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

February 25, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Feb-25 (PDF)

L048 - Wed 25 Feb 2015 / Mer 25 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 February 2015 Mercredi 25 février 2015

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Anti-bullying initiatives

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Research and innovation

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Accès à la justice

Use of question period

Members’ photo

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Wind farms

Labour dispute

Civic awards / Prix civiques

Veterans

Affordable housing

Pat Rosebrugh

Pesticides

Covenant House Toronto

Dhun Noria

Motions

Appointment of Information and Privacy Commissioner

Appointment of Financial Accountability Officer

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Anti-bullying initiatives

Repetitive strain injury

Anti-bullying initiatives

Repetitive strain injury

Anti-bullying initiatives

Repetitive strain injury

Petitions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Automotive industry

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Trespassing

Automotive industry

Employment practices

Road safety

Automotive industry

Distracted driving

By-election in Sudbury

Automotive industry

Government services

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte (Ontario) et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It is, of course, an honour as always to rise in the House to join the debate on a really important issue that we’re talking about this morning. G40 is the Agriculture Insurance Act, second reading, that amends the Crop Insurance Act.

Speaker, as many members know, I come from the riding of Essex, which is one of the pre-eminent hotbeds for agricultural production in Ontario. We’re very, very proud of our history in Essex county, and many would know the incredible variety of agricultural products that come out of the county. Of course, we would all know Leamington and Kingsville, home of the largest amount of vegetables grown under glass in our greenhouse industry. We’re very proud; it’s a very important economic generator for our region, one that continues to innovate and continues to grow—no pun intended. They certainly are a large portion of our regional economy and provide a tangible economic benefit to our area.

Interjection.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: If only they had access to more hydro power. I’ll get into that, for my friend from Windsor–Tecumseh, who also knows the importance of agricultural production.

Today we’re talking about expanding this act. G40 expands the Crop Insurance Act to cover other products. Currently, the Crop Insurance Act covers about 90 products in the province, including grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, forage—hay—honey and tobacco, but it does not cover livestock or maple products. That’s what we’re talking about today: expanding that coverage to those segments of agriculture, which are, of course, important.

We know that we have a good base of livestock production and a footprint in the province, and it’s growing as well. As the recognition of locally grown food and the need and demand for locally grown food increases, these types of industries are going to also increase.

That isn’t to say that they aren’t facing, and won’t face, tremendous challenges, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions. I would point to Alberta, which several years ago faced a massive BSE crisis that really decimated their industry. We need to be cognizant of that, and I think this is what this bill does. It is an enabling piece of legislation that allows the government to ultimately bring those types of products into the fold under the Agriculture Insurance Act, and provide those producers with some coverage—some support and protection—should things go awry.

We know there are challenges, not only through the BSE-type viruses or illnesses, but also, of course, environmental challenges that farmers face each and every day and each and every season that are outside of their control. That’s why these types of mechanisms are incredibly important. I would say they are vitally important, not only to our economy but, even more importantly, to our national security. That is how absolutely important this industry is. We’re talking about food security.

We’re talking about food sovereignty and the ability to rely on your own production, domestic production; and food safety, to be able to ensure that the products we all eat each and every day are safe and produced with a good amount of oversight, protection and safety.

We know that farmers do that. We know that they put the highest standards on every one of the products that leaves the farm gate. However, we have to remain diligent in terms of ensuring that those regulations are not so burdensome that it puts them out of business, but also balances the need and the demand for food awareness, food safety and, really, origin: Where is it coming from?

I would suspect, and I would argue, that if you canvass the majority of Canadians and certainly Ontarians, we’re more likely, more apt, to choose a product that is grown and made here in Ontario rather than one that is made somewhere else in the world, because we know our farmers—they’re our friends; they’re our neighbours—and we know the value they place on their products and their industry.

I’m sure that members of the House have heard the phrase, “If you ate today, thank a farmer.” And of course, if you are a farmer, thank you, because we know that farmers feed cities; farmers feed communities. They are not simply that; they provide a vital component to our rural identity, something that has increasingly been diminished under this Liberal government, frankly.

I live in rural Ontario. I drive the county roads. When I look down the concessions and see a large acreage, a large farm that’s been owned from generation to generation, and I know the challenges those farmers are facing and I know they are potentially deciding to maybe sell the farm and I also know that their children aren’t likely to take it up because of those challenges, because of the burdens that have been placed on farmers, that puts our industry in peril and puts our food security in peril—back to the nature of food sovereignty and our ability to produce our own food.

Imagine if we lost the ability, not only to produce our own food but to control it, and the knowledge that it takes to produce food. It’s incredible. Farmers are no longer simply planting seed and waiting for something to pop out of the ground. If you’re a farmer, you are an environmentalist, because you have to be a steward of your land; you have to recognize the challenges in keeping up your land. You are an engineer, because you’ve got to fix tractors—you’re a mechanic. You’re an economist, because you’ve got to watch the markets. You are a whole host of professions and knowledge that it takes to be a farmer.

Imagine what type of position we would be in, as a country and certainly as a province, if we lost that knowledge base. That’s why I would submit that agricultural production in the province is our number one important industry, not only because of the economic value, but because of that security value.

There’s so much more we could be doing, so much more that we have to do, so much more that farmers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union have told us we could be doing, one of which is developing a provincial agriculture strategy, not simply an ad hoc way or an ad hoc approach to how we deal with agriculture. It’s a piecemeal approach. When things go bad, we try to find some money here and try to develop a program here to be able to buffer that production. It can’t work. It’s not sustainable, and it doesn’t give the confidence to the industry that we take agriculture seriously.

Imagine if we had, in this province, an actual provincial agriculture strategy, something that would address the rising cost of hydro, the skyrocketing cost of hydro that many of our producers face. Imagine if we addressed that issue for them, so that they could feel confident in going forward and growing forward.

Imagine if we reviewed the barriers to trade, being access to market but also the imbalance that we face under some of our trading agreements that allow foreign food to be dumped into Ontario, into Canada. Imagine if we said, “Whoa, we’re not going to do that any longer. We’re going to create a level playing field for our agricultural producers,” because we know their costs for inputs are incredibly higher than some other regions of the planet. Imagine if we actually took agricultural production seriously.

Investing in access to natural gas: There is a consensus throughout the agriculture industry in Ontario that they need more access to natural gas and the ability to use it, given that it is certainly more affordable these days than hydro.

Speaker, Rural Ontario revolves around agricultural production and all of the effects of this government when it comes to rural Ontario. I’m talking about the closure of rural and small schools, the closure of rural hospitals; I would point to the OB unit being threatened to be closed at Leamington general hospital. Those affect the decision-making process of our farmers, whether they continue to produce in those regions or whether they close up shop completely and maybe sell their land and their business to a foreign entity. Again, that points back to a risk of our national sovereignty in that we lose that domestic production.

Imagine if we had a provincial agriculture program that actually had procurement policy built into it, that said, “We are the government of Ontario. We have the largest buying capacity in the province.” Should we not identify locally provincially grown and produced food and use it in our provincial entities—schools, hospitals, prisons? Imagine we had a threshold, let’s say, of 20% where we mandated that we bought Ontario-grown food. We all hear the catchphrases; we all hear “Good things grown in Ontario.” But that’s really simply all it is: a really nice commercial. We’re not speaking those words.

We are not working towards actually supporting and enhancing and protecting agricultural production.

This, again, is enabling legislation. It calls for the government to be able to bring other products—livestock products and maple syrup, I would imagine—into the fold under the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act. It actually changes the name of the Crop Insurance Act to the Agricultural Products Insurance Act—a subtle change. I guess it’s a little bit more broad in its scope, and I think that’s a good thing. It definitely recognizes the importance of all of our products that are made in Ontario related to agriculture.

However, it does not tie any dollar figure to the insurance. Currently, I think it’s roughly $100 million that is within the envelope of the Crop Insurance Act. So let’s say, Speaker, that grains and oilseeds have a terrible year across the province, your soy and your canola and your corn. Imagine that they have a terrible drought year, let’s say due to the effects of climate change, because that is a reality that farmers know all too well, that the drastic change in weather and the uncertainty and volatility of weather is affecting their crop production and their yields.

Let’s say that happens, as it did in 2006, as it did in 2005, and farmers are not able to buffer that. Just those two entities alone, the grains and oilseeds commodities sector, would eat up the $100 million. So bring in other products that may be facing the same challenges and your bank is empty. At a time when we know that OMAFRA’s budget is being cut by, I believe, 6% every year—I guess this was a mandate under the former Minister of Agriculture, who also happened to be at the time the Premier of the province.

She challenged farmers to create 120,000 new jobs and double the sector’s growth rate by 2020, at the same time cutting OMAFRA’s budget by 6%.

I don’t know who the economist is who is giving the government that type of advice, but it doesn’t make sense to us here in the NDP. We would say that if you’re going to challenge an industry to grow and to innovate, as they do currently, then you’ve got to be there in terms of support. You should actually make a commitment and you should identify the value in protecting agriculture. They haven’t done that. That’s a terrible signal. “We want you to grow, but we’re going to cut back.

We’re going to cut back on local offices in areas like Essex,” where we had historically, for decades and decades, a wonderful OMAFRA office that serviced local farmers. That doesn’t exist anymore. Farmers have to access their support through OMAFRA from who knows where, but definitely outside of Essex county. That goes against how rural Ontario operates, Speaker.

Obviously, the government doesn’t really understand rural Ontario. We like to talk to people, we like to sit down and understand and work out the nuances, and it’s hard to do that over the Internet in a form letter or a form application. We need to know—there are, again, specific nuances and idiosyncrasies of each and every farm that don’t simply apply. They aren’t recognizing that in their slashing of the OMAFRA budget, but yet they’re challenging farmers to grow more—and they will.

Farmers have always been innovative. They do so each and every day. As I said, they’re not only farmers but they are engineers. They’re data collectors, they are on the cutting edge of science; they understand GPS, they understand best practices and they implement them into their operations. However, they’re not being led, of course, by this government. They’re taking it on their own initiative to improve their product, improve their quality and safety, and I know that they will continue to do that and play a vital part.

It’s a given that New Democrats support this provision to bring in livestock under the fold of the Crop Insurance Act, to ensure that should they face any challenges, we protect that industry; protect the nature and the important history of the industry. However, there is so much more that can be done in the realm of agriculture.

Imagine, Speaker—it’s a government that touts the importance of rural Ontario. They say a lot of great things, but to really show some initiative, I would throw that challenge right back at the Premier, right back at the Minister of Rural Affairs: Create a standing committee on agriculture.

If you actually think that farming and agricultural production in this province is as important, as I do, as we do as New Democrats, create a standing committee so that we can discuss all of these issues that I brought up today so that we can continue—we can show our agricultural producers out there that we actually care, we take them seriously and we’re going to have a specific forum for them to voice their concerns, for them to play a role in discussing legislative initiatives. Why not do that? It’s a simple mechanism.

It wouldn’t cost that much money but would actually give voice to these concerns, not in the ad hoc way in which this government treats our farmers: piecemeal; here and there, when things happen. No, take it seriously. Create a standing committee and make it happen.

Also stop attacking rural Ontario for the sake of other areas of the province. You’re pitting rural Ontario against one another when it comes to a whole host of issues. You don’t understand the idiosyncrasies of rural Ontario. The need for small schools: Yes, they may not be up to the same capacity as some urban areas but they are the heartbeat of those communities. They are what families and generations have relied on. The school might not look that pretty. It might not have a nice sheen on it—as the government likes to do and cut ribbons—but sometimes they’re historic.

They are places in which families have gathered for generations to play a role in their kids’ education, to gather to support and celebrate their communities, and you’re tearing that out of rural Ontario. It’s a shame.

Then we close OB units; we close obstetrics and gynecology units in small rural hospitals, as they are in Leamington. What type of a signal does that send? There’s no longer an area for to you have your child in this geographic location, so would you not think that that’s going to affect the enrolment of small rural schools? They’re directly connected. But the government doesn’t see that because, again, they don’t understand the needs—they don’t understand rural Ontario, point final.

But I would say that New Democrats do. That’s why we certainly support our farmers. We look forward to working with them in concert, and we appreciate and value what they do for us each and every day. Again, when I drive down those rural roads in my beautiful riding of Essex county and I look at these big plots of land, I don’t just see a commodity being grown. I see a small business. I see a family. I see a hub of community and connectivity. We know. We see the names, the namesakes on the barns, a proud history of agricultural production. That, without the right attention and without the right priority, could be lost. And it is at threat of being lost.

I hope the government understands the important nature of agricultural production. I hope they start to take it seriously, stop doing the ad hoc thing and actually value and implement legislation that adds value and supports the vital nature of agricultural production in this province.

Speaker, thank you very much and I thank the members for their attention.

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

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the member for Essex’s comments on Bill 40, the agricultural crop act and the revisions we are making to it. Most certainly, this is going to be enabling legislation which will allow us to expand the suite of products which will be under the Crop Insurance Act, and we’re very, very proud of that direction forward. It helps level the playing field for Ontario farmers with all other farmers across the country and it’s an important piece of legislation. I want to thank the member for his commitment and support for the bill.

The reality is that he supports it and he knows that the government is doing the right thing for farmers in Ontario, but then he turns around like so many rural members—they start with the praise and they praise the farmers but they don’t see the reciprocal relationships. Yes, farmers feed cities and we’re very, very proud and very, very supportive of that in urban Ontario, in the urban communities. But over 50% of food processing, Mr. Speaker, happens in urban ridings.

And while farmers should be thanked by the people in the cities and the communities who eat the great food that they produce, at the same time farmers should be thanking cities because cities enrich farmers all the time. Being consumers in the field and understanding the importance of what the consumer wants is an extraordinarily important part of that reciprocal relationship.

I also want to talk to the fact that this government understands very well how important the farming community is in Ontario. One out of every eight jobs in Ontario is in agricultural production and processing, and so it’s an extraordinarily important sector. We are providing stability. I sat yesterday at ROMA, speaking with municipalities from across Ontario, rural municipalities, talking about the stabilized funding we’re giving them with the Ontario community investment fund. We’re moving away from ad hoc application processes—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nipissing and the member from Essex.

Mr. Arthur Potts: —and we’re moving toward stabilized, regular funding programs. I tell you, the members we spoke with—the representatives, the wardens, the reeves, the councillors from rural Ontario—very much appreciate the stabilized funding. They know we’re going in the right direction.

I appreciate the member and all the members opposite for their support of this bill.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to add to the comments by the member for Essex—more on his comments than on the bill itself. I think the member for Essex brought up a very valid point and one that is often forgotten in this chamber.

When you look at Legislatures around the world and around Canada, our standing committees are somewhat unique in that we only deal with the business of the House in our standing committees, where many other Legislatures do have standing committees on agriculture or on industry, where those committees are tasked to look at those sectors of our economy and of our society to help engage those sectors, to listen to them and to bring forward legislative initiatives on their behalf.

I do hope the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary assistant are listening. I think it’s a good, valid point. I think it behooves all of us in this Legislature to actually look at ways that we can improve the functionality and improve our execution of our responsibilities to our constituents. Standing committees on agriculture and other sectors would be one way that that could be accomplished.

I do hope—I don’t see them, I’m looking around; I’m sure they must be listening on the TV or watching TV—that the minister and the parliamentary assistant are taking

part in this debate—it’s their bill—taking

part in that debate—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Beaches–East York should stand up if he wants to make a point of order, instead of yelling across the floor. And the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington knows we don’t kind of hint that someone is not here, okay? Thank you very much for your co-operation.

Continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you for clarifying that, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re welcome.

Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I couldn’t agree more with the comments that were made by the member from Essex that agricultural insurance is one of the fundamental tools we have to protect farmers and ensure our food security, but it is but one tool.

He also talked about what else could be done to make sure that we protect farmers. I will give you an example from Nickel Belt. We will all remember when the government, in its wisdom, decided to cancel the Slots at Racetracks Program. We have Sudbury Downs in Nickel Belt; we have a racetrack. We don’t anymore. What do you figure happened to all of the hay farmers who used to grow their crops to feed those horses? The horses are gone. They have gone down south because every racetrack down south all got a deal, but the one and only racetrack in the north never got a deal. We don’t have horse racing anymore.

We don’t have horses anymore, but we certainly do have a lot of farmers who are going through really tough times, because to change from growing the special hay that you need to feed a racehorse to growing anything else in Nickel Belt—we are not talking Niagara Peninsula here, we’re talking Nickel Belt; it is not easy.

Hay had been growing in Nickel Belt and had been feeding the horses and had been sustaining the farmers. Because they had that cash crop coming in they could buy a trailer, buy a new tractor, invest in their barns, make sure that they were able to grow other crops that were sold throughout the farmers’ market in my riding and in Sudbury, but all of this was taken away. A lot of my farmers don’t farm anymore. A lot of tractors are up for sale and a lot of families are having a tough time. It should have never gone down this way, Speaker. It should have never gone that way.

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

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to stand up in this House and speak to the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014. I want to begin by thanking the member from Essex for his remarks and also for his support for this bill.

Agriculture is one of the major areas of our economy; actually, Ontario is known to be an agricultural province. Not very many people may be aware of this fact, but the reality is that we are one of the largest agriculture jurisdictions in Canada, apart from our very heavy manufacturing and other industrial base in this province. That’s why our government is very keen to support our agriculture and the agri-food industry in Canada, in Ontario. For that reason we are expanding the insurance coverage for our agricultural industries in this province.

This act, the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014, is going to provide that kind of coverage—which our farmers deserve, to have that kind of coverage. It will include so many crops; I may just list of some of them. It includes the areas of fresh vegetables, fruits, honey, processing vegetables, grains and oilseeds, tobacco and specialty crops. This is what this act is going to do. It’s based on a premium paid by the farmers, paid by the Ontario government, as well as our federal partners.

I think this is a good act, and I support this. I urge all my colleagues in this House to support this act because we need to support our farmers to make sure that they have peace of mind when they put their crops, the seeds, in the ground. They have to have the peace of mind that their efforts are going to pay back when they get the harvest, and if something happens, government and insurance are there to help them. So I urge every member in this House to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Essex has two minutes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to thank the members for Beaches–East York, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Nickel Belt and the Minister of MTCU and Research and Innovation.

I’ll just explain once again that this is enabling legislation. It really just brings into the fold the possibility of protecting livestock and the honey industry; there are no regulatory changes or funding attached to the bill. New regulations would be needed before livestock farmers and other producers are protected under the Insurance Act, and new funding would be needed as well. So let’s see that commitment.

As soon as we pass this bill, I would hope and expect that the government would attach a dollar value to what they’re ready and prepared to support the industries with, but I won’t hold my breath on that, given the austerity nature of this government.

I want to thank the member for Beaches–East York specifically, who used his two minutes to remind the farmers of this province that they should be thankful for people eating their food, I guess is what his message was. I want to thank him for that little gem.

Applause.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, you should give yourself applause because it will add to the highlight reel of films where I show members and farmers in rural Ontario exactly what this government thinks of agriculture producers in the province. They think that cities should be thankful that farmers even exist to be able to have the luxury of feeding them. That explains a whole lot in terms of their direction and their priorities when it comes to agriculture. That is a gem. That’s the gift that keeps on giving, and I certainly appreciate the member for that.

I want to see some real, tangible effort put forward by this government. You’ve got a lot of work to do. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: Let’s see an apprenticeship program for young farmers. That’s something that’s easy to do. Farm families would love the ability to bring in new people to educate them and to teach them. That’s something that you could easily do, and I know it would be welcomed by the industry.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Also, research and development: There’s a huge gap there that’s lacking.

I appreciate the time, Speaker. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform you that I’ll be sharing my time with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade; my colleague the member from Scarborough–Agincourt; and the member from Etobicoke Centre.

I’ve heard some very interesting comments today. I grew up in a rural part of Ontario—King township, population 800—surrounded by some of the most beautiful farmland that you can imagine. I will let you know that many a hot summer day was spent baling and bringing in very heavy bundles of hay. Many friends who are farmers and have invested their life in producing food for us to eat, and many contacts in the Holland Marsh area, specifically—the salad bowl of southern Ontario, as they like to call it.

I have an opportunity, because they’re just north of my riding, to meet often with farmers in that area and to hear what their concerns are, and to bring their concerns to our rural caucus and the appropriate ministers.

They are very much looking for partnerships. They’re not being drawn into divisive arguments, as the member opposite would try to have us be drawn into. We’re not into divisive arguments about who owes what to whom; this is a symbiotic relationship. The farmers I know and the city folk I know are all thankful.

I thank the member from Essex for his opening comments.

I just wanted to spend a minute, really, to talk about this expanded suite of products and their offerings, and to reaffirm that Ontario is committed to helping its agri-food partners manage risk. Business risk management programs, like production insurance, help producers deal with situations that are outside of their control, such as weather, disease and extreme market fluctuations.

Production insurance makes timely payments to producers and eliminates the need for costly ad hoc responses to adverse conditions. So this is a far better system for farmers, a far better system for government, a far better system for all of us, because it’s far more predictive, far more controllable.

By giving more producers the opportunity to access production insurance, we’ll help them to better manage their risk and encourage greater innovation, job creation and growth in the agri-food sector.

I can certainly say that from what I’ve learned of farmers throughout the Holland Marsh area and across Ontario, and even in my ancestral home of King township, farmers are among the most entrepreneurial people we have in this province, and if there is a way of doing something better and less expensively, they have found the way and are oftentimes the leaders in implementing that.

A lot of that, I think, goes back to the very good education system we have. I’m encouraged to see the number of friends and associates I have who have availed themselves of great agricultural courses at Guelph university and a number of colleges, to bring some science and business management to their farming operations—because as we all know, farms are businesses. You have to be a good business person, as well as an expert in horticulture, to be a good farmer.

In Canada, we have this national suite of integrated and complementary business risk management programs in place to help farmers manage risks that are beyond their control. It includes things like production insurance, which is the program I mentioned earlier, developed to help farmers address, in a timely manner, yield losses due to natural events related to weather, pests and disease.

Ontario’s inability to offer production insurance plans for commodities beyond crop and perennial plants represents a significant gap in the suite of business risk management programs. That’s why I think the introduction of this bill will address that need and help Ontario’s farmers move forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would pass the floor to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker. It’s really my pleasure to rise today to talk about these particular acts. I’m going to talk about it from a different angle. It will address the insurance part, but I’m going to come from a different angle.

After taking over the ministry, specifically the file on international trade—I think this is a very interesting file related to many other ministries in government; for example, trade related to natural resources, mineral mining, trade related to energy, related to even education. But one big item here—trade, export—which is so hugely related, is the agriculture industry.

In 2010, the former Premier, Dalton McGuinty, and I were in China. At that time, we engaged a couple of stakeholders in China to talk about the food industry in China. We all know China is facing tremendous challenges in terms of their food safety, the quality and things like that.

So a few years passed, and last year Premier Kathleen Wynne and Minister Duguid and I were in China. We talked about clean tech and all that, and then we suddenly found out that in the agriculture industry in Canada, in Ontario, we do have a tremendous potential for engaging China, perhaps even India. The reason for that is when we were in China, a lot of large companies, medium-sized companies and small companies, all related to food or farming, approached us: “How is Ontario doing? We want to do more.”

To be specific, we engaged one of the largest companies in the world now, Alibaba. We talked to them, and in that particular meeting they actually told us right away, “Look, we want to market your Ontario products related to farming.” When Prime Minister Harper went to China, he also met Alibaba, and then the news suddenly came out that in one day Alibaba sold over 90,000 Canadian lobsters to China. You can see the potential there. It’s tremendous.

There are other countries—for example, two countries in the world, India and China, have 2.6 billion people. That’s 40% of the world’s population. Just imagine these two countries, all the people, eating our farming products. That will be tremendous potential for Ontario.

This is very interesting to me and very important now since I am the minister responsible for international trade, so I just wanted to talk about the significance.

After coming back from the October mission last year, I talked to the Premier, and the Premier told me, “Michael, go back to China. This time, really engage their agricultural industry.” So the good news is that the Premier, just a couple of days ago, announced that Minister Jeff Leal, the agriculture minister, and I will be going to China in April to market our products, so that in Ontario, especially the rural areas, we can grow more and we can process more food, crops—cherries and blueberries and canola oil and ginseng and milk and pork and beef and fish. There’s a lot of things that I can sell.

Thank you for the time. Soo Wong, it’s your turn.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I think he meant the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, but that’s okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m very pleased to rise today to speak in support of the proposed Agriculture Insurance Act, following the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, as well as my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues have spoken about why this particular bill is very important. I’m going to take a different lens to this particular bill.

As urban members in the city of Toronto, we value and respect our farmers. As one of the members who has a history with farming—I’m not sure a lot of members know that my grandparents on my mother’s side own one of the largest poultry farms in mainland China. Furthermore, I have extended family friends who—my good colleague from Beaches–East York talked about bok choy. They are large producers in the northern part of Toronto. So I have, not just as a consumer of Ontario-grown food, an appreciation for the value of farmers and what they do every day.

The proposed legislation, if passed, will work with the federal government in terms of the national integrated and complementary business risk management programs to help farmers in a time of need, especially when it comes to natural disasters, the weather, insects and what have you.

This legislation also allows us to participate in production insurance, a program that will help farmers address yield losses in a timely manner due to natural incidents related to weather, pests and disease. If the legislation is passed—and there is going to be an amendment—the new plan will help the government to develop and implement a new production insurance plan in the following areas:

In terms of operational, there will be the development of a plan, including working with stakeholders. Oftentimes, we hear from the opposition parties criticizing the government for not including stakeholders. The proposed amendment of the legislation will allow the government to reach out to discuss with stakeholders, particularly the farmers who are going to be affected by this proposed legislation.

It will also talk about third-party certification by an actuary. That’s a good thing.

It will also mean working with the federal government, and you’ve heard from me—having been critical of the federal government involvement, and supporting the province of Ontario. It will verify and agree on actuarial assessment and ensure compliance with the national regulations and guidelines. Furthermore, it will also mean the fiscal authorities—it will mean that through the Treasury Board there will be financial approvals.

The other very important part of the proposed legislation is, if passed, it will allow the minister, in terms of regulations—

Interjections.

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Speaker, this is very disrespectful. We hear this third party conversation across when we have very important debate here on this particular bill.

With respect to this legislation, if passed, the minister will set up a regulation in terms of our agricultural products that will be eligible for coverage under the production insurance. The initial minister’s regulation would include the crops and perennial plants, which already occurs, but will also include new agri-foods—because we know that every day, there is new food produce, and we know farmers are very innovative. But more importantly, they are very creative in bringing new food to our tables and to our dining rooms.

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues opposite are supportive of the bill, and I’m hopeful that this bill will soon go to committee.

At the end of the day, the Ontario agriculture sector is a huge growth industry and, if passed, it will continue to grow. By giving the producers, meaning the farmers, greater opportunity to access production insurance, we are actually helping to manage risk better and encourage innovation, profitability and most importantly, job creation, in this very large agri-food sector.

I’m going to turn it over to my colleague from Etobicoke Centre. I’m sure he’s going to have some really innovative comments about this proposed legislation.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: I am thrilled to be speaking to this bill. I’m elected from the riding of Etobicoke Centre, which is a riding within the city of Toronto, but I’m proud to speak to this bill for a number of reasons. I’d like to share with you what those are.

First of all, last year, many parts of the city—and Etobicoke was one of the parts of the city that was hardest hit—went through some very serious flooding. A lot of people in my community were impacted. I distinctly remember this last year, when knocking on doors during the election campaign, speaking with people who still hadn’t recovered from that tragedy, from those floods. Those floods had gutted thousands of people’s basements. The impact wasn’t just financial; it wasn’t just economic. People’s lives were washed away.

Some of the folks who I met had lost wedding photos, had lost mementos, had lost things of tremendous sentimental value in addition to incurring tremendous financial costs. One of the lessons that I took away from speaking with those people in my community was that a lot of the folks thought that they were covered by insurance. Some were, but many were not.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton might want to sit down.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Many of the folks were deeply impacted by that. So the importance of insurance in protecting people’s livelihoods is a really important issue, one that touched our community directly. It’s one of the reasons I am honoured to speak to this bill—because that’s what this bill is about. For me, it’s about protecting the livelihoods of people who are trying to support their families, who are making an important economic contribution to our province.

Business risk management programs like production insurance help producers deal with situations that are outside their control: weather, disease and extreme market fluctuations. Production insurance makes timely payments to producers—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There seems to be some cross-floor debate going on, and I can’t even hear the speaker. If you want to yell at each other, go outside and yell at each other. Thank you.

Continue.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

Production insurance makes timely payments to producers and eliminates a need for costly ad hoc programs. Giving more producers the opportunity to access production insurance will help them better manage risk and encourage greater innovation and job creation because when businesses have stability in the marketplace—and I know this from my business experience—that encourages investment; that encourages commitment on the part of businesses. So this is really, again, about managing risk, about protecting livelihoods and encouraging investment in a sector that’s tremendously important to our economy.

If I may, I’d just like to say a few quick things about the importance of our agri-food sector. Again, I come from a riding here in Toronto, but we can’t underestimate the importance of the agri-food sector. This is a sector that generates significant impact on our gross domestic product and significant employment, but of course it’s a sector that serves everyone in Ontario. This is something that, whether we’re from an urban riding, a suburban riding or a rural riding, I hope all the members of the House will rally around.

In Canada, we have, of course, a national suite of integrated business risk management programs that include production insurance, and Ontario’s inability to offer production insurance plans for commodities beyond crops and perennial plants represents a significant gap in that suite.

But the thing I’d like to also mention is the importance of how the insurance is structured. Currently, when participants in the agri-food sector are hit hard, they have to come to the government for ad hoc support. One of the things that I think about a lot is how we can manage our taxpayers’ money as effectively as possible, and insurance programs are an excellent way of doing that because the contributions to that program are shared. They’re shared by the producers, who are the investors, but they’re also shared by the provincial and federal governments.

When I think about this, this is a really important way of making sure that our provincial government has some stability, that we’re prepared for some of the disasters that might strike our agri-food producers, but it also makes sure that the cost of this is spread evenly and predictably across those participants. That’s a really important element. It’s not just about managing risk. It’s not just about protecting people’s livelihoods, but it’s also about sharing costs and managing taxpayer dollars responsibly.

The other thing I would say is that this amendment that we’re speaking to today doesn’t have an immediate financial impact. This just allows us to extend what is already an important and successful program to more producers cross Ontario.

We have an agri-food sector that’s critical to our economy. It serves all of Ontario. It helps manage risk. It encourages investment and innovation. It allows us to manage taxpayers’ dollars wisely. I support this. I know the members on this side support it, and I hope all members of the Legislature will support this.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It’s a pleasure to rise and talk a little bit about agriculture. It’s interesting to note—and some people in this Legislature may not be fully aware—that a tremendous amount of agriculture actually happens in northern Ontario.

I’m a northern boy. I’ve lived there all my life, but even I was surprised when I went to the New Liskeard research centre—which is under threat of being closed. We’re hoping that this government will continue to see the importance of the New Liskeard research centre. But I was amazed to find out just how much canola and oats are grown in northern Ontario. In one instance, almost half of our production comes from there. It’s quite fascinating. When you think of the north, you don’t necessarily think of agriculture.

It was interesting to see that seed potatoes are all started at this New Liskeard research facility. Basically, they start in a test tube. It was fascinating to go through that and have that entire learning experience. When you think of strawberries—they’re started in the New Liskeard research centre as well. It was quite an exciting and fascinating day, and I would hope that all members would avail themselves of a trip up north and have a look at the plentiful agriculture that’s there.

This New Liskeard research centre also has 455 head of cattle. They do the research there on growing cattle in winter climates. Again, it’s a fascinating and ultra-interesting challenge to see.

I would hope that the members would at least, if they can’t get up to the New Liskeard research centre and learn a little bit more about what’s happening there, certainly contact my office. We’d be delighted to share with them the many and exciting agricultural opportunities that are available in the north.

This weekend, my wife, Patty, and I will be in Powassan for the farmers’ luncheon. It’s an annual event. We’ll meet with the cattle folk. We will meet with the growers. It’s always a spectacular opportunity, Speaker.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Indeed, it’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this important bill and the comments that have been made so far.

My riding is largely an urban riding, but a good portion of the Tecumseh side is rural. We have the Bonduelle plant, as the minister knows, and a large farming population. In the Essex county portion, we have, as the member from Essex said, huge greenhouse operations as well, and we have some of the largest mushroom farms in Ontario. When I go to my grocery store to buy mushrooms—if I want to get a can of mushrooms, they’re from China. If I want to buy fresh mushrooms, they’re from Ontario.

When the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade said he was going to take the Minister of Agriculture to China in April, I said, “What an opportunity for the government to reach out across the aisle.” Take the member from Essex; take the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, the agriculture critics in the House—take them with them on this trade mission and let them get a feel for what the possibilities are of more international trade on the agricultural side. That shows that you’re listening. That shows that you can work together on major events.

I know that others have spoken this morning about travelling committees. This wouldn’t exactly be a travelling committee, but it would certainly be an outreach opportunity.

When I hear the members from Toronto say, if I paraphrase, “Good things grow in Ontario, but it’s because we process them in Toronto; that’s when it really matters,” I say: Minister, you have to read the Hansard to see what your member from Beaches–East York had to say earlier today. I think it’s well worth the read.

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

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’m so pleased to rise today to speak to this very important bill. The greater Toronto area is actually one of the largest food production areas in Ontario. The relationship between our agri-producers and our production and manufacturing is very, very strong and interdependent. I’m, frankly, amazed at how many manufacturing and finished goods start off with agri-products as their base input. That’s a very good thing. We know that one of the reasons why our food production cluster is so vast is because of the diversity that we have in this province and in this region that really supports that manufacturing base.

I do believe that one of the reasons why Ontario’s economy is strong and resilient is because of the diversity of all of our employment clusters. They are interrelated and they work together to support Ontario’s economy.

What I really see here in the direction of this bill is that Ontario is committed to helping our agri-food partners manage risk. That is also very important in terms of providing stability and allowing our agri-food producers to really focus on what they do best. We know that they are hard-working. I’ve actually just been out on consultations. I’ve met many, many of them. They’re such a diverse group, a hard-working group, and ought to be supported to ensure that our agri-food sector remains strong and globally competitive. Starting with the strong and diverse and rich economy here in Ontario, we need to make sure that we manage that risk and strengthen the sector as a whole.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a privilege to speak to Bill 40. I do like the fact that extended coverage will be given to farmers who produce their products, other than crops and perennials.

I do have some concerns. I recall back, I believe it was in the 2011 election, there was a promise made by the government to, in fact, waive the first-year premium for crop insurance. I don’t know if that’s going to be addressed in this particular bill or not, but it’s something for consideration. I don’t know what that would actually cost this government, who appear to be somewhat in the red—no pun intended. But that is a concern that I would ask them to look at.

Chatham–Kent–Essex is very rich in agriculture. As a matter of fact, there are over—or close to, anyway—2,200 farms in the Chatham–Kent–Essex area. Of course, Leamington, which is a proud area in my riding, is the greenhouse capital of Canada, and we’re very, very proud of that.

Unfortunately, this government had a problem with Heinz. We lost 740 jobs there, and 250 part-time, but thank goodness, Highbury Canco came in and at least we have 250 jobs there, and that’s a good thing.

The only other thing I would like to touch upon, Speaker, is the neonics issue. That’s a serious issue right now. I met with farmers and seed growers—that represented over 80% of the seed-growing in Canada—at a farm in my riding, the Devolder farm, along with our critic, Toby Barrett, with regard to the neonics. Some 80% of these people are—well, they’re wanting to reduce the neonics, and that’s a major issue in this area. I really hope the government takes a better look at it, or else crop insurance is going to go sky-high.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from—there were five speakers, so whoever takes it—Newmarket–Aurora, I guess, for the two minutes.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the ability to bring some closure to today’s discussions about the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014.

I’m so glad to hear the continuing debate, the continuing discussion, around the importance of the agri-food industry, both the growing and the processing of that food. It has been noted that this is an area that has the potential for considerable growth, and that speaks volumes. That’s very positive for the economy of Ontario and for all of us in Ontario, regardless of where you live, rural or urban. I’m glad to hear that move ahead.

I just wanted to touch on a couple of key points of this proposed legislation that we perhaps didn’t get to today, just to reinforce that this production insurance is premium-based. The costs are shared by farmers and government, and that encourages best practices and the appropriate sharing of risk. As I said earlier, farmers, in my experience, are among the greatest entrepreneurs this country has produced, and we look forward to supporting them.

An expanded production insurance program could, if passed, provide financial assistance but divide the costs between the federal government, the provincial government and producers in a predictable and incremental way over a much larger time period.

Ontario’s agricultural sector, as has been mentioned, has huge potential for growth and the Agriculture Insurance Act will, if passed, allow for this growth to happen. By giving more producers the opportunity to access production insurance, we would help them manage risk better and encourage greater innovation, greater profitability and greater job creation in the agri-food sector. I do hope that this House supports the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. You seem to be practising that, so that’s good.

I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act. I’ve reviewed some of the insightful comments by our critic from Haldimand–Norfolk, somebody who has been trained—I think he has a master’s in science and agriculture—and who has certainly worked in the industry and is very familiar with the agriculture of his region.

The agriculture across the province is very varied. Agriculture in our area is probably the largest agricultural sector in eastern Ontario, and it’s quite different than the crops and produce in western Ontario. We’ve talked about the greenhouse industry in western Ontario, something we don’t see in the east, but certainly soybeans and corn are major industries, along with dairy, which is shared with some of the areas in the north.

Current legislation that supports some 90 products was enacted by the Mike Harris government. The critic here talked about the consultation that went on during the bill, the different readings—they went around the province; they talked to various farming groups—and also, when it came time to put in regulations, further consultation to try to get it right.

Now we have some legislation where the bill for the products that are there works fairly well. No question, we need to go further. We’ve seen some major disasters when it came to some of our products that aren’t covered. So it’s certainly time to move on. But it gives an example of just how the industry that lives and breathes farming throughout the community really needs to get their input.

You’re looking at a government here that collectively needed five people just to talk 20 minutes on this bill because of the lack of experience; I think they have one member that has an agricultural base, and he’s not even here today. It just shows that we need that consultation to find out and get this right. I think that’s a point that we have to look at.

Various parents throughout my region came to me and told me last year that their son was hoping to go to Kemptville and would not have that opportunity. I have to say that in most cases they didn’t go on to post-secondary. They didn’t go on to somewhere else, and that’s very typical of the agricultural college enrolment. They tend to go to the institutions that are close. It allows them to be home on the weekends. They didn’t travel to almost Windsor, to go to Sarnia; or to Ridgetown, to go to the college up there. You can imagine it’s just impractical even to get home on the weekends. It’s barely a full day’s drive; you’re lucky to get through Toronto.

If they really had an initiative to look after agriculture, decisions like that wouldn’t be made. Certainly, they would have planned ahead; they just wouldn’t be closed. We’re looking at a community that raised a couple of million dollars locally to build the new dairy farm research facility just a couple of years ago—money that was gathered from the community that could have been put into the hospital. Now it’s in an empty shell, the cows moved to Guelph, the quota with it, the robots. It’s just not an efficient way of running anything, let alone the agriculture industry. It really speaks spades for just what the interest is with this.

Agriculture is a tough business. I look at last year: In our area we had, of course, a cold winter. At that time we hadn’t experienced many cold winters so we complained about it and we’re hit again, of course, this year with one. It led to a late spring, a wet spring, a lot of concern about getting crops in. We were lucky, we got three or four days. The farms now are fairly well set up so that when they get a break they can get a lot of crops in. So we got our crops in a little bit late, but relatively—at that time it seemed okay, but then we ran into a fairly wet summer.

Then what seemed to be really horrific at the time, we had an extremely early frost—not just a mild frost but an extremely heavy frost—just before the plowing match. I know my brother was quite upset with it because he thought that was it, the corn wasn’t—but it came along and, actually, we had a fairly good crop in eastern Ontario.

It was different in western Ontario; they didn’t get that break in the springtime. They didn’t get the crops in until much later. They ran into a cool summer; they didn’t get the frost but the crops didn’t mature. So, really, they had a much more serious problem out there.

In eastern Ontario the wet summer—we had a huge mould problem. Soybeans—interesting because you could really pick out the fields and the varieties that were not a problem before, but all of a sudden losses—one of our neighbours, one stretch of land was 100% lost to the mould. So a lot of issues can happen there.

You get something in early—the wet summer, warm summer, mould. Then you’ve got to deal with crop prices. Farming, it’s a science; it really depends on a lot of factors. Then you have to worry about our neighbours. What’s the climate down there? Is there going to be a half-decent price at the end of the year, if they have a good crop in the States? They certainly have a lot more favourable climate, generally. So it’s not an easy thing.

The insurance really is important. If we’re going to expect that we can survive—there are lots of years when North America depends on Canadian supply. If we don’t protect that, as you can imagine, if we don’t have the food and the Americans don’t have it, where are we going to go for that? A lot of countries in the world depend on Canadian food, so the insurance does a lot more than just protect our farmers. It’s really protecting our livelihood up here.

We’re looking at the enabling legislation here. We’re looking to see just what it covers. We’re hoping that there is sufficient consultation as we go around, getting it right. There are a lot of things to deal with here.

We talked about the PED virus going around through the pig industry just a couple of years ago.

Part of our strategy has to be working with our markets, which are the Americans. They’re doing a lot of research. We should leverage that. We should work with them and find out the best practices, because if we don’t mirror a lot of their best practices, they won’t have the confidence to buy our food. Not only will it help us get more for the money we spend on research, but it actually does a lot for the market down the road.

Hopefully, since the markets are so integrated, with product back and forth—I think Toby mentioned that we ship our product down. They go down to the same markets that the American hogs are going to. It seemed like the virus started down there. The trucks come back and it’s carried back. The same could happen in reverse.

We have to make sure that the technology and the research we do looks at that integrated market. At the same time, they have been interested in making sure it works for us. We want to make sure that that’s actually put in there.

We’re looking now at hog herds in Ontario. They’re about 30% less than they were just a short time ago.

It’s the same thing with BSE. In our area, BSE—we don’t have as big a beef industry, but it really hurt our dairy industry. I remember young calves being shipped off to market, and it used to be income that supplemented the dairy. It actually cost money. By the time you paid for the transportation and the auctioneering, you actually had a bill to send small calves to market. It just shows some of the issues that—how integrated the different markets are. I think it’s important that if we’re going to have an impact, we have to do that. We have to look at the overall market and the overall areas.

Certainly, this government—I look at our area in eastern Ontario, and rural Ontario, where I grew up, and a lot of things, the way it used to be, and some of the programs that they’ve brought out, and I don’t think they’ve really considered what happens in rural Ontario.

I know I just have a minute, so I’ll just go on to this.

I was at a ROMA conference just after this government took over. They came out with some new environmental regulations around water. There needed to be some things tightened up there.

One of the delegates stood up and said, “You just passed some legislation. We have a small park in our region, and we had a Johnny-on-the-spot. So the community got together, and we raised some money. We built a small building, and we put in a well, a flush toilet and a sink to wash your hands. Now you’re telling us we have to lock the door and put the Johnny-on-the-spot back. Is that what you’re telling us?”

The then Minister of Agriculture—she was also the Minister of the Environment—stood up and said, “That’s exactly what I’m telling you, because there’s nobody going to die on my watch.”

So you think back. Okay, you’ve taken a little bit of research and a little bit of knowledge, but what happens when you don’t wash your hands? Health has come to the point where we know that people need to—proper hygiene is important. I guess we’ve got grass that we can rub our hands on. But that’s the logic: Rural Ontario is a little bit different. We don’t have piped water everywhere. We can be miles away from the nearest water supply. There are ways around that. But they were forced to shut the building.

We’ve had the same issues in our area. We live there on well water. We survive very well. There are issues that you have to look at, but it’s manageable. That’s what we have to do: We have to look at rural solutions.

I guess my time is up. I’ll have a chance to finish later on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I thank the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, who will continue with his submission the next time we discuss this bill.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It is now 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just before we do introduction of guests, just to announce that the students from the model Parliament will be coming into the House. I will be acknowledging them to save us from 96 members standing up and introducing individuals. That would be my preference. I’m not going to stop you from doing so, but we won’t have five minutes of doing that. So I’m just announcing to you that when they do come, I’ll announce them, if that’s okay with you, and it will help us save on introductions.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Karen Mote and Les Mote, who are the parents—the proud parents, I might add—of Madison Mote, who is today the page captain.

I also have the privilege of introducing a constituent of mine for the model Parliament, Nicholas Ferreira.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome a constituent of mine who is here as part of a lobby group supporting aHUS Canada. They’re here on their information day at Queen’s Park. Her name is Jennifer Hamilton. Welcome, Jennifer.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to welcome from Huntsville Mr. Gordon Daw, who has been down getting some medical treatment at hospitals in the area; his daughter, who is well-known around Queen’s Park, Lesley Daw; and occupational therapist Lauren Schwartz, who is here for the first time at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome this morning Adam Van Meerbergen, a student in grade 10 at Resurrection Catholic Secondary School in Kitchener. Adam is participating in today’s Ontario model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m happy to welcome aHUS Canada to Queen’s Park today. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to supporting patients and families living with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. With us today, we have: Michael Eygenraam; Margriet Eygenraam; Sonia Girotto; Sonia’s son Joshua; and Toni Vernon. Thank you.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Zach Misener from Stratford. Zach is participating in the model Parliament program today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: On behalf of Cindy Forster, it’s also my pleasure this morning to welcome Jake Falardeau, who lives in the riding of Welland and is also participating in this year’s Ontario model Parliament. Jake is here with his grandmother Pauline. Today also happens to be Jake’s 16th birthday. Happy birthday, Jake, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Good morning. I’d like to introduce page Niko Hoogeveen’s father, Dr. Paul Hoogeveen. Welcome to the public gallery.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my pleasure to welcome Kedron elementary school here, from my riding of Oshawa. I was pleased to run into them on their tour today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

M. Grant Crack: Merci, monsieur le Président. I’ll be very, very careful this morning. Il me fait grand plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue au maire de Clarence-Rockland, M. Guy Desjardins. I won’t introduce a former MPP for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell; I’ll give you that honour, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A very wise choice.

Mr. Grant Crack: But I’d also like to welcome TVO to Queen’s Park today. We all know TVO from TVOKids and the content that they provide for our young folks. As well, of course, everybody knows The Agenda with Steve Paikin. There is a reception tonight from 5 to 7 at Queen’s Park, and I would welcome everyone down to visit TVO Ontario.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to welcome my beautiful granddaughter Rachel Rynard, who is in the model Parliament here today representing Simcoe North.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That one I can forgive.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’d like to introduce a beautiful 29-year-old to members of the Legislature: my seatmate from Halton. She’s 29 years old today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I do want everyone introduced.

The member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Ghadeir Madlol, who is here with the model Parliament. She is the sister of current page Muntder Madlol and former page Mustfah Madlol, all of whom are from London West. Welcome.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’d like to introduce Joshua DeBortoli and his mother, Sonia Girotto, who are here with us at Queen’s Park today for the aHUS lobby day, and also Samantha Mariano, who is representing Vaughan during the 2015 Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to welcome two of my students in Scarborough–Agincourt, Daven Siu and Kevin Vuong, who is also the Minister of Labour for the model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to introduce Leah Cash. She’s the cousin of Natalie McLean. She joins us today in the Legislature—welcome—to support our wonderful Natalie McLean, a page here at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’d like to introduce Beverly and Richard Fiaconni. Beverly has been a constituency assistant in my office since 2003. Her daughter Courtney Fiacconi is here as part of the model Parliament today.

Mr. Han Dong: I would like to welcome my good friend and former colleague Chris Yaccato, representing the Lung Association.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I seek unanimous consent to mark Pink Shirt Day by inviting all members to remain in the Legislature after question period for a group photo.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have heard that this was coming and I just want to express that the normal convention is not to use the House as that kind of a vehicle. I just caution everyone that there are ways to do this—I don’t want this not done—but I will put the unanimous consent on the floor.

Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, that’s very disappointing that we don’t have unanimous consent, but I do invite all members to go to the main staircase for a group photo after question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. Thank you. As a continuation of the discussion: It is now advised that all members who want to participate in Pink Shirt Day would assemble. I don’t think it matters if you actually are wearing pink; if you want to show support and have your picture taken at the main staircase, it would be advisable. I appreciate the member’s flexibility in my concern.

Further introductions?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I didn’t finish that, but I’ll do the rotation. It is your turn. The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Ashlyn Simpson, who’s here for the model Parliament, from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I’d like to welcome her to the Legislature.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome Fionntan Ferris and Dana Nasr, who are here from London West to participate in the Ontario model Parliament.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’d like to introduce three special guests today; first, my daughter, Oriana, who’s in the gallery. She’s participating in this year’s model Parliament. Hello, Oriana. Also here today is Charlie Violin. Charlie is another student from Halton participating in the model Parliament. Thirdly, in the members’ east gallery is my new intern from the University of Akron, Ohio: Jermaine Collins. Welcome to our team and welcome to Queen’s Park, Jermaine. Good to have you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m going to join the gang now and welcome, from my riding, Devin Reynolds, who is also participating in the model Parliament today and tomorrow.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to introduce a member from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, Muneed Javed, who is participating in the model Parliament today.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome, from the great riding of Leeds–Grenville, Alicia Sutton, who’s here for the model Parliament. I look forward to being the Speaker Friday morning in the model Parliament, so I get to—the tables are turned now, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, am I looking forward to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I tried.

The deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to introduce William Alexander from the riding of St. Catharines, who is participating in the model Parliament.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I just noticed that the Vernons are here, who are from the beautiful riding of Don Valley East—Toni and her husband, I believe. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Grant Crack: It also gives me great pleasure to introduce the acting CAO of the city of Clarence-Rockland. Helen Collier is with us. Welcome. I believe that Mr. Desjardins’s wife is with us as well. So welcome.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I know you’re introducing everyone here for the Ontario model Parliament. I know I have three here from Pickering–Scarborough East, but I want to welcome all students for this program. It’s a great program. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here. As Minister of Children and Youth Services, I think this is a fantastic program.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Joining us for the model Parliament, we have Agi Kapllani, Theresa Nguyen and Michelle Wang. I’d like to thank them for participating and for being here today.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d also like to recognize Kieran Lawlor, who’s here from Beaches–East York for the model Parliament. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: I also have a visitor. It’s Jack Ainsworth, and he is from my riding from Nickel Belt. Welcome to Toronto and welcome to Queen’s Park. He’s with the model Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want the record to show that I tried. I was going to do this anyway.

We have with us today, in the public galleries on both sides, the 84 students from across the province participating in the second annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario model Parliament.

I not only would like to thank all the parties for participating and ensuring that this is to be done the way it should be done, but I think we also owe the staff here at the Legislature a great deal of gratitude for the work they’ve done on the model Parliament this year.

In the Speaker’s gallery, we have His Worship Guy Desjardins, mayor of Clarence-Rockland, and his spouse, Aline Desjardins; Ms. Helen Collier, the city administrator; and M. Jean-Marc Lalonde from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell in the 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments. Welcome.

Oral Questions

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Ms. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier.

Premier, you included the following in your mandate letter to the Minister of Health: “Continuing the pursuit of affordable drug access for patients.... This will include a coordinated process for approving new and expensive drugs to minimize the wait for people who need these life-saving medications.”

Premier, notwithstanding the minister’s last-minute half-baked announcement this morning, why are you allowing him to fail in this mandate?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m not sure if patients and families of patients that are suffering from atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, aHUS, would agree with the member opposite that it was a half-baked announcement this morning.

Not by myself, but several days ago the executive officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs—because this is not a political decision; this is a decision made by clinical experts and bureaucrats searching through the best and most reliable information available. Several days ago I was informed that the executive officer will now provide Soliris to patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, or aHUS, who meet defined clinical criteria of the disease.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: Back to the Premier: We’re joined by Michael Eygenraam, Joshua DeBortoli and other patients suffering from aHUS who have been waiting for two years for Soliris, the only medication that can actually help them.

I would note how convenient it is that the announcement was made today. I guess it takes a little bit of the heat off of you, but I think people need to know that this is not going to be funded for all aHUS patients. It’s only a one-off strategy. Only those who are really, really sick are going to be able to get access to this, not everybody who needs it. I think that’s important for the people of Ontario and the patients who are here in good faith to know.

My question to you, Premier, is: Given the fact that 40 other countries have approved this and it has been approved in the province of Quebec, and the clinical evidence is there that it can actually extend lives and save people, will you commit to permanent funding for Soliris for these patients today?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I don’t think the people of Ontario want to take the word of the member opposite in terms of the science and clinical evidence behind this decision. Quite frankly, they shouldn’t take my word either, even though I’m a practising physician and a public health specialist.

But they should take the word and the combined evidence that was provided by our office—not my political office, but by the office of the Ontario Public Drug Programs when they consulted with advocacy groups; when they consulted with other jurisdictions around the world, including Australia and England; when they consulted with the very physicians and specialists that are providing support to these individuals with aHUS.

Their combined decision on clinical evidence and science was to provide this solution to those that meet the clinical, eligible criteria for this disease, to provide them with the Soliris treatment that they have asked for.

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

Ms. Christine Elliott: I would suggest that the Minister of Health is trying to have it both ways. He’s saying that he’s going to fund Soliris, but then there’s not clinical evidence in some cases to allow it, so I’m not really sure what he’s planning on saying here.

But the fact of the matter is that time after time after time, patients who are facing these devastating diseases have to come to Queen’s Park to advocate—put the pressure on you and get media attention in order to get access to the drugs that they really need to save their lives. This has to stop.

Will you commit today to permanent funding for Soliris for the patients who need it?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I truly believe that the member opposite, in her heart of hearts, supports a process which is apolitical; that reaches out to the exact specialists, clinical experts and scientists who know more than you and I will ever know about this condition; that reaches out to the advocates of this illness, the patients and their families; that looks around the world at other jurisdictions that have also resolved this challenging question. In her heart of hearts, I believe that she supports the decision that these clinical experts and these bureaucrats and these officials have made.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Christine Elliott: My question again is to the Premier.

Premier, when you replaced Dalton McGuinty, you promised to do things differently and turn the page on a decade of Liberal scandals. But less than a year into the job, same old same old.

Let there be no mistake: Your failure to remove Pat Sorbara from her job, even temporarily, means that you have chosen to make this scandal worse and erode the integrity reposed in your office.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Ms. Christine Elliott: Premier, I remind you that Premier McGuinty kept senior staff in his office while they were—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will have order. The Minister of Education, come to order.

Please finish.

Ms. Christine Elliott: Premier, I remind you that Premier McGuinty kept senior staff in his office, even under criminal investigation. That resulted in deleted emails and destroyed evidence.

Don’t make the same mistake. Show Ontarians the integrity that the Deputy Premier says that you have. Restore confidence in your leadership and show Pat Sorbara the door.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite knows I have taken, and do take, this matter very seriously. Elections Ontario has determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. We’ll continue to co-operate fully with the investigation, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to do that.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Chief Electoral Officer, as the member opposite knows, has clearly stated, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

The investigations are entirely independent. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has been retained.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe that we need to let the investigation run its course. That’s what we need to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: This isn’t out of your hands. There’s still a lot that you can do. Why don’t you restore some semblance of integrity to your office? Try to protect the integrity of your office, the integrity of the police investigation, the integrity of the Sudbury police board, the integrity of our electoral system and the integrity that Ontarians place in their elected officials.

You can start doing this by directing the secretary of cabinet to seize Ms. Sorbara’s computer, and preserve all of her emails, her telephone records and anything else that may lend itself to a police investigation. Will you at least direct the secretary of cabinet to do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issues—sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I was using my silent stare.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just not sure whether to sit or stand.

Mr. Speaker, first let me address the issues arising out of recommendations that came to us through the Information and Privacy Commissioner over the last year or so. We have made many changes in my office and across government. We have put training in place in terms of retention of documents. Those procedures are already in place, so I can reassure the member opposite that those procedures have changed. They are in place; the training has been done.

On the second issue, I really believe that in order for the investigation to be able to continue—as the member knows, it is an independent process. The best thing that we can do is to let it unfold, Mr. Speaker. That actually preserves the integrity of the process and of the investigation, so we’re going to let it unfold as it must.

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

Ms. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the so-called procedures that have been put in place, there is a pattern of Liberal staffers destroying evidence here. So I want to ask the Premier what steps she has taken to limit Pat Sorbara’s access to the levers of power.

Have you stripped her of any authority? Have you ordered anyone to preserve her telephone records? Have you ordered that the hard drives and computers be turned over to the OPP so they don’t get wiped, like they did in the gas plants scandal? As leader of the Liberal Party, have you ordered party officials to preserve any evidence at Liberal Party headquarters as far as Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed are involved?

Please, Premier, tell us at least you’re doing something here.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I’ve answered these questions over and over again. I made a statement last Friday that made it clear what my position is. We need to let the independent investigation unfold as it will.

There are a lot of issues that we could be talking about, Mr. Speaker. Many of our members have been at the ROMA/OGRA conference. There are a lot of issues that we could be talking about. In fact, the member opposite could be asking about our announcement this morning to provide funding to build and repair critical infrastructure for small, rural and northern municipalities. The member opposite could be asking about the need for continued action across Canada to invest in public infrastructure. That’s a crying need.

The member opposite could be asking about the round table tomorrow on missing and murdered aboriginal women that a number of my members and I will be attending. She could be asking about that. Those are very, very important issues.

Interjections.

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

New question. The leader of the third party.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday the Deputy Premier complained that the opposition continues to insist that the Premier answer some very important questions. Sorry to disappoint the Deputy Premier, but we’re going to continue to do just that.

So my question is: Who told Pat Sorbara to offer Andrew Olivier a job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have and I do take this matter very, very seriously. I have answered dozens of questions, tens of questions in this House. I will continue to answer those questions.

I made a statement last Friday making it clear what my position is. Elections Ontario has determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. We’ll continue to co-operate fully with the independent investigation. The Chief Electoral Officer has stated, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

These investigations are entirely independent, and I believe that to preserve the integrity of the investigation we need to let it unfold.

It doesn’t matter how many times I am asked the question. I have answered, I will continue to answer and I have just given the answer that I will continue to repeat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, what does matter is who told Gerry Lougheed to offer Andrew Olivier a job. Perhaps she can answer that question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the investigation is not being conducted in this Legislature. I have answered questions. I have made very clear my position. I’ve made it clear that I believe the investigation is separate, that the integrity of the investigation needs to be maintained and we do that by allowing it to be independent.

I take this matter very seriously. I have answered questions and we will continue to co-operate fully with the investigation. I hope the members opposite will do the same.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. Thank you.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The matter of who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed the instructions to offer that job is an extremely, extremely serious question. But the Premier has ducked that very question 24 times in this chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Stop the clock. I ask again calmly: Please, decorum. Let the question be put; let the answer be answered.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Twenty-four times that question has been asked and not answered. The Deputy Premier can actually take note of that as she scores up the questions.

When the Premier refuses to answer, it isn’t just that she’s showing a lack of respect for me or the people in this chamber; she’s showing a lack of respect for the people of Ontario, because these answers are not just for me and they’re not just for us. This isn’t a silly game. The answers are for the people of this province and they deserve those answers.

So, once again—number 25—I’m going to ask the Premier: Who told Gerry Lougheed and Pat Sorbara to offer a job to Mr. Olivier so he wouldn’t run for the nomination in Sudbury?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because I fundamentally challenge the premise of the question, I say to the member opposite that I have answered those questions. I have made a clear statement of what happened in the Sudbury by-election and why I chose Glenn Thibeault to be the candidate. I made that decision.

There is an investigation going on. That investigation is independent. We need to let that investigation unfold and that’s what we’re going to do.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. According to Elections Ontario and the OPP, there is evidence that Andrew Olivier was offered a job—offered a bribe. Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed are on tape, and those tapes say that they were acting on behalf of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. It’s from all sides from time to time.

In fairness to the questioner, I don’t like interrupting, but I must when there’s not enough to be heard. I apologize. Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

Just to recap, the evidence shows—the OPP has the evidence, Elections Ontario has the evidence—that Andrew Olivier was offered a bribe. The tapes show that both Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed say on tape that they were doing that on behalf of this Premier. But the Premier is denying all of that—she’s denying all of it. So my question is very clear: Does she have any evidence at all about her version of the story, Speaker? What’s her version?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve talked about my position many times in the House.

Again, I’m going to read into the record what the Chief Electoral Officer has said. These are the Chief Electoral Officer’s words. It is the

section of the Chief Electoral Officer’s—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order—second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —report that is germane to the issue of whether there has been guilt determined or not. What he says is this: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

That’s why the investigation is not taking place in this House. The investigation is independent, it is unfolding and we need to let it do so, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that Andrew Olivier was offered a job in order for him to step aside and clear the way for the hand-picked Liberal candidate so that the Premier would not have to appoint him. There are two taped phone calls. There are police interviews that say that no decision had been made about whether or not to appoint Glenn Thibeault. But the Premier claims that all of this evidence is wrong. So I just want to know, and the people of Ontario, I think, deserve to know, will she share her evidence with us?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I have said repeatedly in this House and outside of this House that I had decided that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate. I had made that decision. I’ve said that over and over and over again.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Great choice.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food says it is a great choice—and it is a great choice. It was a great choice. Glenn Thibeault is a terrific representative for Sudbury. He’s a strong, strong voice and advocate for Sudbury.

The issues that are confronting Sudbury and other parts of the north are very challenging ones, and we need to make sure that we are making very good decisions to make sure that there are good transportation networks, that there’s good investment in infrastructure, that people in Sudbury, like people all over the province, have the prospect of a secure retirement. Those are the issues the member for Sudbury ran on. That’s why he’s sitting in this House on this side.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this is the sixth time this Premier has been asked for any evidence to support her story, and the Premier has yet to provide one shred, one iota of evidence to back up her story. The Premier’s version of events simply doesn’t match any of the evidence that is currently on record. It doesn’t match Gerry Lougheed’s taped phone call, it doesn’t match Pat Sorbara’s taped phone call and it doesn’t match what Andrew Olivier told the police.

So let’s try it again: In front of all of the evidence that’s been put on the record so far, does the Premier have any evidence to back up her version of events? Does she have any evidence to back up her story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said a number of times today, Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. We’ll continue to work with the authorities, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to fully co-operate, as we have been doing.

The fact is, there are many, many issues confronting us. As I said to the member of the Conservative Party, the leader of the third party could, in one of her questions, be asking about the round table on murdered and missing aboriginal women that is taking place in Ottawa on Friday. I would have thought that that would be an issue that would be of great concern to the leader of the third party, especially given that her candidate in Sudbury was a First Nations member. I thought that maybe there would be at least one question about what kinds of actions we might expect to come out of that round table.

That’s an important issue not just in Ontario, but across the country. I fully expect—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you have repeatedly said that on December 11, you had a conversation with Andrew Olivier and told him you were appointing Glenn Thibeault as your candidate in Sudbury. Pat Sorbara said she was in the room with you when you spoke on the phone to Mr. Olivier. Ms. Sorbara explicitly said she could hear your side of the conversation. But the next day, Ms. Sorbara told Mr. Olivier, “You’ve been directly asked by the Premier to make a decision to step aside.”

Premier, if you had already told Mr. Olivier that you were appointing Mr. Thibeault, then why did Ms. Sorbara continue to ask Mr. Olivier to step aside? If it was a done deal, why the bribe?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’ll say what I have said repeatedly, which is that I had decided that Glenn Thibeault was going to be the candidate in Sudbury. I have made that very, very clear.

There is an investigation going on. That investigation is not taking place in this chamber. The investigation is independent. We need to let that investigation unfold.

I will continue to respond to the questions across the floor, but the fact is that the investigation is independent, and it is taking place outside of this chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: You’ve dragged this chamber and all the members, I say to the Premier, into this mess because you won’t restore integrity to your office. You’re bringing us all down, and we don’t appreciate it. You can say it’s independent. True, the police investigation is—and possible charges in that process. But you got us all into this mess because you refuse to do the right thing. You’re bringing the art of politics and the honour of politics down; that’s why we’re going to continue to ask you these questions.

Premier, you said that you told Mr. Olivier on December 11 that you were appointing the candidate. Then on the 12th, Ms. Sorbara said that you were still asking Mr. Olivier to step down. Premier, who’s telling the truth about their conversation with Mr. Olivier?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I have a deep respect for political office. I’m in politics because I believe that government can and must make a difference. I believe that elected officials have a responsibility to advance the causes that brought them into politics in the first place, to do everything that they can to improve the lot of people in their jurisdictions and across this province.

I wouldn’t be standing here, I wouldn’t be in politics and neither, I believe, would anyone in this House be here if they didn’t believe that government could make a difference—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member from Leeds–Grenville and the Minister of the Environment to have a conversation, maybe, elsewhere.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say to the young people who are here for the model Parliament that I am so proud of them for taking

part in this. I just want them to know that government can and must make a difference. It must make a positive difference, and it can.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. I certainly hope your example is not one that the model Parliament is going to take away, because that’s not the way this place should operate.

Let’s get to the question: When Greg Sorbara’s name appeared in an RCMP warrant, he resigned from cabinet. But when Pat Sorbara is facing down a criminal investigation, the Premier is keeping her on the job as one of her top aides. Why do different rules apply to Pat Sorbara than applied to Greg Sorbara, and when will you ask Pat Sorbara to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I made a statement on Friday and I was very clear in my position on this. The situation that the member opposite is referencing is a very different situation than the one we are dealing with here.

Let me just repeat: The investigation is not taking place in this House. The investigation is separate. I will continue to answer questions. I will continue to work with the authorities, as we all will.

At the same time, there is such important work to be done. I referenced the round table on Friday on missing and murdered aboriginal women. It is extremely important that provinces come together, that leadership across this country come together, and attempt to work with the federal government. Whether we can work with the federal government to get a national inquiry or, if that’s not possible, to at least come together to agree on what some of the concrete actions might be to improve the lot of aboriginal girls and women in this province, that’s a very important piece of work that I will be doing while the investigation—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, to the Premier: Premier, I’ve been here for 25 years. In 25 years, we have seen members of cabinet from different governments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I find the decorum unacceptable. When someone is trying to put a question, to mock somebody is not what I call appropriate.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Or anyone else trying to tell me how to do my job.

Please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: In the last 25 years, members of every party have faced investigations for one thing or another. Some have been exonerated; some have not. But there’s been a tradition that when you’re under investigation, you do the right thing and you step aside so you’re not acting as a government decision-maker. Why do these rules not apply to Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite actually answered part of the question himself in the sense that Pat Sorbara is not a sitting member of Parliament. He knows that full well.

I know the member fairly well. He knows that I take this seriously. He knows that I’m going to work with the authorities. He knows very well that the investigation is separate from what goes on in this chamber. There are many, many important issues that we need to be talking about. This is one that obviously is important and we will continue to discuss it, but the investigation is not taking place in this House. It’s taking place independently outside of the Legislature.

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Mr. Arthur Potts: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As all members of the House know, it is quite common for us to hear from constituents about drug funding in Ontario. We are often asked why some drugs are funded by the government and some are not. The question for many is a question that affects their very livelihoods every day. Ontarians need access to certain drugs so they can do the normal things that we take for granted, like go to work, take walks and visit new places in the province.

It’s important that our government get drug funding right so that constituents like mine in the great riding of Beaches–East York can live the best lives possible, and I know our government is committed to ensuring Ontarians have access to the best and safest treatments available.

I ask the minister if he would please explain the process of drug funding in Ontario.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York for the question.

Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontarians have access to the best and the safest drugs and treatments. That’s why we took the politics out of those funding decisions; we did that several years ago. Now we rely on experts to determine which drugs are and should be funded. All drugs go through a review by an expert committee which undertakes a thorough evaluation based on the best available evidence.

In fact, in 2010 we introduced a process which now allows patient advocacy groups to make submissions, which are considered by the committee in evaluating a new drug therapy. Based on the committee’s advice, the executive officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs makes a funding decision based on the best interests of patients and the public.

This year our government will spend nearly $5 billion on more than 3,800 drugs for Ontario patients.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Thank you, Minister, for that review.

I was approached by Beaches–East York constituents Lorna Killam and Michael Beirne about a drug called Soliris that provides demonstrated improvements to health and quality of life for patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, or aHUS. aHUS is a very rare and life-threatening disease. Their very close friend Toni Vernon, who is in the House today, has aHUS and needs a life-saving kidney. My constituent Lorna is a match and will donate her kidney, but her doctor asks that Toni be on Soliris before he’ll do the operation. Unfortunately, this medication is not currently available to the majority of aHUS patients in Ontario who depend on the government to fund this costly treatment.

In June 2013, Health Canada approved Soliris for use in Canada, but it’s not listed. Minister, what is Ontario doing for Ontarians who suffer from aHUS to have access to Soliris?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As I was able to say earlier this morning in question period, I was informed earlier this week by the executive officer of Ontario’s Public Drug Programs that Ontario will now provide Soliris to patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, or aHUS, who meet the defined clinical criteria of the disease. The aHUS advocacy group was informed of this decision yesterday.

Yesterday we had one member of the PC Party questioning whether we should even be teaching evolution in schools. Now a member of the PC Party is suggesting that our decisions on drug funding need not be based on science. I can’t even begin to imagine what may be coming next. Perhaps we never landed on the moon. Perhaps the world is flat after all.

We will continue to rely on evidence to make decisions about what drugs work and for what patients, and I’m happy to make this announcement today.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. The day after you spoke with Mr. Olivier, your deputy chief of staff called him and warned him over the phone that this wasn’t about Olivier deciding to run; it was all about Andrew Olivier deciding to say no to the Premier. Of course, Sorbara is referring to him saying no to your request that he step aside. Ms. Sorbara made it clear on that tape that you, Premier, asked Olivier to step aside.

Premier, why do you continue to deny that you asked Mr. Olivier to step aside on December 11?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Once again, let me just say that I had made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate in Sudbury.

There is an investigation ongoing. That investigation is not taking place in this House. It’s an independent investigation that is taking place, and I will continue—we will all continue—to co-operate with it.

I thought, actually, with the Conference Board of Canada report coming out in the last couple of days, that the members opposite, particularly in the PC Party, might have been interested in talking about the economy. What’s interesting is that all private sector economists are now forecasting continued growth for the Ontario economy. That’s very, very good news. I know that the Minister of Finance is going to want to comment further on this.

The Conference Board of Canada’s provincial outlook, winter 2015, says: “Ontario’s economy is projected to grow by 2.9% this year, bolstered by strong exports and consumer spending.” That’s very good news.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the Premier: The day after Mr. Olivier spoke to you, he spoke with your deputy chief of staff and told her: “I’m looking to seek that nomination.” Yet you told us over and over again—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Bill Walker: —that there was going to be no nomination. He said, “And I appreciate the Premier’s position.” It simply doesn’t make sense that Mr. Olivier appreciated your position and then told your deputy chief of staff he was still running if you said there wasn’t going to be a nomination.

Premier, are you telling the truth when you say you told Mr. Olivier you were appointing a candidate on December 11?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The court of public opinion ruled, and they chose Glenn Thibeault in Sudbury. They chose Glenn Thibeault because they recognized that we do have challenges before us and that we must continue to invest in skills and in training, invest in infrastructure, invest in maintaining a very dynamic and competitive business climate, and strengthen our retirement security, Mr. Speaker.

They know that we have a lot of work to bring our path to balance, which is achieving its results ahead of targets. They know that we continue to look at our program reviews, that the President of the Treasury Board is doing a fine job, looking at matching our compensation as well, Mr. Speaker—revenue integrity to ensure that everyone pays their fair share—all along exceeding our targets, becoming the lowest-cost government anywhere in Canada and recognizing that we must stay together.

The people of Sudbury ruled on the issue that’s before us in this House, recognizing all that was put forward, and they chose a great candidate, Glenn Thibeault.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed both have very similar stories. They both were caught on tape saying that they would like Andrew Olivier to step aside for Glenn Thibeault. In the course of that deliberation they would like to present Olivier with—and I quote Lougheed—“options in terms of appointments, jobs, whatever.” This is the 26th time the Premier is being asked this question: Who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed the directions to present these options to Andrew Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I will say once again that I have answered these questions. The investigation is happening outside of this House. I’ve been very clear that I take this matter very seriously. I will continue to work with the authorities.

But I thought, actually, that when the member opposite stood up he was going to be asking a question on auto insurance, because we’re making progress on auto insurance. I know that the Minister of Finance is going to want to speak to that because I know it’s of great concern to the member opposite. And it’s just one of the issues that we have to be dealing with as we govern this province, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s important that we give regular updates on things like the progress on the reduction of auto insurance premiums.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The question again is to the Premier. The question is really very simple, and instead of answering the question directly, the Premier has repeatedly not answered the question, deflected and referred to a scripted answer. The people of Ontario don’t want scripted answers. They don’t want speaking notes. They don’t want talking points. They want a direct answer. So I’m going to ask the question one more time. This is the 26th time, and I’m hoping the Premier can answer this question directly, for once. Simple question: Who gave the orders to Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, I believe, took a law course; I think he’s actually a lawyer. Recognizing that, he more than anyone recognizes the process. We are respecting the process and that’s exactly what the Premier’s doing.

But in regard to auto insurance, which I think he had a passion for, we know that we continue to do what’s necessary to reduce auto rates. That’s why we have a bill before the House. That’s why we’re fighting fraud. And, Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, we have now over a dozen companies reducing their rates by more than 15%. We are on target to do what’s necessary because of the actions that were taken. We want to do more, and I hope the member opposite will try to participate in that process as well.

Anti-bullying initiatives

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, as you know, today is Pink Shirt Day. Pink Shirt Day began in Nova Scotia after a grade 9 boy wore a pink shirt to school. He was mercilessly bullied by schoolmates for looking “gay.”

Two thirds of kids who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered feel unsafe at school, and almost three quarters of kids report hearing homosexual slurs at schools every day.

Minister, bullying in our schools and in our society is a widespread problem and is unacceptable, often resulting in devastating emotional, psychological or physical harm on those who are targeted. I know this is an issue that all members in this House feel strongly about. Minister, can you please tell me and tell this House what the government is doing to combat this deep-rooted and appalling problem?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Happy birthday to the member from Halton.

I’m absolutely thrilled to be able to speak about this issue because it’s very important to me. The member is right. Two high school students, David Shepherd and Travis Price, didn’t stand by while that grade 9 student was bullied for wearing pink. They went out and bought pink shirts too, and took a brave stand against bullying.

I’m proud to be a member of this Legislature which passed aggressive anti-bullying legislation. I’m also proud that our government recently introduced the revised health and physical education curriculum that brings forward current and relevant issues about bullying. This includes teaching our students about healthy, respectful relationships with their peers and that bullying, under any circumstance, is not okay.

I’m proud that we’re all wearing pink today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I thank the Minister of Education for her response and for her thoughtful comments. Those two grade 12 boys went home that night and emailed their friends, and word spread. The next day, the entire school was outfitted in a sea of pink.

Interjection: Nice.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Yes.

These young men changed the culture at their school. In order to combat bullying in schools across this province, we need to change the culture in all of our schools. There have been too many tragic incidents of young people taking their own lives, in part because they could no longer endure the bullying from their peers at school.

I know that the Minister of Education agrees that this is completely unacceptable. We also know that in today’s technologically driven world, bullying does not stop at the end of the day.

Minister, could you please inform this House on what your government is doing to combat bullying outside of the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member is absolutely correct. As a government, we have taken action. Ontario took the lead and included cyberbullying as part of the definition of bullying and recognized cyberbullying in our Accepting Schools Act.

Our digital and interconnected world offers students endless positive possibilities. But at the same time, they need to be aware of the potential risks, which is why I am so proud that the recently revised health and physical education curriculum helps children and youth develop skills for online safety by learning about such things as safe and respectful use of technology; social, emotional and legal implications of online behaviour such as sexting; and the potential effects of sexting on relationships and future employment.

Our government has taken action. We’ve provided bullying-prevention training for up to 25,000 teachers and close to 7,500 principals and vice-principals. We are—

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

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is to the Premier. In recent months you questioned the integrity of the Auditor General and downplayed the OPP’s statements in their ITO. You made allegations against your colleagues across the aisle. Everyone’s integrity seems to be fair game for you.

But Premier, when somebody questions your integrity, your deputy stands in the chamber insulting the intelligence of the people of Ontario and painting a flowery picture of your decisions that the public no longer believes.

Premier, when will you demonstrate the integrity of your office and call for the resignation of Gerry Lougheed and Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, once again, I have said repeatedly that there’s an investigation ongoing. We will continue to work with the authorities, but we need to let that investigation take place outside this House; it’s an independent process. I’ve been very clear. I’ve answered these questions many, many times—I made a statement on Friday that is a public statement—but the investigation needs to unfold.

There are many, many things that are confronting us right now, and opportunities. I had the opportunity last Friday morning to attend the athletes’ village for the Pan/Parapan American Games that are taking place this summer. It was a wonderful event. It was wonderful because it’s an athletes’ village, and it’s going to be terrific for the 10,000 athletes and coaches who will be there for the Pan/Parapan Games, but there’s also a legacy attached to it. I know that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport is going to want to speak to that. It’s a very important legacy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Again to the Premier: Your actions don’t demonstrate the integrity your colleagues gush about. You continue to stand with your two Liberal operatives who have cast a dark shadow over the Sudbury election and our democracy.

We shouldn’t have to remind you to do the right thing, but you seem to have lost your way once again. We launched a petition that thousands of Ontarians have already signed, and Premier, they’re asking that you do the right thing by demanding the resignation of Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed Jr. until the allegations are resolved. Premier, will you stand up and finally come clean with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to acknowledge the member’s question. As the member knows, the Premier has answered the question many times.

It gives me a great opportunity, I think, at this point to talk about the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games here in the province of Ontario. I just want to give members an update because we’re five months away and I haven’t had a question in quite some time—

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been able to sell over 275,000 tickets so far. As the Premier mentioned, the athletes’ village is completed. It was officially handed over to TO2015 by the contractors and Infrastructure Ontario. We have over 52,000 people who have signed up to volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, this is about building a legacy here in the province of Ontario for future generations of athletes and young people.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Last month, your deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, called Andrew Olivier, asking him to stop seeking the Liberal nomination, and in exchange, he was offered a job. Ms. Sorbara said—

Interjection.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Oh, no, this is a good one: “You’re like the third person I’ve even heard her ask this of.” Who are the other people Ms. Sorbara was referring to?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said repeatedly, we will work with the authorities. I will continue to wor