions that they want to have answered, that they will provide opportunities for people to come forward, and I will leave that up to them to make those deliberations, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, yesterday the Premier said the justice committee has her blessing to ask the questions it needs. Well, that’s very nice, Speaker. That’s very nice. But the Premier’s blessing does not get Ontarians answers about questions that are being blocked at committee. What will get answers, Speaker, regardless of her refusal to acknowledge it, is the Premier supporting an expanded scope of this committee. Will the Premier support expanding the scope of the justice committee or will she keep protecting well-connected Liberal insiders?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really believe that the committee needs to be allowed to do its job. From my perspective, every person that the committee has wanted to call from the Liberal Party has come forward, as far as I know. As the committee has asked people to come forward, they have come forward. As the committee has asked for documents, they have received those documents—135,000 of them, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll just put the sarcasm aside. When I said that the committee has my blessing, I meant that. I meant that if the committee wants to ask particular questions, they want to make decisions, it’s up to the committee to do its work with advice from the Clerk. But I think that they’ve had a broad scope, and they should be able to continue to exercise that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s a pretty interesting day today, Speaker. The Premier has said she wants transparency. On April 25, she said, “I said I was committed to being open and transparent ... all the questions that were asked were going to be answered.”

On April 16, she said, “From day one when I came into this job ... information that was being asked for needed to be available.”

Earlier this week, she said she will “make sure that, as questions are asked, they get answered.” She said the same thing again today.

But the Premier needs to know we are asking the questions about Liberal interference with the Speaker. Will the Premier make sure that those questions get answered at committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m pretty sure that the particular issue that the leader of the third party is referencing got addressed by you earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, so I am not going to weigh into that. What I will say is that the committee has the authority to ask the questions that it chooses to ask, with the advice of the Clerk.

If there is a discussion that needs to happen among the House leaders in terms of changes, as the Premier and the leader of this party, I’m open to that happening. The House leader can meet with the House leaders from the opposition and the third party. They can have that discussion.

I remain committed to being open and transparent on this issue. I have said that as there are questions that come forward, I want those questions to be answered. This is not about protection of anyone. It’s about opening up the process, and that’s why the boxes of paper, all of the information that has been made available has been made available, Mr. Speaker.

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Earlier today, part of your caucus in the public accounts committee supported our motion to finally learn the true cost of the reopened negotiations with the teachers’ contracts last year. Today, in the Toronto Sun, it has been estimated that that cost would be as high as $500 million. But what I am concerned about is the fact that your party is split, and it was very clear in the public accounts committee today that you were split.

So my question is, will you finally be open and transparent with the taxpayers to reveal these true costs? Given the Auditor General’s report into the gas plants, one of my major concerns is that your party will obstruct legislative officers as well as members of this assembly in getting the true costs. Can we get a commitment from you today, very public, that you will not get in the way of getting those answers out to the public, who very desperately want them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to respond to this because, in fact, we have been quite open about what the financial considerations are here. We announced in January 2013 that we had reached savings of $1.8 billion as a result of labour negotiations, and as of today, we continue to achieve savings of $1.8 billion. Nothing has changed.

What we clearly are very pleased about is that, as a result of our discussions with our friends in the various teachers’ groups and the various education support workers’ groups, we have in fact achieved what we wanted to achieve, which was a good start to the school year. I can tell you that any parents and grandparents I have spoken to in the last few weeks are absolutely delighted that we have received a good start to the school year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This minister did not provide me with any cost whatsoever. In fact, after six months of asking, doing order paper questions, asking questions in this assembly, not once did she provide me with a detailed breakdown of what this costs.

Mr. Speaker, you’ll understand when I get concerned as a mother, with my child in the public education system, when the education minister in this House says that her number one priority is about bargaining—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —not educating students in our classrooms. It’s a very big challenge for us on this side to believe this government, because they don’t want to tell us what the true costs are.

I also am very concerned because this is the Premier who effectively campaigned to get the support of the teachers’ unions by accepting tens of thousands of dollars from them in the last year. She then decided to repeal Bill 115 at the unions’ request. She decided to appease the unions by pushing out the former minister.

All I am simply asking on behalf of parents, teachers who want to teach, students and members of this assembly is: Will they do their job, will they provide us with the information and will they table it, effective immediately?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Unlike the party opposite, we actually do believe that teachers want to teach, and we’re very appreciative of that.

I must say, in terms of confusing numbers, the member opposite has claimed we have a $100-million bill, a $300-million bill, a $500-million bill. I want to get the accurate number.

What we did is we struck an implementation cost estimate working group, and we have been working with school boards over the course of the summer, working through each item accurately and getting the actual figures from the school boards. We have one or two items remaining, and when we have those accurate numbers absolutely nailed down, we will in fact release the accurate, actual costs, and I’m quite prepared to do that.

TANNING BED LEGISLATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. For five years, my NDP colleagues and I have been urging this government to regulate the tanning industry. But for five years, this government has let the bills languish, despite the fact that we knew of the cancer risk.

Speaker, this bill could have passed in 2008, in 2010, in 2012. Right now, it feels like a cynical game is being played on the backs of cancer patients.

If the Premier is not playing politics, then why didn’t she pass this bill when she had a majority government?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am asking all members of this Legislature to work together for the benefit of the people of Ontario. We have an opportunity to pass this bill by the end of September. We need a party to stand with us to get that job done.

The member opposite’s commitment to this tanning legislation is impeccable. She clearly supports this legislation that was first introduced by Khalil Ramal in 2008. Since 2008, cancer patients have been waiting for us to take a step that almost every other province has already done. We can get this done by September 30. It’s time to put the political gamesmanship aside and get this job done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Thanks to the good work of the cancer society and of Kate of the Melanoma Network, right now if anyone in this House was to hold up this bill, they would be on the front page of every media with a set of red horns and long pointy tail. Nobody is going to hold this bill up. We’ve discovered that the only reason that this government suddenly became interested in the bill was to distract Ontarians from the gas plant scandal.

Instead of actually delivering results for Ontarians, why is the Premier more interested in manufacturing a crisis when in fact everybody agrees that it is time for this bill to move forward?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite was present this morning at a media conference. She heard first-hand from the people who were advocating for speedy passage of this bill. The Canadian Cancer Society, melanoma survivors, the Ontario Medical Association—there is overwhelming consensus that passing this bill is the right thing to do. It has been introduced five—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this bill or a bill similar to this has been introduced five times. Five times, the hopes of the cancer survivors have been raised and then dashed. We have a plan to get this done by September 30. I don’t know why both parties aren’t standing with us, together, and saying, “We can get this done.” Let’s get working together and get this legislation passed by September 30.

TANNING BED LEGISLATION

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Parents and families in my community of Ajax–Pickering want to know if this government is serious in its commitment to protect the health of our sons, our daughters and our children. In March, the minister introduced the legislation that, if passed, would restrict access to tanning bed services for Ontarians under 18.

My question—straightforward: Could the minister tell us when she expects this legislation to move forward?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for this very important question. As we were saying, this Skin Cancer Prevention Act represents common ground. All three parties agree that this legislation should move forward. There has been broad consensus that this is the right thing to do, but unfortunately this legislation has been blocked. It has not moved forward because the PCs have been extending debate for 55 hours on three other bills, blocking the progress of this legislation. We can no longer allow this legislation to be held up.

The longer this legislation is delayed, the worse it is for our young people. So we will be moving a programming motion. I look forward to the support of the parties opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Minister. It’s great news for all Ontarians that we have an opportunity to pass this vital legislation swiftly. It seems to all of us in the House that we agree that restricting young Ontarians’ access to tanning services is vital to protecting their health. However, as you have noted, this bill has needlessly been delayed.

Can the minister, through you, Speaker, tell us why it is important to have this done so quickly?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m quite aware that there is broad support for this legislation to move forward, and for very good reason. The dangers of exposure to artificial radiation for young people have been very well documented.

Speaker, I’ve been disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition kind of fluffed it off as not an important issue. I tell you, this is an important issue. It’s an important issue for young people; it’s an important issue for cancer patients.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew maybe didn’t hear it while he was yelling. I said he is warned.

Finish your answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, at the end of question period, I will be moving unanimous consent for this programming motion—

Interjections.

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

New question.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Premier on the Ring of Fire. Premier, your government has done a lot of talking about the Ring of Fire. You’ve touted the project in throne speeches, budgets, debate and in response to questions here in the Legislature. But despite all this talk, we are seeing very little progress made on the Ring. In fact, things have taken a step backward recently, with major players choosing to put their operations on hold, punctuated by the decision by Cliffs Resources to suspend work on their environmental assessment.

Premier, since becoming leader of your party, have you met with Cliffs, Noront or KWG, all key players who will create thousands of jobs for Ontarians by developing the Ring of Fire?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question from the member. Indeed, the Ring of Fire is a very exciting economic development opportunity for not just northern Ontario but for the whole province of Ontario. We are working very, very closely with all the companies involved in the Ring of Fire, certainly including the companies that the member mentioned.

I think what’s extraordinarily important for us is to take the good news that’s coming forward; for example, the fact that we are working so closely with First Nations—a set of negotiations on a regional framework basis led by the Matawa First Nations, led by Mr. Rae; and by asking Mr. Frank Iacobucci to take on the provincial negotiating role, which is moving forward in a very positive way.

Just this morning, for example, members may not know that the application for a judicial review has been actually withdrawn by the Matawa—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —showing real confidence, may I say, in the process that’s moving forward with Mr. Rae and Mr. Iacobucci. So—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —a complex, extraordinarily complex—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand, you sit.

Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s hard for the minister to provide a useful answer to a direct question asked of the Premier. So again, to the Premier, even in the face of prominent miners criticizing delays in the approval process and “unresolved agreements with the government of Ontario that are critical to the project’s economic viability,” you insist that the Ring of Fire is moving ahead.

Premier, for claiming that your government would make the north a priority, your actions have done little to signal that there’s been any real change. While getting the Ring of Fire right is important, there needs to be real action to show that you’re committed to creating northern jobs.

With yesterday’s ruling of the land commissioner in mind, why should miners continue investing millions of dollars to stay afloat in the Ring of Fire when there’s so little action on the part of your government?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: What’s so absolutely crucial is that we do have the support of all three parties in the Legislature to move the project forward. Certainly, the information relating to the withdrawal of the application for judicial review is a very important piece in terms of moving the project forward.

There is no question: We do indeed agree that we all need to get it right, and that certainly includes working on making sure that the First Nations that are closest to the Ring of Fire are absolutely going to benefit from this project. That is certainly one of the goals that we have. It’s also one of the very clear goals of the major companies involved in this project. I think that if you’re talking to Cliffs Natural Resources, Noront Resources, KWG or Canada Chrome, they’re also working very, very closely.

We are extremely encouraged by the decision to withdraw the judicial review.

The issue relating to the Mining and Lands Commissioner is one that we are looking at very closely, obviously, between Cliffs and KWG.

The long and the short is: It’s a great project. This is a project—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Yesterday, we learned that the minister’s Scarborough transit proposal (1) does not have a detailed cost estimate, (2) would likely cause delays and cost overruns in the Eglinton Crosstown line, and (3) require Toronto council approval and willingness to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk costs and cost overruns.

Why is the minister undermining transit expansion in Scarborough by floating a plan with so many flaws, roadblocks and uncertainties?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: What we learned yesterday has never been the minister’s plan. It has actually been a plan, worked on very diligently, between Metrolinx and MTO. It’s actually the same plan that we’ve had for a very long time. If you just click twice on the MTO website, it pops up, and if you go back through time regression, you’ll actually see that the same line is there.

We asked the city one question—“Do you want an LRT or a subway?”—because our members now for 20 years have wanted a subway and there were previous city councils that said they did not want a subway. When the council changed its mind in May to agree with my colleagues like Minister Duguid and my many MPP colleagues from Scarborough who had been elected on a subway—they said to me as minister and to the Premier, “Can we do it?” We did it, and we’re going to do it with as minimal changes as possible. We’re sticking to the same plan. There are no changes. The only flip-flops have been in the NDP, and the only government that has changed its position is the city’s.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What pops up is this: The minister is running roughshod over Metrolinx by pushing a proposal (1) without knowing how much taxpayer money will be wasted by breaking contracts with Bombardier and other suppliers, and (2) without the agreement of Toronto council to cover sunk costs and cost overruns and without confirmation that the plan is technically feasible.

What price will the city of Toronto, the TTC, Metrolinx and, above all, the taxpayers pay for the minister’s arrogance and his self-serving scheme?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I have been accused of drawing some hard edges, but I don’t personally attack people like the member opposite just did.

Second, very quickly: I know that the Conservatives and the NDP like to debate subways. They don’t like to build them. They propose motions. The member for Trinity–Spadina wants us to get into another debate. We’re not debating subways anymore. We’re not debating transit; we’re building it, and we’re building it now.

I’m not interested in politicians who want to move motions. The people of Scarborough are fed up with the politics of this. The people of Scarborough are getting their subway, on budget, on time.

Enough talk; let the member for Etobicoke continue his rants from city hall and move more motions here. We don’t need city hall politics here. We certainly don’t need the NDP, who have no position—

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

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

Ms. Mitzie Jacquelin Hunter: The question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I have heard from a number of my constituents in Scarborough–Guildwood who live in co-operative housing that they have to go to court over an issue in their co-op. They say that this process is expensive and time-consuming for both the co-operative and the member involved.

This is an expense that is often prohibitively expensive for both parties. They are frustrated that tenants in rental properties seem to have better access to dispute resolution mechanisms, such as the Landlord and Tenant Board, than they do. They have asked me why our government has yet to help them reform this process, and I think this is a fair question.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, could you please explain what Bill 14 would do to help co-ops and their members with these costs?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I just want to start by congratulating the member from Scarborough–Guildwood on her successful election and her question in the House.

This is a very timely question, because Bill 14 is actually going to committee today, and I know we have a number of members of the co-op housing—the hardworking members here today.

I want to remind the entire House about the important role that co-op housing plays in providing affordable housing to Ontarians across this province. However, co-operatives have what can only be described as a complicated and expensive dispute resolution process: having to use the courts. That is unlike most tenants and landlords in Ontario, who are able to access the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve a variety of disputes without involving courts or pricey lawyers. It’s an issue of fairness for those who are least able to afford the costly court process.

That’s why our government introduced Bill 14 and that’s why we urge the opposition and the third party to work with us and pass Bill 14. It’s time to—

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

Ms. Mitzie Jacquelin Hunter: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the minister, through you—because I’ve heard from some people in Scarborough–Guildwood that they are confused about how this bill is different from an earlier one. They have heard about an amendment that would allow the Landlord and Tenant Board to waive application fees. This causes many of them to worry that this would only increase the number of cases being heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board, leading to longer delays and less justice for tenants.

While I am new to the Legislature, I know there have already been questions in this House about this very issue.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Could the minister explain how the fee waiver to the Landlord and Tenant Board would work and the rationale for including it?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, you’re not helping.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: —I want to comment that also the member from Leeds–Grenville raised this issue—we’ve had this debate in the House—and previously questioned why we included this amendment.

In short, the reason we proposed this amendment was to ensure fairness for all Ontarians no matter what their income. Currently, all applicants to the Landlord and Tenant Board have to pay a fee to have their case heard, unlike many of our other boards and tribunals, meaning that a tenant whose only source of income is a disability benefit might have to choose between seeking redress at the Landlord and Tenant Board or paying for groceries.

Our government believes that no Ontarian should have to make that choice. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would mean that all Ontarians, whether they’re rich or poor, would have the same access to justice.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday in justice committee, your predecessor’s former chief of staff, David Livingston, once again came up with a case of selective amnesia. He had a hard time recalling his role in your Liberal gas