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

September 25, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Sep-25 (PDF)

L063 - Wed 25 Sep 2013 / Mer 25 sep 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 September 2013 Mercredi 25 septembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU DROIT À LA PARTICIPATION

AUX AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

POWER PLANTS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

IMMIGRATION FRANCOPHONE /

FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ENDANGERED SPECIES

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

DEFERRED VOTES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

INJURED WORKERS’ CONSULTANTS

JOUR DES FRANCO-ONTARIENS

ET DES FRANCO-ONTARIENNES

CAREER COLLEGES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRANSIT ACCIDENT IN OTTAWA

YUREK PHARMACY

GLOBAL CITIES INSTITUTE

ALGONQUIN LAND CLAIM

TRANSIT ACCIDENT IN OTTAWA

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES COMMISSIONER), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

(COMMISSAIRE AUX SERVICES

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT

(FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES COMMISSIONER), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

(COMMISSAIRE AUX SERVICES

FAIR HIRING TO SUPPORT TEACHERS, PARENTS AND STUDENTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES PRATIQUES

D’ENGAGEMENT ÉQUITABLES

À L’APPUI DES ENSEIGNANTS,

DES PARENTS ET DES ÉLÈVES

TRANSPARENCY IN MEMBERS’ EXPENSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

EN MATIÈRE DES DÉPENSES

DES DÉPUTÉS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

BIOTECHNOLOGY

BIOTECHNOLOGY

PETITIONS

GENETICALLY-MODIFIED ALFALFA

WIND TURBINES

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PROROGATION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

ALGONQUIN LAND CLAIM

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

AIR-RAIL LINK

BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICER ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE DIRECTEUR

DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DU DROIT À LA PARTICIPATION

AUX AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES

Mr. Gerretsen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest / Projet de loi 83, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

Loi sur la diffamation et la

Loi sur l’exercice des compétences légales afin de protéger l’expression sur les affaires d’intérêt public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m very pleased to start the leadoff on this bill, which I think is extremely important for the people of Ontario. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough Southwest.

This bill is a very important step to allow individuals to have a say in matters of public interest without fear of intimidation or repercussions. I and the government believe in its merits, believe in the principles of the bill, and I firmly believe that it will bring a greater degree of fairness to a system of justice that we have here in Ontario, of which we can all be very proud. It is about public participation, freedom of expression and justice. This bill, if passed, would defend public expression and encourage debate on matters of public interest.

I should say at this point in time that a number of private members’ bills have been introduced along this concept, and I would like to pay particular tribute to my colleague the Minister of Labour, who as a private member introduced a similar bill to the one that we’re introducing today as a government bill some two or three years ago. I thank him for his input.

Our government is very concerned about any abuse of process in our court system which unfairly targets our citizens and ties up precious public resources. That’s why, amid growing concerns about strategic lawsuits appearing in the Ontario courts, in May 2010 our government convened an expert panel to study the issue of strategic litigation and make recommendations as to what steps our government should take to address it.

The first thing that the general public may ask is, “What is a strategic lawsuit?” Well, it is primarily a lawsuit brought before the court by one party against another party or individual as a tactic for silencing or intimidating the other party.

Specifically, we asked the panel that my predecessor set up in May 2010 to determine, first of all, a test for courts to recognize what is and is not a strategic lawsuit. We wanted it to determine the appropriate remedies in cases where it is held that a court case is a strategic suit. We wanted to define appropriate limits to the protection of any proposed legislation. We also wanted the panel to determine appropriate parties to benefit from those protections and, finally, what methods can be used to prevent abuse of any future anti-SLAPP legislation.

The advisory panel itself was balanced between plaintiff and media lawyers, and included a trio of the foremost experts on the issues surrounding the balance of protecting public participation with the protection of reputation and economic interest. It is always a balancing act.

The panel was chaired by Dr. Mayo Moran, dean of the University of Toronto law school, who is also an expert in constitutional law and the private law on civil wrongs. It was also made up of Peter Downward, partner with Fasken Martineau, who has written authoritative legal texts on both libel and defamation, as well as Brian MacLeod Rogers, who is an adjunct professor at Ryerson University’s School of Journalism.

The practising barristers also brought considerable expertise on the Rules of Civil Procedure and courtroom dynamics. This bill is a direct result of the expert advisory panel’s recommendations. The bill provides a unique, made-in-Ontario solution to the issue of strategic lawsuits.

Strategic lawsuits are a relatively new phenomenon in Canadian courts. The Ontario proposal has benefited from the lessons learned from jurisdictions in the United States, as well as in Quebec and British Columbia. It also seeks to build upon and strengthen our province’s existing laws and freedoms.

Importantly, our bill also upholds the value of reputation, one of the most important assets a person or business can possess. Given this key consideration in developing our bill, we have worked hard to balance our citizens’ freedom of expression with the protection of reputation and economic interests.

I would like to take just a moment and be given an opportunity to outline the legislation that we are proposing in some detail. The proposed Protection of Public Participation Act has several main components, requiring amendments to—as you’ve heard in the title—three existing laws: the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Let me first of all deal with the amendments to the Courts of Justice Act. By amending the act, we are proposing a fast-track review process for lawsuits alleged to be brought for strategic reasons rather than to remedy legitimate complaints. Once again, strategic lawsuits, it should be remembered, are lawsuits brought to the court by one party against another as a tactic for silencing or intimidating the other individual. As we define them, strategic suits do not pertain to any dispute, but rather must be about matters of public interest.

For example, in a defamation claim a suit would be considered strategic if the act of suing an individual to ensure his or her silence has the effect of shutting down public debate on a matter that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to an entire community. In this situation, the proposed legislation gives the defendant who believes that they are being targeted unfairly an opportunity to ask the court to dismiss the case before a long and expensive court battle ensues.

What happens, then, when a defendant feels that it is a strategic lawsuit launched against them? Well, at the defendant’s request, the court could use a test to determine whether or not the suit should be allowed to proceed. In applying the test, the court would seek answers to the following three questions, and this is fundamental to the bill that we’re bringing forward today:

The first question that has to be answered is, is the lawsuit about a matter of public interest? It will be up to the defence, the person who’s being sued, to convince the court that its dispute is not simply a private matter but that the public good is at stake.

Second, if it is a matter of public interest, the question then becomes, does the plaintiff’s case have substantial merit? This is what the plaintiff would have to demonstrate.

Third, can the plaintiff show that he or she has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm serious enough to justify stopping the public expression or debate on the matter of public interest? If not, then under the proposed legislation, the case would be dismissed.

As we all know, speed is such an important aspect of these provisions because it provides clarity for all the parties quickly while carefully balancing their interests. Under the proposed fast-track process, the request to dismiss the lawsuit—in other words, where a defendant alleges that it is a strategic lawsuit—must be heard within 60 days of the defendant’s motion to the court to have the test applied and before the case could proceed any further in court. This expedited process is a key provision in nearly every American statute of its kind, so it is not a delaying tactic. Sixty days are set aside when this matter has to be determined.

Furthermore, the bill asks the court to determine the effect of the lawsuit against public participation based upon available evidence rather than its intent, which is a far more complex undertaking. By helping the court to quickly and efficiently identify these strategic suits, we hope that our proposed fast-track process—the 60-day process from the time that the application is made—would help level the playing field for the targets of strategic suits.

At the same time, removing frivolous claims from our court system frees up, of course, valuable public resources and allows our judges to focus their time and attention on more serious matters.

Our government, and I would hope everyone in this assembly and throughout the province of Ontario, takes access to justice extremely seriously. It is an issue that the members have likely heard a lot about in their own ridings from time to time. It was of high interest and has been for every meeting that I attended among judicial leaders at yesterday’s Opening of the Courts here in Toronto, which I had the pleasure to attend. Many of our judges have spoken out about this—chief justices have spoken out—how important access to justice is.

Over the past several years, my ministry and our government have been working hard on a number of fronts to make our justice system more accessible and responsive to the needs of our citizens. Under this proposed bill, once a statement of claim is filed, the defendant could immediately file a motion asking the court to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit, and that motion would have to be heard within 60 days. If a motion like this is brought, it would immediately put a stop to the proceedings as no further steps would be allowed to occur until the motion was decided.

So, therefore, within the 60 days, the judge would apply the three-part test that I spoke about before to determine whether or not the case was a strategic suit and whether or not it should be allowed to proceed.

Again, the judge would first ask the defendant to show that his or her statements against the other party amounted to a matter of public interest. If he or she were successful in showing that the statements they previously made were indeed concerns of public interest, the judge would move on to the next part of the test. In the second step, the judge would ask the plaintiff to show that its claim had merit and, if so, that the harm endured by them was serious enough to outweigh the value of the defendant’s continued expression on that matter of public interest.

As the members are aware, our bill also proposes to give the successful defendant his or her costs against the plaintiff on a full indemnity scale. In other words, if the suit turns out to be a strategic lawsuit in the opinion of the judge, full costs can be recovered by the individual against whom the action is taken. Given that the motion would be heard within about 60 days, I expect that these costs would not be as excessive as they of course would if the matter went on to trial on a full-scale basis.

By introducing the fast-track process, our government is hoping to strike a balance between recognizing the importance of protecting our rights and freedoms to speak out when public interest is at stake and also recognizing that sometimes those expressions can go too far, and that’s not fair either. It’s certainly a difficult balance to achieve. There are many, many factors to consider.

As I indicated before, upon the introduction of this proposed legislation and earlier, we recognize that, while freedom of expression is extremely important, this proposed law does not mean that people can be carefree in expressing their views. The bill does not make it an open season on anyone or on any kind of business.

We know that reputation is important. It is vitally important to protect an individual’s integrity. The bill is designed to protect the reputation of individuals. Therefore, I would like to discuss two other related changes we are proposing through this bill which would amend both the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As some of the members here may be aware, conversations between two or more people on a matter of shared concern are considered privileged. In other words, because the parties share a direct interest in the matter, their conversations about that matter are protected by law. That means that none of them can be sued for either libel or slander so long as they are not untruthful about the particular matter about which they’re talking.

Under the current laws, a group of citizens may meet to discuss their shared problem and be confident that those conversations will be protected. Under the Libel and Slander Act, so long as they are without malice, those conversations are privileged. If, however, a reporter from a local newspaper, radio station or television station shows up, that privilege is lost.

It has been said that healthy public discussions are a cornerstone of a healthy, well-functioning democracy. That’s why it’s important that discussions should not be hindered by the arrival of a reporter with a microphone or a local blogger with his or her smartphone in hand. Rather, these people should—most times—be welcomed in those kinds of discussions. I’m very glad that, with this bill, we can support our province’s strongly held democratic values, even in a seemingly very small way.

The Statutory Powers Procedure Act is going to be amended as well, if this bill is adopted. Our proposed bill provides for a change to the law governing regulatory boards and administrative tribunals. Under the current law, administrative tribunals, of which we have many in this province, may hold hearings to determine if one party should pay the other party’s legal costs after a case has been decided. Now, these hearings could be conducted in person, which can sometimes be very lengthy and costly for all involved, especially for vulnerable parties.

It is not unknown for these kinds of discussions to take longer than the court cases or the administrative tribunals themselves. Our proposed change would allow parties to make their arguments about how costs should be awarded in written submission to the tribunal. This would help result in faster decisions. All parties would be allowed to make written submissions with respect to the issue of costs.

Like the proposed fast-track review process, it is our hope that this provision would encourage cases to be dealt with more quickly, contributing to a more efficient justice system that makes the best possible use of our public resources.

This has been just a high-level overview of some of the complex legal issues and considerations the panel addressed as it formed its recommendations. However, I think it’s quite fitting that a report about how to protect freedom of expression would itself be subject to a healthy debate, and it has been. It’s our view, Speaker, from reviewing the report from the advisory panel, we firmly believe that they’ve got it right for the people of Ontario. The resulting bill proposes to change the law in order to ensure this balance, and in doing so would help to resolve what we see is a serious imbalance.

Today, I would like this opportunity to once again thank the panel members for their hard work and commitment to their task. But I would also like to thank the dozens of individuals and groups who provided their input to the panel, as well as those who have provided further feedback on the report to the ministry since the report was submitted. All of those contributions have given shape to the bill that we see before us today. I would further like to thank the many individuals and organizations who have come forward to endorse the panel’s recommendations for our bill.

So far, there have been 142 organizations in this country already, from the Council of Canadians to the David Suzuki Foundation, to name but a few—and I could go on and list the entire list here, Speaker, of 142 different organizations.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Go ahead. I think you should list them.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You think I should list them. Well, we want to get this bill through to House as quickly as possible, because we’ve also been very encouraged by the positive comments that have been made by the critic for the Conservative Party and the critic for the New Democratic Party, as well as other members in this House.

Throughout the process of developing and proposing the bill, we’ve also received support from numerous groups and individuals with a keen interest in the preservation of human rights and democratic freedoms. I will just quote a few more, for the Minister of the Environment and others in the House. PEN Canada, in a news release issued immediately upon hearing the bill’s introduction, stated that the proposed measures would “provide a useful economical way to reduce the incidence of lawsuits which have an undue adverse impact on public participation.” We value public participation in our democratic institutions.

Let me make it clear that support for the panel’s recommendations and our bill is not just limited to academics and advocates of those who are traditionally the subject of strategic lawsuits. We’ve also heard from a number of municipal leaders, as well as many people in the legal community, such as the Ontario Bar Association and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, as well as leaders among the judiciary who recognize our proposal as sound—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Don Valley East, I can hear you over the speaker, almost.

Hon. John Gerretsen: This is very, very important for all the members of the House. This is all about making sure that our democratic institutions, of which we all can be proud, are valued by the people of Ontario and by the people in this Legislature. I recognize your intervention there, Speaker, in making sure that the members listen attentively to what is being said today, and as we will listen to others as well on this issue.

But there have been leaders from the judiciary as well. Recently, I received a letter, and I just want to quote from it. A letter from the Honourable Roy McMurtry—amongst others—a long-time Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, a long-serving Attorney General of this province. I believe, as a matter of fact, he’s the second-longest serving Attorney General in this province, the longest-serving being Sir Oliver Mowat, who served in this capacity for 23 years, which is a tough record to—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. McMurtry has a new book out.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I purchased it last night.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Mr. McMurtry has just penned a book which is called, I believe, Memoirs and Reflections. I’m in the process of reading it as well, but I digress.

I received a letter near the end of November of last year signed by the Honourable Ian Binnie and the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, both members of the Supreme Court of Canada; the Honourable Coulter Osborne, who served in the capacity as our Integrity Commissioner, amongst other things; and the Honourable Roy McMurtry. Let me just tell you what they told me in a very, very simple letter:

“We are writing to you concerning the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation....

“Each of us”—each of these four eminent judges—“has served in a senior capacity in the Canadian judiciary and has considerable experience in the operation of the civil justice system in Ontario.

“We are concerned regarding the continuing presence of meritless lawsuits that have a chilling effect on citizen engagement in matters of public interest. These SLAPP suits”—as they’re commonly called—“impede the right of citizens to participate in public decision-making processes, frustrate the proper operation of our court system and expose SLAPP defendants to unnecessary financial and emotional costs.

“There needs to be effective anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario. Having reviewed the report of the expert advisory panel convened by your predecessor, Chris Bentley, we support its recommendations. The report provides the basis for an effective anti-SLAPP law, which would provide necessary safeguards against SLAPPs and reduce their adverse impact on public participation in Ontario.

“We support the adoption of the expert panel’s recommendations and urge the Ontario government to act on this issue.”

It’s signed by the Honourable Ian Binnie, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, the Honourable Roy McMurtry and the Honourable Coulter Osborne. Very plain. These are individuals who have served this country, this province, extremely well in various capacities, including judiciary capacities. They’ve seen it happen in their courts. They are saying we should be taking this action.

Also, the Ontario Bar Association has stated that, “Public confidence depends on the ability of our justice system to operate efficiently and to enhance democratic principles. Both of these goals are threatened by the bad-faith litigation that this new legislation is designed to curb. We commend the government for introducing the Protection of Public Participation Act.” That was when it was introduced, in June of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Protection of Public Participation Act contains many important provisions that support our goal of building a fair society. We are creating faster, more efficient civil processes that provide greater clarity for the parties involved. It’s a time-limited decision that’s going to be made in these cases. We’re addressing abusive lawsuits that can waste everyone’s time and tie up valuable court resources. We’re protecting freedom of expression and public participation, and that is the essence of this bill.

But we’re also safeguarding reputations, we’re protecting economic interests, we’re promoting greater access to justice and, as a result, we are building a stronger justice system.

Our bill supports some of our most cherished values of people living in a free and democratic society—our most cherished values as Ontarians and Canadians. So today, I’m very encouraged with the comments that I’ve heard so far from the members of the opposition of both parties—positive comments. I urge all members to stand together to support these freedoms and values by supporting our proposed bill, to pass it through this Legislature after having a thorough debate on it, send it to committee—there are always possibilities of making amendments to make the bill better still—and let’s put it into practice as soon as possible so the people of Ontario will be the better for it.

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in the House today to continue debate on the proposed Protection of Public Participation Act.

As you heard just a moment ago, this bill, if passed, would defend public expression and encourage debate on matters of public interest while protecting reputation and economic interests. As the Attorney General explained, this bill has three major components, which would require amendments to three laws: the Libel and Slander Act, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and, most significantly, the Courts of Justice Act.

First, the Libel and Slander Act provisions address a gap in libel law that can deter, or at least greatly curtail, frank conversations about matters of public interest. Next, a change to the law governing regulatory boards and administrative tribunals would allow parties to make their arguments about how legal costs should be awarded in written submissions and should help result in faster decisions. Finally, the introduction of a three-part test would help our courts quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits.

Together, these amendments provide a made-in-Ontario solution to protecting free and open debate on matters of public importance while at the same time improving court processes and addressing abusive lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has described this bill as a made-in-Ontario approach to addressing the problem of strategic lawsuits. Certainly, in developing the bill we looked at the experiences of other jurisdictions to see if their laws might provide an appropriate model for Ontario, and our expert advisory panel reviewed the prior and current Canadian legislation in the area, as well as relevant law from jurisdictions around the world, particularly Quebec, Australia and several US states. It was the panel’s opinion that its proposals would fit best with existing Ontario practices and laws.

In other words, only a unique approach crafted by and for Ontarians would do. That’s precisely what the panel has done.

After extensive research compiled by the ministry of the Attorney General and hearing nearly 40 written and oral submissions from representatives of the legal community and advocacy groups, the panel submitted a number of recommendations which are comprehensively reflected in our bill.

These recommendations were not arrived at easily, and I commend the panelists for the excellent job they did in tackling the many complex issues we tasked them with addressing. For example, many have argued that the bill should include a new legal right of public participation. This new right would be at the heart of the motion to dismiss alleged abusive action. On the good advice of our panel, our bill relies on the concept of matters of public interest—“matters of public interest” is the key—a subject which our courts are frequently called upon to consider.

For example, recently the Supreme Court of Canada used the concept of public interest in deciding cases about the extent of freedom of expression, which, as the members know, is precisely the kind of question this bill poses.

We agree that a fast-track review process for determining whether lawsuits are strategic or legitimate complaints will work far better and faster if it relies on known principles of law.

Some also argued that the bill should create a separate right to damages for starting such actions, rather than just giving the court discretion to award them. The government wants to reduce the number of lawsuits, not increase them. The question of damages can be properly dealt with as part of the motion to dismiss the lawsuit if the lawsuit record clearly shows an abusive intention. The court hearing the motion can call for further evidence of damages if that is appropriate, as well, without requiring a separate lawsuit on the point.

Interestingly, while proponents of the new right to participation often say that Ontario’s law doesn’t go far enough, on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have also heard that our approach goes too far. It has been suggested, for example, that the bill upsets the balance of carefully well-crafted laws by which our legal system has weighted competing interests over the years. With respect, the government does not agree with the argument that the current law properly balances the relevant interests. That is why our proposed legislation sets out to deliberately change that balance.

As the Attorney General has pointed out, the bill intends to improve the balance of freedom of expression in matters of public interest with the rights of plaintiffs who, at present, can far too easily rely on the technicalities of libel law and the cost of litigation to suppress public debate. For example, the current law simply presumes that a plaintiff who is defamed suffers harm. What this means is that the plaintiff doesn’t need to demonstrate any actual or expected damage as a result of public expression. When it comes to discussion in matters of public interest, this is hardly appropriate. Our Courts of Justice Act amendments would change that rule.

Importantly, the bill would not prevent people or businesses who have been seriously harmed by defamation from getting a remedy through the courts. As the Attorney General remarked earlier, we recognize the value of reputation and want to see it protected. We don’t want to see anyone unfairly criticized in a public forum. The panel was equally clear on that point. In proposing these amendments, our government is simply trying to ensure that there is a speedy and economical method of deciding if the case is actually about such harm. This is about levelling the playing field for defendants, who are all too often at a distinct disadvantage.

The same critics have also said that the bill’s rule that a court must balance the harm done against the value of freedom of expression about the public interest is too difficult or too abstract. However, Ontario courts on their own have developed exactly that test in deciding when plaintiffs in defamation cases can compel disclosure of the names of people who have published statements anonymously online. In other words, the courts have the experience to make such decisions. The bill gives them another opportunity to do so.

Finally, I want to take this opportunity to highlight another argument that has been raised regarding the proposed change to the law of qualified privilege and how the bill would change it. Some critics have thought that this amendment makes it open season on public figures, in the way that American law does. There is nothing in this bill that would have that effect. What the bill aims to do is reverse a particularly narrow court ruling that has set the law for over 50 years and reduce the risk associated with communications among people who have a direct interest in a public issue.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago our government commissioned a panel of experts to study a new phenomenon in our court system. The panel studied the issue at length, consulting with a wide range of experts, both within Ontario and abroad. In the end, the panel concluded that strategic lawsuits are indeed a problem in Ontario, deterring people from speaking out on matters of public interest. Their report called for the government to take action, and it showed us the best approach in doing so.

Over the past two years, the Ministry of the Attorney General has carefully studied the panel’s recommendations, along with the submissions of individuals and organizations that have engaged with us directly on this matter.

The bill you have before you today is a reflection of that collaboration and of years of hard work. It is a bill that balances the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. It’s a practical approach that builds upon the strength of our existing laws and knowledge as well as the lessons learned by other jurisdictions.

It is a proposed course of action that we hope will bring about positive, meaningful change for those who find themselves on the receiving end of unfair lawsuits. In the words of Dr. Mayo Moran, chair of the advisory panel, it’s a bill that will support democracy by creating “conditions for a robust debate on issues of public importance.”

Finally, by allowing our government to tackle the problem of abuse of process in our courts, it’s a way to make our courts more efficient and our justice system work better for all.

I also take heart with the statements of my opposition colleagues in this House. As the member for Dufferin–Caledon stated on June 4, “So I’m pleased that the Attorney General has taken some action on this. Public participation is the foundation of a healthy democracy, and the reality is that people should not have to fear the threat of lawsuits to voice their concerns.” And as the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton stated the same day, when the bill was first introduced, “Mr. Speaker, this is a vital, important piece of legislation.”

In conclusion, I urge all members of this House to support this very important bill. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak on this.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: A pleasure to speak to the bill. We do support it, as our critic from Dufferin–Caledon has said.

I want to talk about something a little different this morning; I hope the members will indulge me. Today—September 25, 2013—is the 50th anniversary of the day that my father was elected to this chamber in 1963, as the first person of Polish descent to be elected to the Legislature. I can say the obvious: that I wouldn’t be here without my father—on the face of this Earth—but I certainly wouldn’t be here in this chamber without the work that he did before me, and I never would have been elected, for certain.

During my first campaign, it was clear to me that the affection that people had for my father in the 24 years that he served here—and he did serve until the date of his death, July 31, 1987, the day that David Peterson called the election at that time. In my first campaign, I heard first-hand stories about how people had worked with my father and respected him and the things that he had done. I still hear that, 10 years later—almost 10 years as an elected member. I hear stories every day about how he worked for the ordinary people and the compassion he showed for the problems that they had in their lives.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I am extremely fortunate, and I hope that he’s watching, and I hope that in some ways he is approving a little bit of the small way that I’m trying to measure up to the work that he did. You know, I have my heroes in life. I have my sports heroes, people I’ve followed all my life, but my real hero is my father. So today, I’m proud to speak on his 50th anniversary of being elected. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Parkdale–High Park—and can I ask the member from Timmins–James Bay to keep it down a bit, please.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just want to commend the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant for bringing in this bill. Certainly we are in support of it. I think it’s something that has been desperately needed by this province for a very long time. I would say that with one small caveat, and that is that credit should have been given to our leader, Andrea Horwath, who first introduced the bill a couple of years ago. Just to set the record straight on that. Always give women credit where women deserve it, so thank you—and all people, for that matter.

I also want to mention something else, and that is that I hope that this bill, even before it’s passed—because we know that takes a while—has an effect on what’s going on right now. The one instance I’m thinking of is Marineland, where some young trainers are being sued in what can only be described as a classic SLAPP suit, because they spoke out about conditions at Marineland. I know they’re watching, and I know they’re heralding this day that anti-SLAPP legislation is being introduced.

I know, and I hope, it will help them in their endeavours for justice, because truly, we should be protecting those who speak the truth, who speak out and who pay the price for it. They’ve been fired. That’s already too much. But to then be sued is really to add injustice to injustice, and that’s what this bill hopes to address.

I couldn’t be more supportive. I’m very glad to see this day finally come in the province of Ontario. I think there are many defendants out there who are equally glad to see it come, and I absolutely hope that it has the effect that it intends, not only on future cases but even on those that are before the courts at the moment. Thank goodness we have the freedom to say such things in this House, so I’m going to take this freedom and say such things. I thank, again, the Attorney General for doing what he’s done, and his parliamentary assistant.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to start by thanking the Attorney General for putting forward the Protection of Public Participation Act. I am very happy to see this. This is a piece of legislation that I worked on, along with my community of Ottawa Centre, for about a year, and last October 15 I tabled Bill 132—same name, Protection of Public Participation Act—putting in place the expert panel report recommendations. I had a great opportunity to work with the Attorney General and his office in the meantime, after the bill was tabled, and I’m grateful to him and to the government for bringing forward the bill, which is very similar to what I had tabled in the Legislature.

Of course, the work that I did was not on my own. There were a lot of good people who helped me develop that bill, especially coming from my community: people like Albert Gelpin, who lives in my riding and who actually was a victim of a SLAPP suit and fought it off successfully. Albert was the first person who brought this to my attention. The Hintonburg Community Association and Jeff Leiper, the president, in particular, were very instrumental, along with Don Stewart from the federation of community associations, who helped me and backed me in that endeavour.

I also want to thank Hugh Wilkins and Will Amos of Ecojustice for their hard work, and Ramani Nadarajah of the Canadian Environmental Law Association for their advocacy and assistance as we did the research, we developed the bill and got it drafted with the stakeholder conversations and consultations that resulted in Bill 132, that I tabled last year.

I’m very excited that this debate is taking place in terms of making sure that our citizens and community associations can openly speak on issues of public interest, and I look forward to, when I get an opportunity, speaking for at least 20 minutes on this very important bill and why it’s important for the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Of course, the PC Party supports the idea of public participation and public expression in the public interest. That is the basis of our democracy and the basis of everything we stand for in this country: that individuals can stand up and speak to issues that they feel are a problem for our society.

To have them struck with SLAPP suits, as they’re called, is an abuse of the justice process, abuse of the court system, abuse of the law. It’s plugging up our courts, and, of course, we would be totally opposed to that. People are waiting far too long to get through the courts with very legitimate cases, and to have frivolous things like this, which are just meant to hurt people, stall people for no legitimate reason, we are totally opposed to.

So it would seem this has been studied very thoroughly, it has been a problem for a long time and it’s a worthy piece of legislation that, in principle, we support.

Having said that, I would be very concerned if this was used to hurt people, still, and prevent true slanders from happening. One of these three examples here in our notes is the Big Bay Point development. It would appear there is a legitimate reason to feel that the company may have been slandered by a private environmental group, and yet some people are referring to that as a SLAPP.

So if there’s legitimate slander, we want the court system to work and to be able to be used to sue the people who are committing a legitimate slander. That is justice. That’s what the courts are meant for, and we would not want anything to interfere with justice happening.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we just have to be cautious and make sure that justice is still what we want to pursue, and we don’t want to abuse people’s rights to not be able to sue if they are slandered.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Attorney General has two minutes.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like to thank all the members for their very positive comments. Normally, of course, we like to stick to the subject at all times in comments, and in questions as well, but I would just like to pay tribute to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke area and the tribute that he gave to his father for being elected 50 years ago. We are all shaped by our parents in one way or another, and it’s quite obvious that the effect that his father had on him from having served here for 24 years has served the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke very, very well.

The essence of this legislation is this: If there isn’t feeling by a defendant that it’s what’s commonly referred to as a SLAPP lawsuit, that within 60 days that individual can make an application to the court and a determination will be made within that 60 days. If the tests that we talked about and that we’ve outlined—and that the parliamentary assistant has outlined—are not met, well then the lawsuit proceeds, and that’s just in comment to the member from Lanark–Carleton’s comments.

There may still be situations where this goes on, where the lawsuit will go on if the test is not met—the three-part test—and that is really the prime consideration of the bill.

The underlying principle is that people should have the right to express their views on matters that are of a public interest. That is the foundation of our democratic principles, the foundation of the values that we hold in this province. That’s really what we’re trying to protect in this particular case, Speaker.

I’m very pleased that this bill seems to have the support of all members of the House, so I would just urge everyone to get on with it. Let’s give it second reading, send it to committee, have it come back here for third reading and implement it.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: While we have shown interest in supporting Bill 83—not so fast. I think we still do need to debate it a little bit.

You know, in this chamber, we have a rather unique ability to say whatever we want about whomever we want—parliamentary privilege. As soon as we walk out these doors, we don’t have that same ability. We are open to slander. But in here, we can say—and some people often do—whatever we want about individuals.

The general public does not have that same privilege, and I think what’s coming forward with Bill 83, the Protection of Public Participation Act, is going to give some comfort to the public, who want to make sure their voices are heard, who want to participate in things that are happening within their community, and we need to allow that. That’s, I believe, the essence of why we’re bringing forward Bill 83 and why we want to talk about it today.

It is my honour, as the Progressive Conservative Attorney General, to join in this debate of government Bill 83, the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2013. I will give credit where credit is due. This actually first came forward as a private member’s bill idea from the Minister of Labour—at that point, the member from Ottawa Centre. It was based on some good research, good facts, and it’s nice to see that it has transferred from a private member’s bill into a government bill.

Miss Monique Taylor: It was Andrea Horwath, a private member’s bill in 2008.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Okay. You can talk about that as well. Thank you for the correction. I understand that it has also come forward from the NDP caucus.

Let me start by saying that the Attorney General has made some good points in his presentation. For my part, I’d like to take some of my time going over past cases that are commonly pointed out as examples of SLAPPs—SLAPP, of course, being a short form that you’ll hear a lot during this debate: strategic litigation against public participation. Going over specific examples of SLAPPs, or at least what are commonly accepted as examples of SLAPPs, is extremely beneficial because it allows us and our constituents to understand just what it is we are really discussing here with this bill.

I know that when I’ve spoken about this issue with people before, it’s often one that gets a little convoluted. To be honest, it all seems rather legal and may be trivial to the average person. But that’s why it is important to reflect on some specific SLAPP examples because it puts into context the issue and allows us to see the human side of what happens during a SLAPP. When we debate these things in the legal lexicon, it can often become muddled and abstract, and I’m saying that as a non-lawyer.

But when we focus on specific examples and specific people, that’s when we can truly start to see what a difference this legislation can make.

I also think it’s important for our constituents and the people watching at home to know how SLAPPs typically come about so that they are aware of what a SLAPP is and when or how to recognize them. That’s why I will be using some of my time to reflect on past SLAPP cases and their various effects and ultimately their motivation. I also intend to cover the bill itself and then analyze how the measures contained within Bill 83 match or don’t match with the problems demonstrated by the examples I intend to go over.

Some of these cases, as you will see, are quite daunting, and the fact of the matter is that we need to make sure this legislation is capable of doing what it is meant to accomplish, because no Ontario resident should have to choose between having a say about something that is happening within their community or risk being sued into financial ruin. Finally, I will conclude by summarizing why SLAPPs should absolutely be stopped from occurring, and that’s why this legislation should be supported by all members in this chamber.

This government bill was introduced just before the summer recess and has been somewhat of a long time coming. You see, Bill 83 actually stems from the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel, which submitted its final report to the Attorney General in October 2010. No one can ever argue that we rush things through here in the parliamentary process. Of course, that’s what we are really talking about here today. A SLAPP is a lawsuit that’s brought against an individual for the primary purpose of silencing that individual’s opinion.

SLAPPs are almost always some form of libel or slander allegation and almost always are for unrealistic and unreasonable amounts of damages. You see, though, that’s the point of the SLAPP: not to win the lawsuit—because many of them actually never get to appear in the courts—but rather to scare the defendant so that they dare not speak out against the claimant again.

The reason this is particularly problematic, however, aside from a gross misuse and waste of taxpayers’ dollars by needlessly clogging down our justice system, is because it’s not only an injustice to the defendant but also to the community. And if there is one thing I think we can all agree on, it is that there are way too many backlogs happening—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): If the member from James Bay wants to hold court, he might want to go outside in the lobby, because I’m having trouble hearing the member speaking. It’s that loud. Your voice is carrying.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): And, I might add, it’s the last warning.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker.

The reason we have to deal with this is that there are a lot of reasons why our court system is clogged right now. If we can remove this and expedite SLAPPs, that’s going to help us in other ways to free up some court time.

It’s because the community’s planning procedures are manipulated, because community members who could have had valuable contributions to make are instead intimidated out of commenting on proposals. The end result is a community planning process without the community involvement. This is an entirely undesirable situation, Speaker.

That being said, we typically think SLAPPs involve developers and residents, yet there are a number of examples where this is not the case. But I will get into that in a bit further detail later on.

For now, going into a discussion on past SLAPPs, please bear in mind that the key factor here is whether the lawsuit’s prime function is either to prevent someone from participating in a public process or to punish them for doing so. That is a certain principle that’s important when discussing SLAPPs: that an individual has had their right to express their opinion severely limited due to coercion.

I would now like to move on and discuss three different SLAPPs and how each of them are both unique from, and identical to, one another. They are unique from each other because each of them involves a different type of claimant pursuing the SLAPP. They are identical with one another, however, in that in each case the claimant has clearly pursued litigation for the purpose of silencing or punishing the defendant. It is this second point that primarily qualifies each of them as a SLAPP.

In all the cases I’m about to discuss, however, I’m not going to refer to either of the litigants by their names, and I don’t believe it’s relevant for the purposes of our debate here on Bill 83. These cases are simply to illustrate SLAPPs, not to consider the particular individuals involved. As such, I will try to refer to the party bringing forward the SLAPP as the claimant and the party the SLAPP is being used against as the defendant, for the non-lawyers in the room.

The first SLAPP I would like to discuss actually occurred in British Columbia. This SLAPP arose from the following context. The claimant wanted to convert his land, which was forested, into farmland. To do this, however, he had to find and add approximately 750,000 cubic metres of soil to his property to properly level it out so it would be suitable for farming. In order to do this, he of course needed a permit from the local municipality, so in October 2009, he submitted a permit application to his local township.

Now, the defendant in this case owns land very near the claimant’s property. When the defendant became aware of the claimant’s permit application, she became quite concerned about a possible negative impact on the streams that flowed through his land. The defendant also happened to be a member of a local organization whose mission is to protect and enhance the integrity of the watersheds in the area. So the defendant decided to take action against the claimant’s permit application.

Consequently, the defendant and the local water preservation organization she was part of both began speaking out against the claimant’s desired permit. The organization came out with written material opposing the permit, and the defendant produced a report outlining the potential damage that the claimant’s permit may cause to the local watershed. There was also a meeting held where the defendant spoke about her objections to the claimant’s permit application and her concern for the wider region.

In light of all of these developments, the local township decided to put the claimant’s permit application on hold. The township argued that it needed more time to study and measure the environmental impact of the application.

On September 1, 2010, two weeks before the township placed the permit on hold, however, the claimant sued the defendant, the organization with which she was involved, and one other individual, claiming $13 million in damage against all three. The claim against the individual herself was for $5.5 million. The defendant’s lawyer soon advised the claimant via letter that his lawsuit was bound to fail because it disclosed no viable cause of action. In essence, the claimant had no case, as there were no facts to support his lawsuit.

On February 19, 2011, the defendant even offered to pay the claimant $2,000 in full settlement for his claim, but to no avail.

The claimant made serious allegations against the defendant, including that she had made unfounded and false statements to local residents about his permit application. The claimant argued that this was done for the purpose of gathering signatures on a petition opposing his application, and for the purpose of intentionally harming him.

Speaker, we are all in this chamber very familiar with the use of petitions opposing and supporting activities that happen within the provincial government. The same thing occurs at our municipal level, and to somehow suggest that we would like to freeze the ability of community members to seek out and get petitions in support or opposition of a particular change is, I hope, pretty offensive to all of us.

He also alleged that the defendant organized public meetings only to spread false information about his permit application and that the defendant made false statements about the permit to the local member of the provincial Legislature. Again, we’re all pretty used to and comfortable with attending public meetings on specific issues. We have to ensure that that public involvement can continue.

The claimant also argued that the defendant endangered the public by using a low-flying aircraft to photograph him and acted maliciously by making false statements to make him lose his farming career. All in all, the claimant basically argued that the defendant defamed him and conspired to injure him and his property. The claimant also made similar allegations about the local water preservation organization.

So, to recount: An individual, the claimant, sought to obtain a permit to alter their property, and their neighbour, the defendant, objected to this alteration on the basis that it would have a negative effect on the larger area and the community. Clearly, this is an example of an individual staying involved in their community and trying to participate in its growth and development. In other words, this is clearly an individual participating in a public matter; namely, whether or not the claimant’s proposed alterations would have had an effect on the larger area the public inhabits.

Ultimately, that’s why we ask for permits and that’s why we have that involvement, because we want people to participate and comment.

Thus, by undertaking such vigorous and overwhelming legal action in response to this, the claimant has already partially demonstrated this case to be a SLAPP, as one could conceivably argue that the claimant is attempting to punish the defendant via the lawsuit.

What further demonstrates this to be a SLAPP, however, is the claimant’s clear lack of interest in actually pursuing the case as a legitimate legal matter. For example, when the defendant brought an application to dismiss the claimant’s lawsuit and provided notice to the claimant, he did not attend the hearing. I guess at that point it wasn’t important enough to him. That being said, all the material the claimant filed with the court was still considered, even though he did not show up.

What the judge determined was that the claimant had provided no evidence of his allegations against the defendant. The judge eventually concluded that the claimant had merely asserted what he believed had occurred, with no evidence to support his claims. The judge determined that not only had the defendant not acted maliciously or intended to harm the claimant, but was instead merely exercising her right of free speech to disagree with the claimant’s permit application. As a result, the defendant was naturally voicing her opposition to the permit application and had done nothing unlawful whatsoever. Clearly, there can be no mistaking this for anything short of a prototype SLAPP.

To demonstrate the negative effect that SLAPPs can have, however, consider the fallout from this one example that I have highlighted here today. As a result of the SLAPP brought against her and the ordeal she went through fighting it, the defendant ended her community involvement out of fear that she may again be a target for another SLAPP. She stopped attending the water preservation organization meetings and stopped participating in other environmental causes. Furthermore, she no longer gave advice to her neighbours on similar issues, and discontinued her volunteer work.

Just think of the negative impact this SLAPP caused the defendant, Speaker, to say nothing of what the community lost in having that volunteer participate. You know, here we have an extremely engaged citizen, who is concerned about her neighbours and her community’s well-being, and thanks to a SLAPP she is totally shell-shocked into forgoing all future efforts to improve her community. I think it says a lot about the kind of damage SLAPPs can ultimately cause. The defendant ended up paying over $20,000 in legal fees and over $4,000 in disbursements due to this SLAPP, all because she wanted to be involved in a community’s development. And that is just the individual defendant in this case.

When it comes to the organization she was involved with, the damage is, respectively, just as bad. The SLAPP had a severe negative impact on the work of the organization, as all of its time had been spent on defending the lawsuit. There was little time and resources left to devote to organizing other activities or initiatives. The SLAPP basically silenced the organization, as it did not speak out against the claimant’s permit application from the moment the SLAPP was filed. That’s why we sometimes hear of SLAPPs or the lawyer’s letter as litigation chill: It essentially puts the fear of the litigation to stop you from participating.

Unfortunately, as a result of this litigation, the organization was forced to consider ceasing operations altogether once the SLAPP had been settled. Directors at the organization were forced to buy public liability insurance, at a significant cost, out of fear that they may again be the victim of lawsuits in response to their public participation in government decision-making processes. Eventually, on May 25, 2011, the claimant’s claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Speaker, this is the epitome of a SLAPP: long—remember, I said this was over two years in process—fruitless, expensive and highly damaging. This legal action was clearly brought forward to limit the defendant’s ability and desire to participate in public matters. This is an example of a private individual pursuing a SLAPP against another private individual. Again, it is for the same reason as the next two examples: limiting or stopping public participation. But it differs in that here we had one private individual bringing a SLAPP against another private individual,

whereas next I will discuss a SLAPP where an elected official with the power of a municipality and the money connected to it brought a SLAPP against people for the sole purpose of silencing their criticism of her.

This next example, Speaker, is quite concerning, as an elected official, and I think we all have to be aware of the implications. It offers perhaps the most startling but also clear case of a SLAPP example that I will discuss here today. In this case, the claimant was the mayor of an Ontario town, and the defendants were members of the town’s news media. One of them was also a former councillor with the town.

In essence, one of the defendants, also known for commenting on the town’s municipal issues, frequently wrote articles dealing with municipal issues as a recurring column that was published on the Internet or a local website focused on current events in town. I’m sure all of us have examples of individuals who do this. In my own community, the Orangeville Banner has two different individuals who write semi-weekly columns commenting on municipal, federal and provincial affairs. I happen to quite enjoy Doug Harkness’s columns. He is a good friend and tends to see the world through my view.

The second is Rob Strang, also a very knowledgeable—

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. John Milloy: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): A point of order, the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, first I apologize to the member. I’m just getting up because it’s almost 10:15.

I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding today’s routine proceedings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. John Milloy: I move that, during routine proceedings today, reports by committees be taken following petitions, and that the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal hours of adjournment until completion of third reading debate on Bill 95, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the next sessional day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Mr. Milloy has moved a motion regarding routine proceedings this afternoon. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: On behalf of our exceptional page from Leeds–Grenville, Peyton Horning, I would like to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, her mother, Alexandra Prefasi-Horning, and her dad, Paul Horning, who is celebrating his birthday watching question period. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community Safety and francophone affairs, on a point of order.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear the lapel pin, the Franco-Ontarian flag pin, in recognition of Franco-Ontarian Day today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for francophone affairs has asked for unanimous consent to wear the pins today. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Today I’d like to introduce a guest from the Aylmer area: Eric Loewen. Eric ran for the Green Party in the last election. I’m pretty sure he’s going to run against me again, but welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was nice.

The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to acknowledge two of my constituents, rather interesting people: Professor John Traill and his daughter, Corinna Traill, who is actually a member of council in the community of Clarington.

Mr. Rob Leone: I know they’re a little late getting into the Legislature today, but I want to welcome folks from Career Colleges Ontario who are here at Queen’s Park meeting members today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I’m pleased to introduce Abbas Homayed. Abbas is with the Ontario Community Newspapers Association. Abbas and his wife, Patricia Mills, define excellence in community papers. The name of the paper is the Northern Life. I suggest that we all read it. I want to thank and welcome Abbas to the House.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to the House today a constituent of mine, Sal Gelsomino, from Napanee, as well as Karen Somerville from the association for Canadians for Properly Built Homes.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d also like to acknowledge a friend of mine and a friend of my son’s—his name is Tim Patriquin—who has served Canada well in the armed forces of Canada.

Hon. David Zimmer: I would like to introduce the parents of page Katherine Tom, the page from Willowdale: her father, Christopher Tom, and mother, Julie Tom.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to welcome the representatives from the Ontario Community Newspapers Association who are here at Queen’s Park today. There’s a reception this evening, and I would invite all the members of the Legislature to attend that reception.

Hon. Brad Duguid: On their way into the Legislature are a number of representatives from Career Colleges Ontario who are here to visit with us today. Executive Director Paul Kitchin is leading them, and of course, a good friend of all of us, John Nunziata, is their representative here as well. They’ll be here any minute.

M. Tim Hudak: Je veux introduire aujourd’hui le président de l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, M. Denis Vaillancourt; le directeur général, M. Peter Hominuk; et M. Benjamin Vachet, conseiller en communications et relations publiques. S’il vous plaît, souhaitez-leur la bienvenue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in the Speaker’s gallery we have the former member for Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliament and Speaker in the 39th Parliament, Mr. Steve Peters.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just want the former Speaker to know that there’s a cry for the other Joe, my other brother.

Accompanying Mr. Peters is Isabel Dopta, from Guelph. Welcome.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yesterday, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke asked for some clarification of a directive from me to withdraw certain language and to comment on another issue. The member indicated that his use of the full name of the Premier should have been allowed in the context of referring to the government.

First, let me be clear on one point as it relates to the other. The withdrawal I sought—and this is clarification—from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke did not relate to the use of the proper name so much as to the language that followed, which is considered in most cases to be unparliamentary. We discussed that. The use of the proper name in the lead-up to the use of this language left the impression that the subsequent accusation was directed at the individual member. In short, in my mind the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said something indirectly that he was prohibited from saying directly. Therein is the danger of using proper names.

Members should not refer to one another by name, but rather by title, position or constituency name. As stated in O’Brien and Bosc, the reason for this is “to guard against the tendency to personalize debate.”

When a member is referring to a particular administration as a collective, we have a practice of permitting the Premier’s surname to be attached, as in “the Davis government” or “the McGuinty government.” This exception stops short, though, of including given names. The proper reference to this current government, therefore, should be “the Wynne government,” if it’s going to be used.

In the interest of civil discourse and to guard against personal attacks, I seek the co-operation of all members in this regard. Thank you for your co-operation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, when the Teacher of the Year can’t get a job because he finds himself 800th on the seniority list as a result of the new Liberal hiring policy, regulation 274, doesn’t that tell you that something has gone badly off the rails when it comes to teacher hiring in our province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Education will want to comment in the supplementary, but I just want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising the issue. I know that it is of concern, and we have heard those concerns, absolutely. I know that the Minister of Education has a working group in place to look at what changes we might be able to make. We’re open to that, Mr. Speaker. We’ve said all along that as we’ve heard these concerns, we’re taking them seriously and we want to do what we can to make it right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, it’s not time for another committee; it’s time for some action. This is pretty basic. It’s very straightforward. We all care, as parents—I know you do. You want to make sure that your kids, and now your grandchildren, will have the best possible teacher in the classroom. My daughter Miller has been blessed to have that. My dad is a retired principal, and I spoke to my dad about this. He would always look for the teacher who was going to bring the most to the job—the right qualifications; they were going to coach the hockey team; do drama; they brought life experience to the table.

I, as a parent, have a lot of confidence in principals. They make the right decisions for the school. That’s the way it’s always worked. Under regulation 274—under this Liberal government under your leadership—that’s been tossed out the window and now they’re hired strictly on the basis of seniority. Clearly, as a parent and grandparent, you would agree that this is not in the best interests of our kids.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, I haven’t seen the proposed bill, so I don’t know exactly what it will say. But it’s really important to me and to us that Ontario’s teachers have a fair and consistent hiring practice and process across school boards. That kind of consistency and that kind of predictability is very, very important. Last year, we heard from teachers that that wasn’t the case.

The reality is, you know, that the regulation ensures that teaching candidates are chosen by a number of criteria, not just seniority. They can go beyond seniority.

But to go back to my original comment, I recognize that there are concerns, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that there may have been an overcorrection in terms of some of the issues that had been brought forward. That’s why there is a working group in place. The Minister of Education and we are open to making changes. We acknowledge that there are concerns, and we will do everything in our power to make sure we get it right.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the Premier again: This is not a time for waffling; it’s not a time to study the issue. It’s a time for action. I have yet to find a person, aside from maybe a teacher union head, who thinks this is appropriate for our kids.

Let me tell you a bit about Jason Trinh. Jason Trinh is the kind of teacher my dad would have hired at Lakeshore Catholic—I do want to say that that school, Lakeshore Catholic in Port Colborne, the school my dad began, celebrated its 25th anniversary this past weekend. I’m proud of that, and I’m proud of what he did. He hired teachers who then rose up the ranks. Some became principals themselves, vice-principals, leaders of the community.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Jason Trinh is an impressive young man. He has his master’s in molecular biology. He was actually given the Premier’s New Teacher of the Year Award for what he did to inspire in his students a love for science, and brought in a new camp as well to get kids to improve their grades in grade 9 testing.

Why is Jason Trinh 800th on the list? Shouldn’t he be number one on the list? Don’t we want that quality in our classroom?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We absolutely agree that it is important to have excellent teachers in our classrooms, and that’s exactly what we will do. But I think it’s also important to understand that we have thousands of young teachers out there who want jobs, and it’s not fair to those young teachers who are out there and want jobs, and perhaps to older teachers who have recently qualified, if we don’t even post the job. We need to have some sort of process where, when there is a position available, the job is posted and there’s opportunity for interviews so we can select good teachers.

Now, are there some problems with the regulation? Yes. We’ve heard the problems too. That’s why there’s a working group, that’s why there’s a study and that’s why I’ve committed to the sector that if they can find a solution—

Interjections.

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

I dare say that in a classroom, somebody giving an answer would not be allowed to be shouted down.

TEACHERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, if I could, on the same topic. Premier, the Minister of Education says we need a good process. Clearly, the process should be that the best person gets the job. It makes sense. We’ve all been inspired. We wouldn’t be here in leadership positions as MPPs, as one of the lucky 107 in this place, if we weren’t inspired by a teacher.

One of mine was Mr. Komar, at Notre Dame College School in Welland.

Interjection.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now, don’t go after Mr. Komar. He inspired in me a love for economics, and maybe some of the questions I ask today. But if it wasn’t for that kind of inspiration, I probably wouldn’t be where I am today. You want to have these types of teachers in our schools: experience, of course, but also passion. How are they going to help out the kids in the schools? Are they going to contribute to extracurricular activities?

Howard Goodman, a trustee with the Toronto board, raised another issue on regulation 274, saying it unwittingly puts those diverse new rookies at a disadvantage. He references a Vietnamese school, where a teacher who speaks Vietnamese and could help a lot of these kids is sidelined because of the seniority hiring process.

Will you do the right thing? No studies, no delays—just end this odious practice.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the Minister of Education has said, I think that the Leader of the Opposition would agree that not even having a job posted is not a fair practice, so there were obviously changes that needed to be made. The fact is that we are open to making changes. We recognize that there are concerns. We will work with the sector and, as the Minister of Education said, come to some consensus and implement those changes. That is what we’ve committed to doing.

I have to say that I’m really glad that the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question about education. In his white paper on education, 10,000 education workers would be fired. I would like to suggest that if 10,000 workers in the education system were fired, fewer kids would get extracurricular activities, fewer kids with special needs would get support and the system would not work as well in the best interests of students. So I’d ask him how he sees that as in the best interest of the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Obviously, the Premier hasn’t taken the time to read the white paper, because it’s all about what’s best for our kids and raising standards in the classroom. Clearly, if you want to raise the standards of the classroom, you want to make sure the best possible teachers are there with our kids each and every day. Let’s call it straight here: You caved in to the teacher unions, and as part of that process you handed over the keys to hiring to the teacher union bosses. I think that’s wrong.

When I asked my dad how he did this, he said that basically they posted a job. They would probably get hundreds of applications. They would shortlist. A committee—usually the principal, the vice-principal, the department head—would interview the best candidates and whittle them down to the best list and they’d hire the best teacher. The schools recognized this and celebrated and grew as a result of that. Other principals say the exact same thing.

Premier, if you admit that your system has problems, why continue for a minute more? Why keep Jason Trinh and excellent teachers on the sidelines? Why not just end regulation 274 now and stop this mess so our kids can get ahead with the best-skilled educators?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As soon as I’m ready to sit down, I don’t want you to continue. The member from Stormont is not helping things when I’m trying to explain. As soon as I sit down, don’t start up.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just draw attention again to one of the premises underneath the question of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that somehow working with the education sector, working with the organized teachers in the sector, is not a good thing. I think we need to pay close attention to that, because that underpins the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition. To work in a collaborative way, to find common ground, to work with the people who are in the classroom and who are part of organizations is not the way that he would work.

Getting rid of 10,000 teachers, cancelling full-day kindergarten: That is the track that the Leader of the Opposition would put us on. That’s not what we’re going to do.

We are seeing advances in our schools. We want a fair and consistent hiring practice, and we’re open to changing that regulation.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think that this is instructive. When the time came to choose between the wishes of the teacher union bosses and what’s best for our students, the Premier sided with our union bosses. I don’t think that’s helpful to our kids. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this. People are very concerned. We care about how our kids are going to do. We want the best of the best in our classrooms with the kids. It should be based on their skills and determination and their contribution to the school, not that they’re pets of the union bosses or highest on the seniority list.

Premier, if you won’t act, we will. My colleague from Nepean–Carleton, Lisa MacLeod, is bringing forward a private member’s bill today to get rid of regulation 274 and restore what has made our schools strong in the past and rewards decisions by principals and rewards the best possible teachers. If you won’t do it, we will. I’ll ask you this: Enough consultations, enough committees; do the right thing and support Lisa MacLeod’s bill later on this afternoon.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just be clear: On this side of the House, what we support is publicly funded education. We increased funding in the education system. It has gone up 44% since 2003. There are 13,300 new teachers in the system. Kids’ test scores are up. Graduation rates, when we came into office, were 68% out of high school; now they’re 82%.

Kids are doing better. We have one of the finest education systems in the world.

There is always room for improvement. Regulation 274 was put in place because there were concerns about the consistency of the hiring practices. It may be that it was an overcorrection and it may be that there need to be changes to it. That’s why the Minister of Education is prepared to make those changes.

But make no mistake: Public education is advocated for by this government. We have strengthened the education system, working with the sector. The party opposite would undermine that success and would fire people—

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

Stop the clock for a moment.

Interjections.

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

When my memory is working, I will make this comment. I’m going to ask the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to come to order and I’m going to ask the Minister of Rural Affairs to come to order, and that’s the second time.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance echoed claims by the insurance companies that they’ve enjoyed very minimal profits. The minister said it was a “fact” that insurance companies are receiving “about 3%” in their ROE profit margins.

Does the Premier stand by this claim?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite from that bench talked about the ROE. We are trying to express and make note of the fact that the ROE—if we were to take the return on premium which is calculated in Alberta, for example, the return on premium in Ontario would actually be about 5% to 6%, which is the lowest in any province in this country.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: An independent report written by a long-time insurance industry actuary prepared for today’s auto insurance hearings actually shows the industry had, in fact, over $1 billion of profits last year and that the ROE calculated would be something in the range of 14%. That’s four times higher than what the minister claimed yesterday.

Is the Premier ready to admit that they may be wrong about the actual profits that the insurance industry is making?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’ve just explained that there’s a great difference between this ROE calculation, which we’ve already advanced and told FSCO that, on a rolling scale, we want to reduce—it is a formula-based system, and we expect the rate to fall further. But let’s be clear: It’s the difference between an ROE and the return on premium. I appreciate that there’s misunderstanding over there, because it is a complicated initiative and it’s a complex issue. We understand that. But we will continue to say that we’re overhauling the formula further to make it more transparent for all drivers.

As I’ve stated, when you compare Ontario to the rest of Canada, the return on premium versus, for example, Alberta—in Ontario, it’s 5% to 6%, which is the lowest anywhere in the country.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: What we know is that we’re paying the highest rates in the country. That’s something we need to fix. It seems like this government is ready to break speed records when it comes to helping the insurance industry but they slam on the brakes when it comes to helping out drivers in this province.

Over the past five years, the industry has enjoyed billions of dollars in savings due to auto insurance reforms. The government has already taken out billions in costs from the system. But for drivers, the rates continue to climb. Salil from Mississauga watched this summer as his rates increased by $500 to over $3,000 a year. That’s with no new claims, no new car and no accidents.

The minister simply got his facts wrong, and now the government has a choice. Will they stand up for drivers who deserve a break or will they keep helping the insurance industry maintain their record profits?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The third party has started talking about this, and they’ve been talking quite a bit in the last number of months, but we on this side of the House have been taking action on this for the last two years. As a result of these actions, we’re able to now pass on savings to consumers, and we will continue to do so.

It’s not something where you flip a switch and it gets done. It takes a lot of work and it’s taken a lot of years to make it happen. We are seeing some results of that, and we’ll continue doing what’s in the best interests of the public. Yes, we all need champions. We need champions on all sides of the House to work together to make this happen. We will do our part. We will continue to lead.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, people who have elected us have told me they want us to work hard for them, and they want us to deliver results that make their lives better—for example, reducing auto insurance rates.

Can the Premier tell us how many people she’s met with who are concerned about the plight of EllisDon Corp.?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much. I appreciate the member opposite asking a question. Having stable labour relations is always the cornerstone of our government. We have worked extremely hard over the years since coming into office, since 2003, to make sure that we have balanced and stable labour relations. That’s why I’m really proud to say that we have a situation in Ontario where 97% of labour agreements are achieved through collective bargaining, which is a tremendous success in terms of the effectiveness of labour relations agreements, and we’ll continue to work with all political parties and our labour partners to ensure that that trend continues to progress.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, the question was to the Premier, and it was a pretty simple one—“Can you tell us who has been lobbying you to get this piece of legislation passed?”—and all we get is what you’re trying to do.

I’m going to ask you the question again. It’s a very simple question. Can the Premier tell us who’s been lobbying you to fast-track this legislation that’s going to benefit just one company in this province: EllisDon?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the member opposite knows that the bill he is referring to is a private member’s bill that was brought up in this House, and it has been debated and was passed through this House. It’s obviously up to committee hearings, which is up to the House leaders to decide whether that process will take place or not.

I think it wouldn’t be fair for me to comment on a private member’s bill, but of course we listen to all interested parties on issues that are important to all Ontarians. The focus of our job here as a government—and the Premier has spoken about this often—is to grow our economy, to create jobs, to make sure that hard-working Ontarians have opportunities across the province to go to meaningful, good-paying jobs.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The only thing that appears to be growing is the coffers of the Liberal and Tory parties. Your government is about to embark on a programming motion with the Conservative Party to fast-track a piece of legislation that’s going to benefit one company in the sector.

I’m going to ask you the question again. Can the Premier explain to us how you end up putting this piece of legislation as a priority and how and who has lobbied you?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, as you know, this is a private member’s bill that was brought forward by the official opposition. It has been debated through this House and passed. Of course, this is a minority Legislature, so we have worked with all political parties to make sure that the bills that are important to Ontarians are passed through this Legislature.

I thank the NDP for being big supporters of a lot of the very important legislation that we have passed through this House, including the budget bill that is making life affordable for everyday Ontarians every single day. We look forward to working with all political parties to make sure that we are growing our economy in this province and creating good-paying jobs for all Ontarians.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Minister of Energy. Good morning, Minister. Your ministry has been given the draft Oakville gas plant cancellation findings from the Auditor General. The previous auditor told us that Mississauga was turned over six to eight weeks in advance. Your people have it; somebody’s got it, Minister. Will you tell this House what it cost to cancel the Oakville gas plant, or will you continue the long line of Liberal operatives who have dodged, deleted and distorted the facts?

You told us Mississauga was $190 million to cancel, but the auditor told us the truth: it was $275 million. You’ve stood in this Legislature and told us it was $40 million to cancel Oakville. Would you care to confess this number this morning, Minister, before the Auditor General spanks you down again?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Before the Auditor General’s report on the Mississauga gas plant issue, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke stood in the House and he made the same accusation to me at the time, that we had the report. My answer at that time was, “No, I’m not aware that the ministry has a copy of the report. I have not seen a copy of the report. I will await the Auditor General to present the report.” That’s a fact, Mr. Speaker.

So I’m going to ask the opposition party to stop making accusations that are speculative, that are unfounded, that demean the credibility of people on this side of the House. It’s a disgrace.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, let me tell you what is disgraceful: Minister, you, your deputy, the OPA and the IESO have all missed the September 12 deadline to turn over thousands of documents to us. If one of you was late, that’s one thing, but the fact that you’re all holding back tells us someone has invoked the cone of silence.

Do we need to bring another contempt motion to find out what you’re hiding this time? Didn’t you learn anything over the last year? Why won’t you tell us the real cost of cancelling Oakville? I know why; those missing documents will tell us why.

Will you turn over the files today or are you going to let this Premier repeat history: throw you under the bus, with you found in contempt of this House?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: This is a matter that should be dealt with by the committee, but if the honourable member wants to bring it to the floor of the Legislature, then I will answer it. The simple fact is that the committee asked—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not good enough.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: The committee asked the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority to undertake very, very extensive searches for the documents that both organizations have been forthcoming in the past. My understanding is they have spent over $1 million in the searches they have already done for the committee, and they are still in the process of following up on the most current request.

They have been in communication with the committee. They have outlined the steps they are taking and they are working around the clock in order to produce the documents that the committee has asked for. There have been tens of thousands of documents provided by this government, and I think this is a matter for continual discussion—

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

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. The government’s condo act review panel released its second report yesterday. There’s some progress, but for condo owners looking for a quick and cheap way to settle a dispute, their recommendations come up short.

The report sets up a condo office to hear disputes. If it’s a small matter, the case goes to a quick decision-maker and it gets settled—so far, so good—but if it’s a big matter, then it goes to a dispute resolution office, lawyers are welcome, and all you get is an assessment; no settlement. And if your dispute is with a developer, the report says, “The present model works reasonably well.” In other words, you’re on your own, and good luck in court.

This process continues to work well for consultants, lawyers and developers but not for condo owners. Will the government put condo owners first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Consumer Services is going to want to comment in the supplementary, but I just want to make a comment because I want to first of all thank the member opposite for raising this issue. It’s something that many of us—I would say all of us—in government hear about: the concerns of condominium owners and, in that sector, the need for changes to the Condominium Act. So I’m very pleased that the member opposite raised the issue.

I’m very pleased that we have had the opportunity to put in place a very innovative, I would suggest, and comprehensive consultation process, because it’s complex. It’s a complex issue how the act should change and what’s in the best interest of the people who live in condominiums in all of our constituencies. I’m very pleased that that process is under way, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to get some resolution for condominium owners.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, the report says condo owners should pay a levy of up to $36 a year to support the condo office, plus user fees. With 600,000 condo units, this office would cost condo owners over $21 million a year. This is about the same net cost as the Landlord and Tenant Board, but when you go to that board, your disputes get settled quickly and cheaply. This condo office settles the same, the small stuff, but for everything else, it just adds a new process. And when it’s over, you’re still looking at mediation and arbitration, and then the courts.

If condo owners must pay the same cost as the Landlord and Tenant Board, shouldn’t they get a condo tribunal that can settle all their disputes like the Landlord and Tenant Board?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I too want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know he’s a strong advocate for this file.

I’m very pleased to inform the member in the House that stage two of the condo report review was released yesterday by the Public Policy Forum. I was absolutely thrilled to attend the residents’ panel final meeting this past weekend, where they endorsed, in large measure, this concept of a condo office.

I know the member opposite is talking about some sort of tribunal. The notion of a condo office, as recommended in the report, is to address dispute resolution and many other aspects of condominium living, such as the education and training—potentially, licensing—of property managers.

I think it’s important that we all have a look at the report. It’s up for a 45-day review by the public. I’m very pleased that so many stakeholders—condo owners, residents and lawyers—have been involved.

IMMIGRATION FRANCOPHONE /

FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRATION

M. John Fraser: Ma question s’adresse au ministre des Affaires civiques et de l’Immigration. Nous savons tous que l’Ontario représente la plus grande communauté francophone au Canada hors Québec. Ma circonscription d’Ottawa-Sud est le foyer de l’une des communautés francophones les plus fortes et dynamiques.

This past June, the 38th annual Franco-Ontarian festival was held to celebrate Franco-Ontarian culture. This week-long festival is one of the largest of its kind. Through live music, street art and dance, this festival celebrates the more than 600,000 francophone community members living across this province.

I was pleased to recently learn about our new website, funded through your ministry, providing French-speaking people around the globe information about the benefits of working and living in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you please tell us more about this great new initiative from our government?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank the honourable member for his question and once again congratulate him on his recent election to this House.

At the Association of Francophone Municipalities of Ontario conference in West Nipissing, I announced that our government is making it easier for municipalities to meet demographic challenges and attract skilled francophone newcomers to help grow their communities. The new francophone Municipal Immigration Information Online portal provides detailed information and tools to help attract francophone immigrants and help them settle here in the province of Ontario.

This new web portal was built in partnership with 18 municipalities across this great province. Through the portal, we’re also helping francophones in Ontario make online connections to find jobs in their communities. This initiative will help us meet our 5% target for francophone immigration laid out by the Ontario immigration strategy.

The development of this portal is part of Ontario’s $1.3-million investment in the Municipal Immigration Information Online Program, referred to as MIIO.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, Minister. This is a great initiative that will help our francophone communities flourish. I know this will make a difference in helping municipalities attract skilled francophones to meet the needs of their community.

As we know, Ontario has a rich francophone history, which helps make Ontario the vibrant cultural mosaic that it is today. Les francophones en Ontario représentent 4,8 % de la population totale de la province. Comme dans la population générale de l’Ontario, la communauté franco-ontarienne est diverse et dynamique. Depuis plusieurs années, nous avons accueilli des immigrants venus d’Afrique, d’Asie, du Moyen-Orient et de l’Europe.

Monsieur le Président, par votre entremise, je demande au ministre : quoi d’autre est-ce que le ministère des Affaires civiques et de l’Immigration de l’Ontario fait pour soutenir nos communautés francophones?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, once again I’d like to thank the member for his question and his championing of francophone culture here in this province.

Our government is committed to achieving the goals of the immigration strategy, one of them being to position newcomers here in the province so that they can be successful. Specifically, we’re investing in French-language services for newcomers because we know they need these skills to succeed in their new work environments and better integrate into their communities.

In addition to tuition-free language services in 2013-14, our ministry has doubled its support to francophone settlement service providers. Some key services that we help fund here in the province are settlement counselling; guidance and assistance with immigration and transition issues; translation; and workshops on a broad range of settlement-related issues. We want Ontario’s francophone newcomers, current and future, to succeed, and we know that they will strengthen Ontario’s vibrant communities and help contribute to our province’s economic prosperity.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: Just after midnight on August 29, Thunder Airlines, under contract to Ornge to provide air ambulance service, was dispatched to Pikangikum First Nation. That was a Code 4.

When that crew landed, an Air Bravo aircraft, also under contract to Ornge, was already there with two Ornge paramedics. Air Bravo could not transfer that patient because the satellite telephone was not functioning. The patient, along with the Ornge medics, was flown to Thunder Bay, where the patient was eventually admitted. The delay was extensive.

Is the minister aware of this incident, and can she tell us what the outcome was for that patient?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can tell you that Ornge is committed to providing the highest possible quality of care in Pikangikum and elsewhere across this whole province. I can tell you that the new leadership in Ornge is really focusing on measuring and improving the care they provide, and I can assure you that every effort is made to provide the highest quality care in every case.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Apparently the minister knows nothing about it.

I can tell the minister that that patient died. I can also tell the minister that it is alleged that the reason the Air Bravo satellite telephone was not working was because Air Bravo had not paid its bills. I can also tell the minister that the CEO of Air Bravo admitted under testimony last week that the company was having serious financial difficulties.

I can also tell the minister that Ornge failed, when issuing a contract to Air Bravo, to conduct any financial inspection of that company to determine whether it had the capacity to deliver.

I’d like to ask the minister this question: After everything we have heard about the lack of oversight on the part of the ministry and on the part of Ornge over the work that has to be done to deliver safe, secure, reliable air ambulance, why, over this number of months, do we still have to hear about incidents like this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the member opposite would be interested in hearing some of the quality metrics and results at Ornge. From January to March this year, Ornge pilots were available to respond to calls 97% of the time. Ornge aircraft were in service 99% of the time. Ornge paramedics were available to respond to calls 95% of the time. Ninety-six per cent of patient transports between health facilities are confirmed within 20 minutes, and 90% of Ornge’s patient transports from emergencies are confirmed within 10 minutes.

Ornge is focusing on measuring the quality of care. The nature of the work in emergency medicine and emergency services is that there will always be cases. What is important to me is that Ornge, under the new leadership of Dr. McCallum, is measuring and reporting on quality metrics. That’s a big—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Leading up to the Pan Am Games, this government made a regulation under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act that effectively allows security guards to act as police officers until March 31, 2016. This regulation didn’t come to the House for debate, but was instead quietly filed in the Gazette, much like the laws enacted during the G20 fiasco in Toronto in 2010.

Has this government learned nothing from the G20 about the consequences of enacting secret regulations? Minister, will you explain to Ontarians why this regulation to give security guards the same duties as police officers was passed in secret and without appropriate public input and debate?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member for her question. As you know, the health and safety of those athletes and those who will come to the Pan Am Games in 2015—we wanted to ensure that they will be safe, that the athletes will have a wonderful experience. We are, as we speak, and we have been for some time—we have a committee that has been put together, headed by the OPP, to make sure that the athletes and the people who will attend the games will be safe.

I have full confidence that this group is working well together and will make sure that every safety measure will be put in place for the safety of all of those who will come to the Pan Am Games.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: After what happened during the G20, Ontarians are rightly concerned about the potential for serious civil liberty abuses when those responsible for security are not fully briefed on the limits of their powers. The changes proposed to prevent the abuses that happened during the G20 in Toronto are still being debated in this House. In the absence of new legislative protections, how will the minister ensure that the appropriate training and safeguards are in place to prevent security guards from misinterpreting their new-found powers during the Pan Am Games, so we can prevent the kind of civil liberty violations we saw during the G20?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is an excellent question. Yes, we will be hiring security guards, and they will be under the direction of the police. I’m pleased that we have added in the contract that they will have to hire new security guards from our colleges, so this is part of our youth strategy, to find jobs for our youths. The number one priority will be that these security guards will be well trained and they will know exactly what will be their responsibility.

You know, there’s nothing that has been passed in secret. Regulations don’t come to the House. This has been posted on the website for 30 days. So we have been very clear and very open. We have a lot of police forces that—

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

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Across the province, people are very excited about the government’s local food strategy. In my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, we are fortunate to have so many opportunities to shop for local foods. The Holland Marsh is right next door, and the Stouffville market, and many other farm markets offer the chance to purchase local produce and support local producers.

I know that the budget included a commitment to develop a Local Food Fund. Could the Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food please update the House on this commitment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the member for Oak Ridges–Markham for this question. I think that the issues around local food are of concern to everyone in this Legislature. They are issues that are very important to the agri-food sector, but they’re important economic issues, because the reality is that a local food initiative can spur the agri-food economy and can help expand the agri-food economy.

I was very pleased to join folks at FoodShare last week to announce the Local Food Fund. It’s a $30-million fund that, over three years, will allow for investment in the kinds of initiatives that will raise awareness about local food and will actually help farmers and food processors to be able to find markets and to expand their businesses. We know that if we support Ontario farmers and if we support Ontario food processors, it’s good for people’s nutrition and it’s good for the food that we eat—good for us and what we eat—but it’s also good for local and regional economies.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you to the Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food for the update. My constituents will be excited to hear that our Local Food Fund is now up and running and that your ministry is now accepting applications. In my community, the local food movement is strong, and consumers flock to our farm markets. I am fortunate enough to represent a riding that has both urban and rural roots, and I know that my constituents will have questions about the fund.

Can the Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food provide more details on the fund and the type of projects it aims to support?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member from Oak Ridges–Markham comments on the rural and urban nature of her riding, and I think that one of the things about this discussion is that we are so interconnected. The notion that somehow rural Ontario and urban Ontario are separate entities is just not the case.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Exactly: one Ontario.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My colleague the Minister of Rural Affairs talks about one Ontario, and that is exactly the case; we are one Ontario.

The Local Food Fund is designed to help producers, people who run restaurants and other interested parties support regional and local food networks to enhance technologies and capacities in order to grow and provide minor capital in order for businesses to grow; to foster research and best practices and share those best practices; and to invest in education and outreach so that everyone in the province understands how local food can be accessed and why it’s so important to do so.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. More than five months ago, we learned that the A.O. Smith plant in Fergus would cease manufacturing, putting 350 people out of work. I called upon the government to help our community with training and economic development support. In response, the government promised an action centre to support the displaced workers and help them find jobs. That action centre is having an open house today.

Will the minister explain to this House why it took him more than five months to open an action centre to help these A.O. Smith workers?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m happy to. We respond within a matter of hours when these layoff notices are given. We respond by contacting the municipality, and we did in that case; we’ve been working very closely with the mayor and the municipality. We respond by contacting the employer. We respond by contacting the workers and their representatives. We don’t take unilateral action and step on the toes of all of the other people in those local communities; we work with them.

There are times when our intentions or our offers to set up things like an action centre are taken into consideration by those on the ground locally and implemented at the time that meets their needs. That’s the case here. We’re always there. We’re always available. We’re always ready to respond. We’ll work with that community as best we can to respond to this challenge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Minister, don’t you dare blame my constituents for your own delays. That is totally unacceptable.

In 2005, eight years ago and before the recession hit, I called upon the Liberal government to have an all-party committee of this Legislature investigate our industrial competitiveness with a view to developing an action plan to protect manufacturing jobs in the province. The Liberals’ inaction and indifference have directly contributed to the loss of 300,000 manufacturing jobs in this province. Even when a plant like A.O. Smith closes, displaced workers wait more than five months for the support that they need.

The Premier now says that she will focus on job creation and the economy. In light of their disastrous record on jobs, how can the people of Ontario see any light at the end of the tunnel as long as these Liberals remain in power?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I, in fact, take offence to what the member opposite just—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we’ve started shouting people down again.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He was shouting at us, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will talk to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke in a calm manner and tell him that this is not enough.

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I think I have to repeat that I take offence at what the member opposite has just said, because he knows well the number of conversations that the two of us have had, not just specifically about A.O. Smith, but also the efforts that I’ve been making in terms of meeting repeatedly with the local leadership, with the businesses in the area. I’ve been working hard with the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund. In fact, we’ve made a number of announcements that directly and positively impact the people in the area and the people who are affected by the closure of the Fergus plant. I met with AMO; I met with the local leadership as well.

I think he should talk to the mayor, because she is quite satisfied with the efforts that this government is making to address the issues with A.O. Smith as well as the job opportunities and job challenges that are faced by the local leadership there.

He knows well the efforts that I’ve been making and the announcements that we’re hoping will come forward in the foreseeable future that will benefit the people of that important part of the province.

Interjections.

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. This Liberal government is so focused on sticking Ontarians with the bill for more transit promises in the GTA that it seems to have forgotten that commuters depend on buses and trains to get them to work in regions like Niagara, where I live. It’s bad enough that the Conservatives in Ottawa have slashed our Via Rail service in our community, but it’s even harder for the people who live in Niagara to understand why this government keeps wavering on the GO train service.

Why won’t the government publicly commit to a date for year-round, all-day GO to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls and stick to it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am absolutely committed, and we have expanded GO service across the GTHA. The member opposite knows perfectly well that we have done that and that we have expanded GO service into Niagara.

The reality is that the member opposite raises a very important issue, and that is that we need to have an integrated transportation plan that includes the federal government, the provincial government and municipal governments, because the service that the member opposite references was a federal-level responsibility.

The fact is that at the Council of the Federation I have made it clear with my colleague Premiers that in order for us to have a coherent transportation network across this country we need the federal government to work with us. In the meantime, we will continue to expand GO service, as we’ve been doing for the last 10 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Niagara is filled with bedroom communities. People make a conscious choice not to move away from Niagara. They want to live where they live, and they need transit available to them. Crowded buses and intermittent train service is taking a toll on the quality of life for people who live in the Niagara region. The government keeps saying that it’s going to put in this GO service all day, but it never mentions when.

Will the minister tell Niagara residents today when they will finally get the promise of daily GO train services they so badly need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the member opposite advocating for her community. My experience when I was Minister of Transportation—and I know there are other Ministers of Transportation who can attest to this—was that whenever we made an announcement about increased GO service, there was a brief moment of “That’s great,” and then the next expression was, “When can we have more?” because it is in such demand, it is such a good service and it provides such convenient and efficient transportation options for people.

GO is committed to two-way, all-day service on all corridors. The implementation is under way. We know there is increased demand for GO service, and that is, from my perspective, indicative of the culture shift that’s happening in this province. People are looking at our finite resources and saying, “You know what? We need to find ways to get out of our cars and get into transit.” That’s why we’re committed to building this infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, and expanding service across the GTHA.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. I receive calls and inquiries from constituents on a daily basis on a variety of issues, including on accessing services provided by the provincial government. My constituents are hard-working men and women who lead busy lives. Commuting to and from work and taking care of young children or elderly family members are their priorities. Spending time to try to locate government services that they need should not be time-consuming. Providing efficient and easy access to government information and services has been a priority of this government.

Last year, the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services provided recommendations on delivering more efficient methods of delivering services that Ontarians need and want.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please tell us about the ongoing work to fulfill this government’s commitment to delivering services more effectively to all Ontarians?

Hon. John Milloy: The member is quite right that people, with their busy lives, are looking for convenient ways to deal with the government, particularly to access a variety of services. ServiceOntario has as its mandate to try to make it as convenient as possible for people to deal with those services.

In fact, this morning I announced a new measure that’s being brought forward by ServiceOntario: the fact that people can now renew their driver’s licence online—a simple matter of going to our website, serviceontario.ca, and they’ll be eligible to renew their driver’s licence. Now, it’s once every five years; with this, you can renew it once and will only have to go every 10 years in order to get an up-to-date photo.

This new service has been added to more than 40 services already available online, including birth certificates, marriage certificates, licence plate stickers and driver abstracts. Again, Mr. Speaker, it’s a way of making people’s lives easier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you to the minister for his response. It is good to know that, through ServiceOntario and initiatives such as the online driver’s licence renewal service, we are delivering on our commitment to make it easier for Ontarians to access the services they need, where and when they need them.

The people of Ontario expect their government to deliver quality services, including a range of service access options. In my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, it is important that there is a driver in every household. At times, driving to and from a location is the only option. Spending time to renew a driver’s licence can be time-consuming. We should be taking steps to help people get that done faster and more efficiently. My constituents will be glad to know that they can now renew their driver’s licence online.

Speaker, through you to the minister, could he please inform this House on how the online driver’s licence renewal service expedites the process?

Hon. John Milloy: Each year in Ontario, some 1.6 million Ontario drivers renew their driver’s licence. Through this service, most of them will be eligible to do it from an Internet site, in their home or elsewhere. Eligible drivers will be able to go online, and th