Ontario Hansard — 26 September 2013 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session)

2013-09-26

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

September 26, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Sep-26 (PDF)

L064 - Thu 26 Sep 2013 / Jeu 26 sep 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 26 September 2013 Jeudi 26 septembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

TEACHERS

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AGGREGATE RECYCLING

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

WINE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

NATURAL GAS

HEALTH CARE

JURY SELECTION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

DEFERRED VOTES

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICER ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE DIRECTEUR

DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE

VISITORS

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PITT HOPKINS SYNDROME

RUN FOR VAUGHAN

DAVE NICHOL

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

NORTH REGION BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

WELLESLEY APPLE BUTTER

AND CHEESE FESTIVAL

ART IN THE PARK

TRANSCARE COMMUNITY

SUPPORT SERVICES

ROB AND LINDA BEYER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CULTURE DAYS

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

MINING INDUSTRY

RURAL SCHOOLS

HYDRO RATES

TIRE DISPOSAL

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

HYDRO RATES

CHILD PROTECTION

TAXATION

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTER-PROVINCIAL IMPORTATION

OF WINE, BEER AND SPIRITS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’IMPORTATION

INTERPROVINCIALE DE VIN, DE BIÈRE

ET DE SPIRITUEUX

AGGREGATE RECYCLING

PROMOTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROMOTION

DU RECYCLAGE DES AGRÉGATS

NATURAL GAS

SUPERHIGHWAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’AUTOROUTE

DU GAZ NATUREL

INTER-PROVINCIAL IMPORTATION

OF WINE, BEER AND SPIRITS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’IMPORTATION

INTERPROVINCIALE DE VIN, DE BIÈRE

ET DE SPIRITUEUX

AGGREGATE RECYCLING

PROMOTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROMOTION

DU RECYCLAGE DES AGRÉGATS

NATURAL GAS

SUPERHIGHWAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’AUTOROUTE

DU GAZ NATUREL

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. John Milloy: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, there be a timetable applied to the consideration of certain business of the House as follows:

Bill 30, Skin Cancer Prevention Act (Tanning Beds), 2013

That, when the order for third reading of Bill 30 is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 70, Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Spousal Exception), 2013

The Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly shall meet for one day of public hearings and one day of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 70,

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, in accordance with the motion passed by the committee on September 11, 2013; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly on Bill 70, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

In the event that the committee fails to report the bill one sessional day following clause-by-clause consideration, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House, and shall be deemed to be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

When the order for third reading is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 55, Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, 2013

That following the completion of its consideration of Bill 70, the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly shall next meet for up to two days of public hearings and up to two days of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, in accordance with the motion passed by the committee on September 11, 2013; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly on Bill 55, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

When the order for third reading is called, two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties; and

At the end of this time, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

Bill 36, Local Food Act, 2013

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall, on its next three regular Tuesday meeting days commencing in the week following passage of this motion, meet for up to two days of public hearings and one day for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 36,

An Act to enact the Local Food Act, 2013; and

The deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on the sessional day before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the sessional day following the day on which the committee met for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 36, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the sessional day following clause-by-clause consideration, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House, and shall be deemed to be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 74, Fairness and Competitiveness in Ontario’s Construction Industry Act, 2013

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall, on its next two regular meeting days commencing in the week following passage of this motion, meet for one day of public hearings and one day for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to alter bargaining rights conferred by pre-1980 working agreements in the construction industry; and

The deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on the sessional day before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the sessional day following the day on which the committee met for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That upon receiving the report of the committee on Bill 74, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 60, Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2013

When debate on Bill 60,

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device, reaches 6.5 hours, or when the member who has the floor at that point has completed his or her remarks, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on General Government; and

That the vote on second reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That the Standing Committee on General Government shall, on its next three regular meeting days commencing in the week following passage of this motion, meet for up to two days of public hearings and one day for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12:00 noon on the sessional day before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the sessional day following the day on which the committee met for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That upon receiving the report of the committee on Bill 60, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 77, Hawkins Gignac Act (Carbon Monoxide Safety), 2013

Upon receiving second reading during private members’ public business, Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 to provide safety requirements related to the presence of unsafe levels of carbon monoxide on premises, shall be referred to a standing committee in the normal way; and

Any proceedings on Bill 77 in the committee to which the bill is referred shall be postponed until completion by that committee of consideration of any other bill provided for in this motion; and

The committee to which the bill is referred is authorized to meet for one day of public hearings on the bill, during its first regularly scheduled meeting the week following the referral of the bill to the committee; and

The committee is authorized to meet for one sessional day of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, on its next regularly scheduled meeting day during the week following the week in which the committee met for public hearings; and

The deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on the sessional day before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the sessional day following the day on which the committee met for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That upon receiving the report of the respective committee on the bill, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Bill 32, Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2013

That the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills shall, on its next three regular meeting days commencing in the week following passage of this motion, meet for up to two days for public hearings and one day for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 32,

An Act respecting the Human Resources Professionals Association; and

The deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 12 noon on the sessional day before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the sessional day following the day on which the committee met for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That upon receiving the report of the committee on Bill 32, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

The order for third reading of the bill shall be called no more than five sessional days after the bill is reported; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Select Committee on Developmental Services

That a Select Committee on Developmental Services be appointed to consider and report to the House its observations and recommendations with respect to the urgent need for a comprehensive developmental services strategy to address the needs of children, youth and adults in Ontario with an intellectual disability or who are dually diagnosed with an intellectual disability and a mental illness, and to coordinate the delivery of developmental programs and services across many provincial ministries in addition to the Ministry of Community and Social Services; and

That in developing its strategy and recommendations, the committee shall focus on the following issues:

—the elementary and secondary school educational needs of children and youth;

—the educational and workplace needs of youth upon completion of secondary school;

—the need to provide social, recreational and inclusionary opportunities for children, youth and adults;

—the need for a range of available and affordable housing options for youth and adults;

—the respite and support needs of families;

—how government should most appropriately support these needs and provide these opportunities.

That the committee have the authority to meet on Wednesdays following routine proceedings when the House is in session, and Wednesdays from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. when the House is not in session; and

That the committee shall have the authority to call for persons, papers and things, to employ counsel and staff and, as the committee deems relevant to its terms of reference, to commission reports and adjourn from place to place, subject to the normal budget approval from the Board of Internal Economy; and

That the committee shall present an interim report to the House no later than February 26, 2014, and a final report no later than May 15, 2014; and

That in the event of and notwithstanding any prorogation of the House before the presentation of the committee’s final report, the committee shall be deemed to be continued to the subsequent session or sessions and may continue to meet during any such prorogation; and

That the committee shall be comprised of: four members from the government caucus, one of whom shall be the Chair, three members from the caucus of the official opposition and two members from the caucus of the third party; and

That the chief whip of each of the recognized parties shall indicate in writing to the Clerk of the House, within five sessional days of the passage of this motion, their party’s membership on the committee.

Royal assent

That any of the bills provided for in this motion shall, after receiving third reading, be presented to the Lieutenant Governor for royal assent no later than December 13, 2013.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 22.

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: For anyone who perhaps had been tuning in on the parliamentary channel, they might have thought that I was doing my Ted Cruz impersonation this morning and trying to hold up the meeting of the House by reading a motion which I think took about 15 or 20 minutes to read into the record. But actually, while I believe Senator Cruz was trying to delay what was going on in the Senate, in fact, what we are trying to do here through this very lengthy motion is speed up the passage of legislation here in the Legislature.

I think members of this Legislature are quite aware that we’ve had a rather rocky number of months, certainly in the spring of this year. We saw the government come forward with a very robust legislative agenda, and it kept getting stonewalled at every course. We saw second reading debates on bills that were supported by all parties in this House go on and on in debate, sometimes as much as 18, 19, 20 hours before they moved forward.

So, in a spirit of wanting to make the Legislature work, and work properly, our Premier, Premier Wynne, met with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party recently where she presented them with a series of bills—six bills, I believe, Mr. Speaker—that reflected the priorities of our government, but also, we felt, the priorities of the opposition, bills where there was a consensus, and asked whether it would be possible for the parties to work together to see a passage of these.

What ensued has been some back and forth between the parties, between the House leaders, and an agreement was reached between us and the official opposition. We invited the New Democratic Party to join, and certainly they’ve been part of the discussions. But what we have here today is a consensus between the two parties on a number of bills that we would like to see move through the Legislature over the next several months, proceed to committee if necessary and come to a vote here.

What the programming motion does is it outlines a timetable to deal with these. I want to stress to members here that what it does not do is somehow hamper debate. We put forward ample time at all stages for debate and discussion for public hearings in the case of those bills that are going to committee, opportunities for parties to come forward with amendments to strengthen the bill and to consider it. But what it will do is ensure the passage of these bills as we move forward.

It will ensure that some of the game-playing that we saw this spring does not happen and that we can rise for Christmas and hopefully, if these bills are deemed to be supported by the majority of members here in this place, we will go forward having achieved a good agenda of bills moving forward.

Just to put it on the record, because there may have been one or two members who weren’t following my reading of that motion with the interest that I’m sure that everyone did, I’ll read it again. No, I will not. But I will just outline the bills that are included in the programming motion:

—Bill 30, Skin Cancer Prevention Act, or, as it’s known, the tanning beds act;

—Bill 70, the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Spousal Exception) that came from the member for Leeds–Grenville, a private member’s bill dealing with the issue around dentists and the treating of spouses—something very top of mind in many circles. I’m sure all of us have heard of it at our constituency office;

—Bill 55, Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act: again a bill I think we’ll find a lot of consensus on here as it strengthens a number of consumer safety measures;

—Bill 36, the Local Food Act: again, a bill which I think there is a great deal of consensus on to strengthen the use and promotion of local food here in the province of Ontario. It’s going to be a benefit to our farmers and a benefit certainly to our food industry, which is such a big, important part of our economy;

—Bill 74, Fairness and Competitiveness in Ontario’s Construction Industry Act, which was again a private member’s bill brought forward to address an anomaly in a particular labour agreement that has been identified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. There has been certainly encouragement that we may need legislation to settle this issue;

—Bill 60, the Wireless Services Agreements Act: In this day and age, everyone with cellphones will certainly appreciate this piece of legislation which will allow individuals to have more protection on their cellphone bills;

—Bill 77, the Hawkins Gignac Act (Carbon Monoxide Safety) that comes from the member from Oxford. It’s something that he has pushed for with great passion around the whole issue of carbon monoxide safety; and finally

—Bill 32, the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, again a private member’s bill that addresses a desire among human resources professionals to have their own association.

This, I think, is a good list of bills on which you’ll find wide consensus, not only within this Legislature but within the public in general. All this motion does—and I want to give notice that we on this side of the Legislature are not going to spend a lot of time debating it, because it’s a procedural motion that sets out the type of timetable that can guarantee these bills will receive due consideration and move with the normal type of speed we expect here in the Legislature.

We were a little bit disappointed, because we had asked that two other bills be added to this list: Bill 91 and Bill 105. We have been told by the opposition over and over again that they were looking for an opportunity to talk about jobs and the economy, and although that long list I read into the record does contain many bills that touch on economic issues and employment issues, Bills 91 and 105 specifically deal with a number of areas that we feel are very important to the creation of jobs.

One of them deals with the employer health tax benefit. It was contained in the budget. What we would see is an adjustment to it so that smaller businesses would gain from that tax benefit and be able to have more resources in order to create jobs and make investments.

The other one is the Waste Diversion Act, which I know my friend the Minister of the Environment will be speaking on passionately. What it does is strengthen our oversight of waste diversion and, in doing so, it has the potential to create jobs in the recycling field and also really spur and encourage innovation among a number of industries, which in turn will create more opportunities for investment and job creation.

We had wanted these two to go on the list. We could not reach consensus, but just to note that we will be proceeding with these bills as well as the list that came forward today.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve spent seven or eight minutes just outlining what’s going on here. This is about making sure the Legislature works a little bit better over the coming months and that we can see progress on a list of bills that, I repeat again, I think you’ll find consensus on here in the Legislature, as well as broad consensus and appeal for them. With that, as I say, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on this side of the House debating this motion. We feel it speaks for itself in the outline it puts forward. We look forward to debate and discussion on it, and we look forward to moving on with these bills.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I, too, am pleased to speak to this motion, which essentially is exactly the motion I presented to this House on behalf of our leader, Tim Hudak, and the Ontario PC caucus on Monday, to try to end the gridlock around here and change the agenda to jobs and the economy, rather than the past few years—certainly the past two years, and certainly the past nine months under Premier Wynne, where we’ve been dealing with mostly social bills.

First of all, I want to say we are not going to take a lot of time either. We’ll have two speakers on this side, myself and the deputy House leader for the PCs, Mr. Clark, who has been a tremendous help in this whole process; we couldn’t do it without him.

This whole motion stems from the meeting of September 11. The Premier did ask to meet with Mr. Hudak. He met with her promptly, and she gave him a list of bills. It was, I believe, at that time, six government bills and three PC bills that she considered to be priorities. We looked at it, and we thought, “Jeez, from the government side there’s no bold ideas to get the economy going, to go to bat for the over 500,000 unemployed women and men who woke up this morning without a job.” We have not seen, really, any bold ideas come from the Liberals at all.

So in order to change the page—to clear the decks, as Tim says so very often—we have, basically, an unprecedented move. The government was creating its own stagnant House here and not dealing with the opposition, at least in the couple of years I’ve been House leader. The fact of the matter is, they were still operating as if they had a majority. They would come in, basically, to House leaders’ meetings saying, “This is what we’re going to do this week, boys”—it was mostly men in the room—and never actually negotiate with us.

When they did finally negotiate with an opposition party, we were completely shut out of those negotiations, and that was around getting their budget passed. I will give Mr. Bisson, the House leader of the NDP, credit: He kept me informed of what they were talking about, but I was never part of those discussions, nor their outcome. And of course we ended up getting a Financial Accountability Officer, which we agree with, but I don’t think will actually ever prevent scandals like Ornge or eHealth or power plants, so I’m not sure how useful it’s all going to be, but we’re supportive of it anyway.

And again, no job creation requests during the NDP’s discussion with the government, so we had to come forward to try and change the agenda here.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario is at a crossroads. Our Legislature has been in deadlock for almost two years now as the Liberals and NDP failed to bring forward any policy ideas that would help put the over 500,000 unemployed women and men back to work in Ontario. We have a Premier who has been an integral part of a government responsible for unprecedented amounts of waste, countless scandals—I mention them again: eHealth, Ornge, power plants and many more—and deficits and debt that continue to burden the middle class.

While Kathleen Wynne tries to distance herself from former Premier Dalton McGuinty and his wasteful overspending and scandals, she hopes that Ontarians forget she sat at the cabinet table when those decisions were made.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I’ll be sharing my time with the honourable member from Leeds–Grenville, and again, we won’t be speaking terribly long on this; we want to get these bills passed and the agenda changed here on behalf of jobs and the economy and smaller government as quickly as possible.

Premier Wynne shares responsibility with her predecessor, Mr. McGuinty, for the mess we find ourselves in now. Unfortunately, since the 2011 election, the Liberal government has failed to implement any pieces of legislation that deal with our job and debt crises. Since Kathleen Wynne became Premier, we have seen nothing in the way of a legislative agenda or a mandate to grow the economy and create jobs.

That’s why, on Monday, September 23, the Ontario PC caucus took bold action. We put forward this programming motion to end the legislative gridlock and clear the deck so that we can start dealing with the jobs and debt crisis here in Ontario. We have before us in this motion eight bills, and almost all of them were supported by all three parties—almost all of them. Kathleen Wynne, the Premier, prides herself on her willingness to engage in conversations to find solutions, but the Premier hasn’t even been able deliver on her agenda of tanning beds and local food legislation.

I’m here today on behalf of Tim Hudak, our leader, and the Progressive Conservative caucus to propose a solution to this deadlocked Legislature, and get the Legislature working on behalf of the people who sent us here. This programming motion—I’ll just do it for the record, as the government House leader did—would see the following eight bills expedited through the House to clear the way for a legislative agenda to deal with Ontario’s jobs and debt crisis:

Bill 30, the Skin Cancer Prevention Act (Tanning Beds)—all three parties agree with that.

Bill 70, the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act (Spousal Exception), put forward by the honourable member for Leeds–Grenville, Mr. Clark, is an excellent piece of legislation. It will particularly help dentists and other health professionals in, say, rural and remote areas, where they’re the only ones in town. They should be allowed to treat their spouses.

Bill 55, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act—we all agree with that.

Bill 36, the Local Food Act—I’d just put the government on notice that while this programming motion doesn’t contain the amendment of Mr. Bailey, the member for Sarnia–Lambton, to provide farmers with a tax credit if they donate food that might be a bit—blemished fruit, or something like that that isn’t going to be put on the grocery shelves but it’s perfectly good to eat and perfectly healthy, to be donated to food banks. They should get a tax credit for that to encourage that sort of behaviour.

A lot of farmers are just doing it out of the goodness of their heart, but it does cost them money in terms of transportation and time and fuel to get that food to the local food bank. We’ll be putting that amendment forward in committee, and it’s my understanding that at least the government side of the House agrees with that amendment. So I hope they’ll continue with that agreement when we vote on it during clause-by-clause at committee.

We also have a second amendment by the member for Nepean–Carleton, Lisa MacLeod, to deal with food literacy that we’ll be putting forward when Bill 36, the Local Food Act, gets to committee.

Bill 74, Fairness and Competitiveness in Ontario’s Construction Industry, which is sponsored by Monte McNaughton, the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Bill 60, the Wireless Services Agreements Act—we all agree with that.

Bill 77, which is the Hawkins Gignac Act, or the carbon monoxide safety act, put forward by the honourable member from Oxford, Mr. Ernie Hardeman, is an excellent piece of legislation which for new builds would require carbon monoxide detectors in homes.

Bill 32, the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, has been kicking around a long time. It means a lot to human resources specialists and, again, it was in

part co-sponsored by the honourable member for Whitby–Oshawa, Christine Elliott, on our side of the House, so all parties agree with that. It’s actually a tri-sponsored bill.

I think probably the most important thing on this list is again Christine Elliott, the member for Whitby–Oshawa, finally enacting—some two years ago, I believe it was, this House voted on a resolution from Christine Elliott, the member for Whitby–Oshawa, to set up an all-party select committee to look at the services that government is providing or not providing to people with developmental disabilities. It was quite a comprehensive resolution.

It passed unanimously in this House, but typical Liberal government inaction took effect and they failed, as they do on so many occasions, to live up to the expressed wishes of this House, which is their job as government. Only the government can set up, under our rules, a select committee; the opposition can’t do it. All we could do was get unanimous agreement, again, on a resolution—a very good resolution—which they totally ignored.

Tim Hudak, when he spoke with the Premier and presented her with a letter on September 11, not only included the bills that I just talked about—sorry, the Premier included the bills, but Tim, along with a bunch of other stuff that I’ll talk about which deals directly with jobs and the economy and shrinking the size and cost of government, demanded that she also include the all-party select committee on developmental disabilities.

So good for Tim, our leader, and good for Christine to continually push that, and thank you to the government for agreeing, finally, but you shouldn’t have to be pushed in what we consider to be a no-brainer and absolutely the right thing to do. With our aging population, there are so many—frankly, a lot of them are widows or widowers sitting at home and wondering how their adult child with developmental disabilities is going to live after they pass on, after the parents pass on. That’s one of the big issues that the committee will be looking at.

When the Premier met with our leader, Tim Hudak, two weeks ago, she put forward a list of government and PC bills that she considered a priority for the fall session. I’ve just pretty well read them out. Then the government did add two other bills in our discussions this week, and the government House leader, Mr. Milloy, just spoke about them. One was Bill 91, the waste diversion or waste management act, which frankly isn’t a jobs act except it creates a lot of jobs for government bureaucrats. It sets up a whole new bureaucracy, and we’re not interested in that because someone is going to have to pay those taxes.

The more taxes you pay, the more jobs we kill in the private sector. It’s just a vicious cycle—

Interjection.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —that we’ve been on for a decade now, Minister, and we’ve got to get off it. That’s what this whole process is all about today: getting off that old treadmill that you guys are on, job-killing and killing the economy and being last in just about everything in a have-not province in Canada and a complete embarrassment to Confederation. We’re trying to break that habit of yours over there.

The second bill that the government wanted included was Bill 32, which actually removes the exemption of the first $400,000 in payroll for many of our large corporations—so actually their taxes go up. If their taxes go up, as Tim said in his letter to the Premier on September 11 that he handed her, that just kills jobs, as the price of the goods made by those corporations goes up and people aren’t able to buy their goods and services. So people get laid off in these companies. That’s not particularly helpful to the economy.

The government tried to spin yesterday, and did it again today, that we tried to hold back two of their job-creating bills: one creating a massive bureaucracy that nobody wants, and the other one taking away tax exemptions on the employer health tax, which is a tax we hate anyway. It was brought in by Mr. Peterson when he was Premier, and the Liberals, many years ago. It was supposed to be temporary, and it’s still there—so, just clearing the record.

Tim Hudak, the leader of the PCs, has shown real leadership, and he asked me, after his meeting with the Premier, to put together this motion on behalf of the caucus and get these bills passed as quickly as possible. There is a timetable read out in the motion by the government House leader this morning, but we’re willing to speed that up, even. We need to change the channel around here as quickly as possible, so maybe we’ll see even more co-operation through unanimous consent in the days ahead, and we can move ahead and change the channel.

PC leader Tim Hudak also put a request, as I said, Ms. Elliott’s all-party select committee, and I covered that.

I do want to thank the government House leader and his staff. I should do that; I would be remiss if I didn’t. When we finally got down to the nuts and bolts on this, there were a lot of people, particularly staff, who worked quite late into the evening and early in the morning. So I thank you, John, for working on this with us. I also want to thank our PC staff; I see Adam Yahn here. Well, as usual, Alex isn’t here.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: He’s working.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Alex Beduz is working. Sorry, Alex; he’d kill me. But they put a lot of work in, as did Amanda Philip.

Again, I want to thank our deputy House leader, who’s just a terrific person with a great background in municipal politics, and a clerk of a municipality, so he knows his stuff tremendously well, and just a great person to work with.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if we don’t start to deal with the cost of government, we are reminded by Don Drummond and others that we’re heading towards a $30-billion deficit. We need to have the government start to make some tough decisions that have to be made, or we’re on the road to Detroit, as Mr. Hudak always reminds us. The government has pulled from the Drummond report a lot of things that would have saved money, but they’ve not replaced it with anything that would counteract that, that would—“Okay, we don’t like this.” Mr.

Drummond said if you’re going to take something off the table that saves money, like the wage freeze that Mr. Hudak has been calling for, the across-the-board public sector wage freeze that’s for politicians and everyone—it will save $2 billion a year. We’ll do it for two years. We start to slow down that debt clock a little bit and get headed in the right direction.

It will give us some breathing room and take pressure off taxpayers. That’s the whole idea there, because we are spending, I think, $10.6 billion a year—the third-largest ministry after health and education. Most of that money goes to China and overseas. It’s just pure debt interest, and you get nothing for it. It’s just an exchange of paper. There are no services, there are no new developmental services for children, there are no health care services, there are no new drugs being bought out of that money. It’s basically shipped out of the country, because there are very few Ontarians who actually hold Ontario paper or Ontario debt paper.

I’ll just end with our jobs. Most of these were contained in the letter that Tim gave to the Premier on September 11. They were also contained between that letter and the previous two or three meetings. Tim, every time, does the same thing. He’s been consistent, the leader of the Ontario PCs, in pleading with the Premier on a personal level, pleading with the Premier here, pleading with the government and those who will listen, through our 14 white papers and the 167 recommendations we have in those.

We’re distilling those down to a party platform now that we’ll use in the election. Some of those ideas are for reducing the size and cost of government: as I said, an immediate mandatory public sector wage freeze, reforming a public sector arbitration system that awards outsized settlements regardless of taxpayers’ ability to pay, making ministers personally financially responsible for hitting fiscal targets, and enabling competition in the delivery of government services, for efficiency and innovation.

Of course, we were very disappointed that Michael Harris’s bill—what riding is Michael from?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Jim Wilson: From Kitchener–Conestoga; thank you—was defeated at private members’ business a week ago today, which would have meant open competition. There was a great editorial—or a story, I guess—in the Windsor Star, saying “what a missed opportunity” and blaming the NDPs and the Liberals for failing to respond to the pleas of municipalities to get rid of the almost corrupt ways that they are forced to do things now and bring in transparency and openness in our tendering process.

Under reducing the size and cost of government: a top-to-bottom review of all government functions to reinvest savings in health and education. We’ve also been pushing, in order to power up the private sector and private sector job creation, lower taxes on job-creating businesses. We go into extensive detail on that—a flexible response of regulation and an end to red tape.

Apprenticeship reform, which we know will create almost immediately 200,000 skilled trade jobs—we need to move to a one-to-one ratio. It’s ridiculous that we have three to one in many industries, trades; we have five to one. Young people—we’ve brought them in here before. I did a resolution on it one time during private members’ bills maybe a couple of years ago, and brought in a whole gallery full of young people. In this case, they were electricians and plumbers. They were students or apprentices. They brought in the employers that were willing to hire them but couldn’t hire them.

They had them as a summer student, but then couldn’t hire them as an apprentice to go toward the hours they need to get their licence. Every other province but Quebec has moved to one to one. Our government is so beholden to the union bosses that it refuses to do the right thing.

Finally, I’ll just mention the plan to end unsustainable solar and wind subsidies and make electricity more affordable. We couldn’t be louder on this side of the House and more consistent for at least two or three years now. End the Green Energy Act; it’s a huge boondoggle. Britain recently did the right thing. Their energy minister admitted it was the greatest boondoggle in the history of British politics. Billions on the line; the highest electricity prices in Canada now: 30% higher because of the crazy legislation and the path the government took us on and is still taking us on.

Stop signing those 20-year contracts where you get paid up to 15 times the regular price of electricity whether or not the windmill turns, whether you produce any electricity or not. Anyway, we’ve been pretty clear about that, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I just want to say that our leader, Tim Hudak, should be commended. He thought of this idea, changed the channel here, cleared the decks, and we just, as the caucus members, did the mechanics of it.

The government should have put this together a long time ago and worked co-operatively with us, but they failed to do so. So, frankly, the only ones showing real leadership in this place and on behalf of people in Ontario and actually addressing the issues affecting the people of Ontario, the real issues, such as unemployment—the greatest dignity you can give a human being is the opportunity for a job, not an opportunity for a government cheque. An opportunity to raise your family on your own and not a handout from government: That’s the greatest dignity. That’s the social justice we should all be dealing with.

I can remember, in the NDP, Floyd Laughren, and I think the one speech that sticks in my head—on several occasions, he would get up, as finance minister, and tell us how proud he was that one in 10 Ontarians were on social assistance, that the government was able to support them. We used to look at him like, “Wow. You’re proud of how many are getting a government cheque?” We’re proud of how many under Mike Harris and other Premiers, Mr. Davis and others—our measurement was how many people had the dignity of a job to raise their family, and that’s what we’ve got to get back to.

I hope the government is listening, and I think that this programming motion that we brought forward—but, just so the people at home know, the opposition cannot actually introduce the motion. We tried, on Monday afternoon, to get unanimous consent, and we heard noes from both the Liberals and the NDP, which was a real shame. But, finally, the government did come around, and we do have it before us. We need to vote on it quickly and change the channel.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to join in the discussion. I appreciate my House leader giving me a chance to share time with him to talk about this motion. I also want to talk about him. He mentioned me, but when I was involved in municipal politics, I recall Jim Wilson being elected to this place in 1990. When you’re a newer member—and I’ve been here three and a half years—you get the opportunity to work with a bunch of different people within your caucus, whether it be in committee or out in the community, so I’m quite pleased with the work that Mr. Wilson does as our House leader.

He’s worked, I think, tirelessly since we began this minority Parliament, and he deserves our caucus’s thanks for working so hard on this motion.

Going back to my comments about being a municipal politician, I was a municipal politician when the last minority Parliament took place, and I have to tell you, I don’t recall that Parliament working like this one. I have to tell you, with a bit of frustration, that I sit in this place and realize that we went months and months without having legislation passed. The House prorogued, and a number of pieces of legislation dropped off the order paper. We had some frustration leading up to our summer recess, when nothing was passed, essentially, other than the Liberal-New Democrat deal on the budget.

Certainly the meeting that our leader, Tim Hudak, had with Premier Wynne didn’t equate the same way that the meeting in September of this year did, I think, for our legislative calendar.

I spoke in June, the last day of our session before the summer recess, and I talked about Jim Wilson and the frustration we had on this side of the House, that there were a number of pieces of legislation we were interested in being able to clear off. I made a speech and mentioned some of those bills and also some proclamations that we couldn’t even seem to agree upon, which made me sad, and certainly I felt that our constituents weren’t well served by the 107 representatives not being able to find some common ground on some issues that in the House and in private members’ business we seemed to all agree upon.

When I went back to my riding in the summer, people asked me those types of questions: “What is the status of the Local Food Act? What is the status of some private members’ business?”

Mr. Hardeman and I, for example—the member for Oxford—are pretty open about our private members’ bills. We laid them on the table. Mr. Wilson, very eloquently, at House leaders, laid those bills on the table and said that those were bills that, if the other two parties agreed during private members’ business, maybe we could agree upon. In fact, in both those cases, both the Hawkins Gignac bill for Mr.

Hardeman and the spousal exception for myself, for regulated health professions, we actually sat down at the table with the respective ministries and were able to amend our bills to reflect what the government ministry wanted. That’s unheard of, and no one knew about that choice that we made. There wasn’t a peep in any media outlets about that decision on our part. We got absolutely, positively, no credit at all for all that work behind the scenes, and for some of us, that was an extremely frustrating experience.

So hats off to the member for Simcoe–Grey, Mr. Wilson, our House leader, and hats off to Tim Hudak, our leader, for starting this session differently. Mr. Wilson alluded to the meeting that Mr. Hudak and the Premier had and the letter that he penned on September 11 of this year. I just want to read the second paragraph of the letter that Mr. Hudak gave to Premier Wynne:

“At a time when over half a million of our friends, neighbours and colleagues can’t find a job, I fundamentally believe that the Premier’s first focus should be jobs. Nothing is more important than ensuring each Ontarian has the opportunity to provide for themselves and their family.”

I think that was the premise when the meeting in September took place, that when the Premier handed our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Tim Hudak, a letter and said, “We think there are some bills that we have some consensus on. Would you be interested in these bills moving forward?”, that was a different approach.

The other thing I wanted to mention, and I know that Mr. Wilson mentioned it, were the other bills that both the NDP and the Liberals didn’t support, that we felt were on the path to create jobs, things like the moratorium on wind turbines, given the frustration that communities have that aren’t willing hosts; the bills that members from the PC caucus have tabled and were defeated by both parties—the Fair and Open Tendering Act that my friend the member for Kitchener–Conestoga tabled.

Municipalities and school boards have communicated to me, as the municipal affairs and housing critic, that that’s the playing field they want. They wanted that bill to pass. Again, when they were in the House, they were surprised that both the other two parties, the Liberals and the NDP, didn’t support that.

The arbitration issue: Again, we just came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in August. Almost every single delegation came forward and said they were surprised that Mr. Wilson’s bill was defeated, because that’s an issue that was at every single council chamber at some point over the last 52 weeks.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Weren’t they blaming us?

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes, well, there were some other issues, but I think now we’re on the right track back with AMO, and we hope to again have that bill resurrected in some form, to have that respectful conversation, to use some of Premier Wynne’s words.

As well, the College of Trades was in that letter. I know that Garfield Dunlop, the member for—Simcoe North?

Interjection: Simcoe North.

Mr. Steve Clark: Simcoe North; I got that right. He travelled all across the province. I know that people in my riding have talked about the trades tax and the College of Trades—very strong reaction, to abolish that body. Again, Mr. Hudak put that on the record when he met with the Premier.

It was quite strange: the regulation—yesterday Ms. MacLeod, the member for Nepean–Carleton, tabled a bill regarding regulation 274. I’ve heard that as well in my riding, Speaker, and I was a bit surprised with the manner that the first reading was dealt with yesterday. I can’t explain why that happened or whether that’s a trend by the New Democrats. I hope it isn’t, because I think that in this place, we’ve had a way to deal with legislation.

Again, the support for subways in the GTA: We put that in writing, through our leader, to the Premier. I know the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Mr. Holyday—I really didn’t meet Mr. Holyday until during the campaign. I’ve come to know him a little bit since he was elected, and I have to tell you, he’s a top-shelf guy. I really enjoy talking to him; I really enjoy having him as a member of our caucus. Welcome to the Ontario PC caucus.

We look at this bill—and again, I hope the New Democrats don’t hold up this legislation or this motion. I hope that they will realize that in a minority Parliament, you do have to have some discussions. We’ve had many, many House leader meetings, and I have to tell you, if I was being totally honest with the House, it’s very frustrating for me. Speaker, you’re a former municipal politician as well, and I think when you’re involved in that level of government, you have some compromise and some consensus. You want to get things done.

I think what we’re trying to do on this side of the House is to present some PMBs, like Mr. Hardeman’s and my PMB, that have had some support from all three parties, that have had people in our communities come to us and say they want passed.

I know that the human resource bill was added by the government, the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, Bill 32. I know that it was supported by all three parties. The member for Whitby–Oshawa put her name on it.

The Select Committee on Developmental Services—I have to tell you something. When I went back to the riding after the House rose for the summer, I had a very strong discussion with people who are in the developmental disabilities sector, the Community Living agencies within my riding, really wanting us to put aside partisan differences and establish that select committee.

I have to tell you that I was very proud of Mr. Hudak and Mrs. Elliott when they made their questions last week in the House. They truly represented what I was hearing in my riding. I did an interview yesterday with a media outlet in North Grenville, and they were hearing the same thing: that they hope that we can put these partisan issues aside and establish this select committee. I’m very pleased that it’s in this motion.

Again, I don’t want the New Democrats to hold this up, because people in my community are saying that we want to move forward with that. People have seen the work that the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions did. I know that the government hasn’t implemented those recommendations as fast as certainly some of us would want them to, but it was a good process, and I think we can replicate it on the all-party Select Committee on Developmental Services.

There has been some co-operation. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing across the way, and I think that one of the things that debate does in this House is that it also helps to strengthen bills that are before us. The co-op bill died on the order paper when the House prorogued. The government did a little tweak to it, brought it back under Bill 14, it went through committee fairly quickly with co-operation from all three parties, it came back here, it collapsed, and I believe it’s going to get royal assent today. So I think it shows that we can put some things aside.

Bill 21—I appreciate the fact that the bill was amended after it died on the order paper. I happen to think—and others may disagree, and that’s their right in this House—that some of the debate that we had, that our members of the Ontario PC caucus had, helped make those changes in that bill.

People may criticize us for having debate, but I want to make sure that I put my constituents’ comments on the record. I think that’s part of why we’re here. It may slow down the process a bit, but I’m not going to criticize democracy taking place in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I’m not going to do that. I think we’ve seen it in debate here. We’ve seen it in committee. There have been some exceptional amendments put forward from time to time on bills to help strengthen bills based on feedback we’ve received in the Legislature, feedback we have in our communities and feedback we receive in committee hearings.

I think we’ve had a lot of debate on some of these bills. I think we’ve had some general consensus. It would be a shame if the Legislature would grind to a halt because of this motion, because I think there are a number of bills that have to move forward.

I remember being at the 180th anniversary of the Brockville Farmers’ Market. We had a great discussion about local food and celebrating local food, and I have to tell you, somebody took me aside and said, “You Tories aren’t delaying that bill, are you?” I said, “No, we want it to move forward.” I’m so pleased that I can go back to the farmers’ market this weekend and say that that bill was a part of this motion, because that’s what the farmers were saying to me. It may not be as substantive as they want, it may not have had all of the components that they wanted, but it was a bill that they thought we should put our differences aside on and move it forward.

I’m so pleased that my former seatmate the member for Sarnia–Lambton’s amendment is getting embraced by, I think, all three parties. I’ll let the New Democrats speak for themselves, but I certainly heard from some of the members across on the government side that have some favour in that motion. I know a very strong view from food banks in my constituency is that they love this. They think it’s a great opportunity to have a partnership between folks in the agriculture community. It’s a win-win for everyone.

Again, I’m going to be very pleased to report to some of those people in my riding, because we’ve got a food bank expansion in Brockville. They just had a wonderful event in Prescott for the group that deals with the South Grenville area. These are petitions on that amendment that were in food banks all across my riding, and I think that when I go back they’ll be very pleased that it’s here.

I just want to close with a few comments to echo what our opposition House leader has said. There has been some frustration. We’ve taken the bills that the Premier has put on the table, some bills that have had all-party support at least publicly during the process. I think it’s now time for us to move forward to clear the decks. We’ve given a number of suggestions on bills that we would like to see go forward. We believe that job creation and getting our economy back is the most important thing we can do in this Legislature.

When I was a kid, this province was the envy of the country. I wore it like a badge of honour that I was from the province of Ontario. We were the manufacturing centre of this country. I want to see the day when we’re firing on all cylinders again, that we’re no longer the caboose that we now have become.

I would love to have Ontario be the economic engine and be able to provide employment and get those half a million people back working and get the province of Ontario to be what I want it to be, and that’s the best province for this country. I’m very passionate about it. I get so mad when I’m in my riding and I have industries show me letters from New York state, chastising our province for the horrible energy rates that we now have. I just think we need to get back to basics, focus on the economy, focus on creating jobs and get some of these bills that we talk and talk and talk about supporting and clear them off the order paper and move them forward.

I want to commend our House leader, Mr. Wilson, for helping to get that process moving.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I certainly want to speak to this motion for a number of reasons, but let me just start with this: It’s really kind of passing strange that the Conservatives are having to time-allocate themselves in moving business through the House. There’s a certain humour that we have to take in that, saying that it is kind of odd.

So where are we at? The government has a number of bills on the order paper to which both the New Democratic Party and Conservative Party have said, “We don’t have any huge opposition.” I just want to go through some of them to make my point.

The government has France Gélinas’ Skin Cancer Prevention Act, Bill 30. Every party in this House has said that we support it. We actually fast-tracked the legislation into committee. The committee has had its hearings. It has done its amendments to the bill. I’m not sure there were any amendments, but they went through clause-by-clause. The bill is going to get ordered to the House, to which every party has said, “We’re not going to put any speakers up and we’re going to pass the bill.”

I’ve got to take it at face value when the government House leader says, “I’m not going to put up any speakers.” I have to take it at face value when the Conservative House leader says, “I’m not going to put up any speakers.” There are not going to be any speakers, or a limited number of speakers. But what we’ve got here is the Conservatives—and I kind of understand what the government is doing, because they don’t quite trust the Conservatives. Essentially, the Conservatives are saying, “The only way you can trust us is to time-allocate us. So we’re going to time-allocate ourselves on bills on which we already agree.” It’s a ridiculous situation that we’re in.

If you look at the other bills, the next on the list is the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, Bill 55. The Tories have put 30 speakers up on a bill that they’ve said they support. They’ve been filibustering since that bill has been at second reading. We, as New Democrats, put up, I think—I don’t know. There weren’t a lot. I’d have to take a look at the number. I’ve got the list here. Bill 55: I think we put up—I don’t know—five or six by the looks of it, and we have not debated the bill. We’ve said, “We agree; we’re done.

Let the bill naturally go into committee.” The Tories kept on filibustering the bill. Even though they said they supported the bill and even though they said they don’t have a problem with the bill and everybody was in favour and they were going to vote for it, they time-allocated it.

My point is, here we are time-allocating in this House a bunch of bills to which the parties all agree. So I’ve got to come to the conclusion—and it’s kind of silly, because what you’ve got are Conservatives time-allocating themselves because even they can’t trust themselves to hold to their own agreements within their own caucus. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

So I’ve talked to the government House leader and I’ve talked to the opposition House leader, Mr. Wilson—I respect both of them immensely. They are my colleagues as House leaders, and I will not say that I have anything but respect for the positions that they have and the job that they try to do, but it is kind of passing strange. I made this point to Mr. Milloy; I’m not sure I made it to Mr. Wilson, but I’ll make it here in the House. This House functions when we trust each other.

This House functions when the government House leader, the opposition House leader and myself as House leader for the New Democratic Party are able to trust each other’s word. When we get to the point that the Tories have to time-allocate themselves, it tells me that this place is breaking down. I think that one of the dangers that we’re heading into with this kind of move of time allocation, where the Tories are time-allocating themselves on bills that, quite frankly, they agree on, is it’s going to put us in a position of souring up the milk.

I’ll just give you one example. Yesterday, Madame Madeleine Meilleur introduced a bill that was put forward by my colleague previously, Madame France Gélinas, in order to make the commissioner of French language services an officer of the House. We thought that that is a good idea. All of the parties in the House agreed.

We had a bit of a dilemma yesterday because when the Financial Accountability Office bill was being ordered back to the House, it comes reported back on reports by committees. The government House leader, the Tory House leader, myself and the Clerk never clued in that if the bill got ordered back into the House by committee, and by way of the programming motion we had this spring, it would have blocked the ability for the member to introduce the bill and have our ministerial statements.

So we as New Democrats said, “Listen, we could be playing games in this House and do the things that we see the Conservative Party do, but we live to our agreement.” I had said to the government House leader that we supported that particular initiative, so we amended our own programming motion in order to allow that debate to take place. That was the right thing to do. I would still do it today even considering what happened yesterday.

But what happened yesterday is—and this is the point that I want to make to my two honourable House leader colleagues—the two of you colluded after we did that so that the committees would not sit because you would not support each other’s unanimous consent motion to allow the committees to sit. The result of the motion yesterday was that the committees could not sit, because we didn’t get into orders of the day because it was reports by committees by which we were debating the Financial Accountability Office.

None of you had contemplated that the committees would not sit, but because the milk got soured in this House as a result of this programming motion, Mr. Flynn got up and asked for unanimous consent, to which a Conservative member said no. Then, when Mr. Wilson got up for unanimous consent, a Liberal said no.

I have to say that you guys worked that out pretty magnificently, but the point was that this place did not function. Our committees did not sit yesterday as a result of that. Those are the kinds of things that happen around here when you get into these kinds of situations.

I’m going to get a chance to talk about the programming motion from the first year of session and the second budget, and I’ll get a chance to talk to that later. Unfortunately, I’ve got three minutes. I want to end on this point before I start again the next time that this bill is called: Let’s realize what’s really going on here. The government and the Conservatives have gotten together in order to allow a boutique bill that’s going to favour one employer in this province within an industry to not recognize a collective agreement of those workers. That’s what this is all about.

The Conservatives and the Liberals know well that that is not good for workers and it is certainly not good for employers, for a whole bunch of different reasons. We’ll talk about that later.

So they’re saying that if we can have a time allocation motion and cause a bit of a row in the House about time allocation, while people are looking over here at the time allocation motion, maybe there will be less attention paid by the media to the fact that the government and the Conservatives have colluded together in order to favour one employer to not recognize the rights of the workers that are in a collective agreement. And why?

Because Richard Brennan—I don’t know if this is the truth, but Richard Brennan has been pretty clear about it in his articles: It’s in order to curry favour when it comes to financial contribution to the Liberal and the Conservative parties. And I say to you, shame on you. This is just a game. Do the Tories really want to hold up skin cancer prevention bills? Do the Tories really want to hold up Steve Clark’s bill for treating spouses? Do the Tories want to hold up Madame—what’s her name?—Elliott’s special committee she wants to create? Does the government want to hold up the food act?

You guys don’t want to hold up any of it, but you’re time-allocating yourselves because the Tories can’t trust themselves. But I think the bigger issue is, as everybody talks about time allocation, the media is not paying as much attention to what you’re doing in regard to the EllisDon bill.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my privilege to invite and welcome Ken and Mary Frook, retired teachers from my riding, who live in beautiful Sauble Beach—seven miles of the greatest beach you’re ever going to see. Welcome, and enjoy Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome our page Gabrielle Le Donne’s family today. In the gallery, we have her father, Dino; mother, Alfreda; grandfather, Italo; grandmother, Nina; and sisters, Bridget and Claire. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the east members’ gallery are my good friends Marg Andre, immediate past president of the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce and director of onrichmondhill.com, and her husband, Dr. Kurt Andre, a pediatrician practising in Richmond Hill.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to introduce two gentlemen from the Association for Reformed Political Action, James Van Gurp and Brian Hiemstra.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure today to welcome grade 10 students from Langstaff Secondary School in my riding of Richmond Hill, in the public gallery over there. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Today in the Legislature we have students from Victoria Park Collegiate Institute, from the beautiful riding of Don Valley East. I’d like to welcome them to the House.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome Caitlin Fitzgerald to the gallery today. She’s a social work student from Ryerson University and working in my office.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome to the gallery today Michael Fletcher, chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network; Jackie Manthorne, the president and CEO; and Mona Forrest, who is secretary to the board of directors, also of the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network. We had a great breakfast this morning. We’re delighted you’re with us today.

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

On behalf of the member from Newmarket–Aurora: Here to observe James Prowse, our page, are his mother, Michelle Prowse; father, Ian Prowse; and brother, Nicholas Prowse. Welcome to the Legislature today. We’re glad you’re here.

As well, in the Speaker’s gallery today, we have a wonderful delegation from the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, members from the Senate Public Accounts Committee, the House Public Accounts Committee, the Civil Society and Donors Agency, the Federal Inland Revenue Service, and the high commission, and from the Parliament of Ottawa as accompanying people. We welcome our delegation for being here.

They did ask me how the Speaker could be so neutral. I explained it. I explained it.

There are no further introductions. It’s now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. On Monday I asked the Legislative Assembly to clear the decks of legislation that we had all agreed to, to move forward with a programming motion. I understand that our House leader has come to an agreement with your House leader. I’m happy to see that. The goal was to clear the decks so we could focus on the big issues: jobs and the economy.

This weekend, we put our final touches on our plan, our Paths to Prosperity, to make Ontario first in jobs and last in debt. Premier, now that we have cleared the decks, where is your plan? What are you putting on the table to make Ontario rise again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I appreciate the work of the Leader of the Opposition. This is, to my mind, how minority government has to work: There is co-operation. I’m very glad that he has responded to my proposal that we move ahead some pieces of legislation where there is agreement. Thank you very much for that.

The work that we are doing on youth unemployment, the investments that we are making to make sure that young people have support, that they get the skills training they need, the investments that we’re making in infrastructure, and the supports that we’re putting in place—the Minister of Finance and I had an opportunity to meet with some financial leaders this morning, talking about the single regulator, the national regulator, the agreement we’ve come to with British Columbia and the federal government. That’s the kind of work that needs to go forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: So I guess the Premier’s answer is no jobs plan.

The whole point of the programming motion was to clear the decks and to put aside—I know your initial priorities were around teenagers’ access to tanning beds, and regulations around door-to-door water heater salesmen. We’ve agreed to those. We’re now moving those aside so we can focus on jobs and the economy.

The problem I have is that I see no new ideas coming from the Liberal benches. There are a lot of young people who have their degree, their diploma. They’re full of life and expectation, looking forward to getting on with life—buying a home, advancing their career—but they’re back home on Mom and Dad’s couch.

Premier, respectfully, all we see from you are warmed-over NDP ideas. You’ve increased business taxes. You’ve brought in a new tax rate on income earners, a new tax bracket in the province. That’s going to cost us jobs.

Let me ask you this: Why do you want to go back to the era of the NDP, when Ontario went backwards? Why don’t you move forward with a new jobs plan? If you have no ideas, please take some of ours. It’s time to get on with the job.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it’s very interesting that Janet Ecker was standing beside us this morning, and she was so supportive of the single regulator that we are advancing. She knows that that will create jobs. Confidence by international investors in the country, and in Ontario specifically; understanding that we are getting our jobs, getting our act together; understanding that there’s that kind of stability—that will create jobs.

It’s unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand that that kind of confidence is exactly the kind of business environment that will bring investment and will create jobs.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I stand here and I congratulate Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the federal government for bringing forward the single securities—

Interjections.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s fantastic. But what I’m not asking you, Premier, is to copy the federal Conservatives’ initiative—and it’s good it’s moving ahead; I congratulate the finance minister—nor am I asking you to copy Andrea Horwath’s program, because I think the NDP’s plan to increase taxes and drive spending through the roof is dangerous for our province; it’s a reckless policy. We need to go in the opposite direction.

You’re either a carbon copy of the NDP or you’re vacant of ideas, so let me suggest one to you. Energy is one of the most important costs of doing business. It’s going through the roof on the Liberal plan. Your penchant for forcing wind turbines into communities has divided the province and, really, it’s taking us over the cliff when it comes to economic policy.

So if you’re out of ideas—we’ve cleared things aside—take one of ours. Will you stop the wind turbine movement in the province of Ontario and get energy rates under control?

Interjections.

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

Previously—

Interjection.

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

Previously, I had made a ruling and made a comment on using names instead of titles. I would ask and remind the member to do that, please. It raises the debate instead of lowers it. Please adhere to that, because it is very functional when we do it right.

Premier, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, two things in response to that question: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the promotion of and advancement of a single securities regulator was in our budget. We said we were going to do it. We have done that; we followed through.

The second thing I want to say is that we actually proposed a couple of job-creating bills in the programming motion: the Supporting Small Businesses Act, which would actually relieve some of the pressure on small businesses and give them more capacity to hire people, and the Waste Reduction Act, which will create jobs, and neither of those was agreed to.

I hope that once we get the programming motion through, and those bills that we can agree on, they will support us on those, because I understand they say they want to support and create an environment where jobs can be created, but we’re not seeing that. So I hope they will join with us and support legislation that actually will create that environment.

TEACHERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My second question is to the Premier about regulation 274. On her point that she made last, it’s pretty clear that if something creates jobs or reduces spending, we’ll support it, but we’re not going to support NDP-lite policies that are going to kill jobs and raise taxes in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I listened to your answers closely yesterday on your new policy to have seniority rating for the only reason to hire new teachers. Let me ask you this, Premier: Can you tell us exactly how many instances of rampant nepotism you’ve seen that caused you to move forward with regulation 274? What exactly is the number?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, it’s very important that Ontario’s teachers have a fair and consistent hiring process across all school boards. That’s the fundamental principle upon which we have to base our policies. Last year, what we heard was that this was not the case, and we took action. The regulation now ensures that teaching candidates are chosen by school boards based on a number of criteria beyond just seniority. But what we’ve said—

Interjections.

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

Between the member from Renfrew and the Attorney General, I’m having a hard time hearing the question, so I’m going to ask both of you to tone it down, please.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we’ve said is that we’re open to improvements to the regulation. Honestly, I’m not sure where the conflict is here, because we’ve said that we took action; we put reg. 274 in place as part of a negotiation. We believe that there are problems with it, which is why the Minister of Education is working to get input in order to make the changes and implement those changes.

I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to take yes for an answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier says that this is fair and consistent.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, there’s nothing fair about the teacher of the year being bumped down to 820th on the list because of your unfair hiring policy. She says, “It’s consistent”; if anything is consistent, it’s consistently unfair to sideline the best teachers because you made a backroom deal with the unions.

Clearly, you couldn’t answer my question about how many complaints there are on nepotism. I think that is, quite frankly, a phony excuse. It was part of your cave-in to the teachers’ unions, which—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland, come to order. He’s asking the question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —and brought in a very unfair hiring policy.

You used the word “overcorrection.” I see by the minister’s comments that now you have working groups and you have an expert panel to study regulation 274 to death.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You talk about an overcorrection. Why do you need two or three panels to study this? Why don’t you just do the right thing? Pass Lisa MacLeod’s bill. Let’s move on and put the best teachers in the classroom before our kids—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I said was that we need the hiring practices to be consistent and we need them to be fair. We’ve said that we believe there are some issues with reg. 274 that need to be corrected, so what the Minister of Education is doing is gathering the input that she needs so we can get it right, and we will get it right.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, even though the question that he’s asking is designed to undermine the relationship between government and organized labour—that’s really what is at the heart of the question, but I hope the Leader of the Opposition understands that we are willing to make changes to reg. 274, that we are gathering that input and that we will implement changes, but we are going to get it right.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question is, why didn’t the Premier get this right in the first place? Why did you bring all this in? What do we want to see? We want to see an Ontario where the teacher of the year actually can be in a job and teaching our kids, not put to the bottom of the list because he doesn’t have the right connections with the teachers’ union. It’s just a ludicrous policy, and quite frankly, Premier, your use of the language of “overcorrect” sounds positively Orwellian. I don’t think you actually can demonstrate there was a problem to begin with, but if there was, why don’t you solve that problem?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will come to order. The Minister of Energy will come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Overcorrection: That kind of doublespeak could make Orwell blush. You could just do the right thing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You have to withdraw that.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Really? You’re not a fan of Orwell? Aldous Huxley? All right. I’ll go with Huxley instead of Orwell. I withdraw, Speaker.

So Premier, let me just ask you directly. Instead of overcorrecting, studying panel after panel, with study after study, just do the right thing: Put the teacher of the year to work in a classroom helping other kids. Do the right thing.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that, on this side of the House, we really believe that publicly funded education can continue to improve, which is why we’ve made the investments that have allowed kids’ test scores to go up; we’ve got 82% of kids graduating from high school. The plan on the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now it’s the member from Northumberland’s turn.

I want to make a point very quickly that I’ve kept track of who I’ve asked a couple of times. The next one will be a warning.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the opposition’s plan for education would fire 10,000 people from the system; would cancel full-day kindergarten, which is already demonstrating benefits for our youngest students; and would cut funding across the system. That’s how they would improve education. We’ve seen that before. We know what happens to the education system when the Leader of the Opposition is in charge. We don’t buy into that. We believe in the publicly funded education system. We believe in those relationships, and we believe that it can continue to improve.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Early today, the Liberal government put forward a motion that would ram a bill through the House at the behest of a single company, EllisDon, one of the Liberal Party’s biggest donors.

Can the Premier explain why she’s supporting shutting down debate to ram this bill through the House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the leader of the third party for the question.

What we’re engaged in right now is trying to make the minority government work. The leader of the third party knows that in the spring she and her party voted for a programming motion, because she understands, I think, fundamentally, that in order for the Parliament to work in a minority situation there has to be an agreement to move legislation ahead. So that’s what we’re doing. We’re moving ahead bills like the Local Food Act and the act that would protect kids from getting cancer in the tanning bed situation. We’re moving ahead with consumer protections, including wireless contracts. Those are the kinds of things that need to move ahead.

There are a number of different kinds of bills as part of the programming motion, and it’s true that the Conservatives put up a private member’s bill. We’re going to work to make sure this legislation gets to the point where it can be debated and it can go to committee. That’s how you make minority Parliament work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, yesterday New Democrats asked the Premier who she had met with regarding Bill 74, a bill to help one of the Liberals’ biggest donors. We didn’t get an answer to that question, so can the Premier tell us today who has been lobbying her to support this bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will just say that there is a range of bills as part of this programming motion, Mr. Speaker. I’m on the record saying that this particular piece of legislation is about an anomalous situation that was created in the 1950s, but it needs to go to committee; it needs to be debated. We need to have a full discussion of it, so we need to move it ahead. That’s what the programming motion is about. That’s why the leader of the third party voted for a programming motion in the spring, because she fundamentally knows that that’s how minority Parliament has to work.

We will continue to work to get legislation through to the point where it can be debated, where there can be public hearings, and I look forward to their input.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, media reports indicate that lobbyists with connections in the Liberal and Conservative Parties put this bill together to ensure quick passage for their client. The Conservatives would propose the bill—that’s the way it was supposed to work—and the Liberals would help them pass it. Can the Premier tell us whether this in fact is the case?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very helpful for us to be able to get these pieces of legislation—there’s a full range of them—to the next stage.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll be an equal opportunity Speaker, because there is equal opportunity heckling going on—including the clock.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it would be very helpful to get these pieces of legislation to the next stage and get them to the point of having public hearings, and then I look forward to the input of the NDP and the people who are lobbying them about other pieces of legislation.

The reality is that everyone in this House meets with people from across the business and labour spectrum. We meet with people all the time, every single day, people who bring their interests to us, and we, together, have to sort out what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario. That’s how government should work and that’s how we’re trying to make this minority—

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

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier, and it’s a question about the government’s priorities. People who elected us expect us to work hard and deliver results for them. Today, they’re wondering why the Premier is bending over backwards and using extraordinary measures to ram through a bill to help one, single company out of their obligations to their employees. It looks to them like the Liberals and the Conservatives are working together to help well-connected insiders deliver for a big donor. Does the Premier have any other explanation?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. If you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m trying to bring it down.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m surprised at the use of language like “extraordinary measures,” when the NDP voted for a programming motion in the spring because they understand that in a minority Parliament, in order to move legislation forward, that’s what needs to be done. I am the first politician to say that I want public debate and I want an opportunity for the public to have input into legislation, which is why I want to get these pieces of legislation to the next stage, so that they can have that public input.

I hope the leader of the third party fundamentally understands that that’s how we need to make minority Parliament work, and I’m glad that there is the opportunity to move these pieces of legislation where there is agreement forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Mary Billon is working hard to make ends meet. She’s here in the Legislature today with us. Like a lot of Ontarians, she was told that her auto insurance rates would be coming down. It’s what the Premier promised in order to pass the budget. Mary was awfully surprised to see her insurance rates go up instead of down, from $1,850 to $2,000 a year. At the same time as Mary was working hard to pay her bills, EllisDon made more than $2.5 billion in revenues.

Why is the Premier working with the Conservatives to help put a well-connected, billion-dollar construction firm ahead of people like Mary who make this province work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that government has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. In fact, we are working on bringing auto insurance rates down and we’ve spoken to that many, many times. At the same time, we need to see pieces of legislation go through.

One of the key words that the leader of the third party used there was “construction.” There are thousands of people working in construction in this province right now. I want that to continue and I just bet that some of those workers have made donations to the NDP. I just bet that they have supported the leader of the third party, and I want them to have jobs. I want them to work. I want infrastructure spending so that we can keep them at work and I would think she’d want the same thing.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, people elect their politicians to deliver results for them. I’ve been clear. New Democrats are going to continue to put people first. But this is what they see from Liberals: The government tells drivers they need to wait for relief. The government tells seniors they need to wait for their promised home care improvements. But when it comes to well-connected insiders and donors, the government—the Liberal government, with the help from the Conservatives—works overtime to help them out.

Why is the Premier’s priority working with the Conservatives to help out their well-connected friends rather than getting the results that Ontarians deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Ontarians deserve jobs. Ontarians deserve to have opportunities to support their families, and we are working very hard to make sure that we create the environment where business can thrive so that those jobs can be created. My guess is that some of the people, like the member for London–Fanshawe and the member for London West, would have a perspective on this, and it would be one that they might want to share with the leader.

The other reality is that we all, as members of political parties, meet with people—a range of people—all the time, and having those supporters make donations is part of what we do. My understanding is that there are many companies that have donated to all three parties, including the company in question, who has donated to all three parties.

AGGREGATE RECYCLING

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as you know, the committee reviewing the Aggregate Resources Act is wrapping up and expects to release our report within a few weeks—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order a second time.

Ask your question, please—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will cease.

Carry on.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker.

One issue that came up very early in our review that surprised many of the members is the fact that the word “recycling” is actually not in the ARA. We’ve seen the stockpiles of aggregates, and we understand that if we allow recycled product, we can take some pressure off the need to constantly find new product. It’s good for the environment. It’s good for business. It’s good government policy.

Do you agree that encouraging the use of recycled aggregates is good policy for the government to adopt?

Hon. David Orazietti: I’m pleased to respond to the member’s question. I’m certainly well aware that the member has a private member’s bill advocating for this, and I thank her, in fact, for the work that she’s doing on the committee, as well as the other members who are on the committee who took the time to visit many places in Ontario and hear first-hand from residents, from businesses and other organizations and individuals about the importance of modernizing the Aggregate Resources Act.

Speaker, what I would say, with respect to the committee’s report: I’m pleased to have their final recommendations and their review completed. Our ministry will review these recommendations and look forward to presenting changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Minister. As you said, I am debating, and I hope people will participate in, Bill 56, Aggregate Recycling Promotion Act, this afternoon. It would ensure that publicly funded projects cannot exclude the use of recycled product.

We all understand that MTO is actually doing a very good job. What we need to do is let the MTO’s best practices be transferred to municipalities and other publicly funded institutions.

Can I get your assurance, Minister, that you will support my private member’s bill, but that you will also move quickly to ensure that recycled product can be used for all taxpayer-funded projects?

Hon. David Orazietti: I don’t want to say specifically, with respect to the contents of your bill and the way that it’s worded with respect to everything that’s in it, but what I will say is—and the member quite correctly recognizes the provincial government’s, and other levels of government’s, efforts to use recycled aggregate in the construction of new highways and other roadways. It’s very important that we increase and continue to increase the use of recycled materials to reduce the impact on the environment and to reduce other negative effects on the environment.

So what I will say is that we are committed to doing everything we can to support municipalities, to support the use of recycled material in the construction of various projects throughout the province. I think it’s certainly very important to do that. We look forward to bringing back recommendations that everyone in the House can review.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Earlier this morning, when speaking to the media, you insisted that the EllisDon bill was a Conservative priority and that’s why you were using extraordinary measures to ram this bill through the House.

We all know there are some Conservative members who have raised very serious concerns about this bill. I know that your government House leader has been trying to get this bill passed—as your government House leader. It was the Liberal caucus that showed up en masse in this Legislature to allow this particular bill to pass when it was at second reading.

Does the Premier seriously expect people to believe that the Liberals had nothing to do with this bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I don’t know where to begin in terms of correcting the record of what the honourable member just said. No one is ramming anything through the House.

This morning I stood in this place and introduced a programming motion which deals with eight bills and the formation of a select committee that would look into the developmental services situation here in the province. What the motion does, as all programming motions do, is it sets out a pathway, an agenda moving forward for debate, discussion and voting on all these issues. Nothing is being rammed through. It is a

schedule that’s going forward. As the Premier said, there will be plenty of opportunity for debate, discussion and votes, and in many cases, including the bill referenced by the member, public hearings into the matter.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing different from what we did this morning to what we did last spring with the support of the member who just asked the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Premier, you said that you were going to do things differently. You said that you would not ram bills through this House and, specifically, you would not trample on workers’ rights. But suddenly, you’re doing the complete opposite, and the beneficiaries happen to be one of the Liberals’ biggest donors in Ontario.

So I ask again: Why has the Premier suddenly decided to cut off debate and ram this bill through the House?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it a little strange that this was the member who supported the government when we put forward a programming motion to pass the Financial Accountability Officer Act. At that point, when he spoke to it, I never heard him call it “ramming through the House.”

We have put forward a programming motion that deals with eight bills and the creation of a select committee. In the process of examining those eight bills, there will be plenty of time for discussion, for debate and, in the case of the bill that he’s speaking about, public hearings. There will be votes on the floor of this Legislature. I speak as a House leader and a parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker: Nothing gets rammed through here. There will be a vote. There are more of them than there are of us, so we’re going to have to see where the chips fall on all eight of these bills that come forward. Nothing is being rammed through.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment. We all know how important trade is for helping expand Ontario’s economic reach and the province’s presence on our global stage. I also know, in my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, just how crucial Ontario’s trading relationships are with respect to helping to stimulate our economy. Millions of people across Ontario benefit from the goods that Ontario imports, and businesses across Ontario benefit from the goods they export abroad. Recently, our government announced a new trade strategy at a reverse trade mission held right here in Toronto.

Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister please provide an update on the recent trade announcement and what this will mean for Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Vaughan for this question. I’m more than happy to inform the House today about the announcement I had the opportunity of making early this week, alongside the Premier, on Monday at the province’s first-ever global export forum, attended by more than 600 businesses from across Ontario.

Our trade strategy is going to enhance Ontario’s export potential through a four-pillar approach. First, we will diversify our markets, especially to emerging economies. That’s where the growth is taking place and that is where we need to be. Second, we will encourage more and more of our companies and we will support them to export, especially our small and medium-sized businesses. Third, we will build Ontario’s brand abroad. Lastly, we will streamline our resources to make it even easier for our businesses to trade. This strategy will help ensure that, through trade, we can grow our economy and create jobs in communities right across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for that update. While it is great to hear how our government is strengthening our global presence through the trade strategy, there are many businesses in my riding of Vaughan that are an example of the strong network of relationships which exist with respect to international trading. Therefore, I know that many businesses located in my riding will wonder what this trade strategy might mean for them and how they may benefit from what our government is doing.

Speaker, could the minister please speak specifically to how our trading strategy will help businesses in my riding of Vaughan and the businesses across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again to the member from Vaughan and for the opportunity to speak to the specific benefits for businesses across the province.

Diversifying the markets where we export makes good business sense. It will allow companies to gain further market access to new economies, helping their businesses grow. By expanding our reach through trading centres like the upcoming opening of our international marketing centre in Brazil that’s coming in January, our government helps to facilitate the trading potential of companies from Ontario.

We’ll continue to help companies like North American Stamping Group, located in Woodstock; Armo Tool, in Middlesex county; companies like Conestoga Meat Packers in Breslau, a successful co-operative exporting already to 30 countries around the world; and Elmira Pet Products—four companies in southwestern Ontario that have benefited from funding from the government from the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: My question is to the Premier. In June 2012, federal Bill C-311 became law. This piece of legislation removed the federal criminal offence for consumers ordering and/or transporting wine across provincial borders. British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia since have removed restrictive provincial barriers.

BC’s Liberal Premier, Christy Clark, has even asked you personally to remove legislative barriers to interprovincial wine trade in Ontario. Ontario has fallen behind other wine-producing provinces due to the lack of action by your government. Presently, your government is restricting adult Ontarians’ freedom of choice while hindering our tourism and the small family-owned businesses that make up the vast majority of our wine and grape-growing industry.

Premier, do you think it’s right that Ontario consumers do not have the same market access to wine as other wine-producing provinces?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Finance is going to want to comment on some of the specifics, but what I want the member opposite to know is that when Premier Clark and I had our conversation at the Council of the Federation, we talked about wanting to see the wine industry in Ontario and BC and across the country grow. We want to see it expand; we absolutely do.

We are working on a new wine strategy, and I am very eager to put forward some ideas that I think would expand our industry. As part of that, having an ongoing conversation and continuing to work with the government of BC is very much on our radar.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Ontario is the largest wine-producing province in the country. The grape-growing and wine-producing industries are of immense importance to this province. The two industries combined provide Ontarians with over 14,000 full-time jobs and provide the province with an annual tax revenue of $444 million. In addition to this, every bottle of Ontario wine sold generates spinoff benefits worth $40 which spread over sectors including tourism and agriculture, creating jobs and pushing our economy forward.

In British Columbia, wine sales increased after they changed their law to allow for interprovincial wine shipments. Will you support Bill 98 this afternoon and allow for Ontario wineries to benefit from interprovincial trade?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I think the member opposite, in some respects, responded to his own question by citing the fact that in Ontario, as a result of some of the parameters we’ve put in place and the expansion strategies that the LCBO has made to increase access and distribution—and promoting local VQA wines here in Ontario—we’ve been able to develop an industry. That’s why we just recently opened special Our Wine Country boutiques in LCBO outlets, featuring over 500 quality wines right here from Ontario.

We’re opening these stores right across the province. We’re going to continue supporting the wine industry, because you’re right: This is a valuable industry for Ontario. To provide access right across Canada, we are more than willing to buy those wines and distribute and share with the rest of Canada—and the rest of the world, for that matter.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, an insurance expert showed that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Sorry; this question is to the Premier. An insurance expert showed that auto insurance profits have been five times more than this government has claimed, and now the Premier is ramming through a Conservative motion designed to help one large corporation—particularly, a construction corporation. Ontario’s large insurance and construction companies have been for decades some of the largest donors to this Liberal Party.

Why is this government continuing to support the rich and powerful over the ordinary Ontarians who are struggling to make ends meet?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Again, the member is talking about promoting and insuring and protecting consumers. That’s why we’ve taken action for many years now to find ways to reduce the costs of claims, to fight for our consumers and protect drivers right across the province. At the same time, of course, we’re dealing with a multitude of issues to promote economic growth, to promote construction and to promote jobs in this province, and that doesn’t come at the exclusion of any other opportunity.

I’ll say this to the member. Here is a quote from the CAA: “CAA Insurance Co. (Ontario) has applied for a rate reduction with Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) to help keep its auto insurance costs down for good drivers.... ‘We applaud the provincial government on this initiative and look forward to working collaboratively with them to help bring some relief to the pocketbooks of Ontario’s motorists. We share the same vision of the government to help keep insurance costs manageable for everyone.’” And it’s working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: To Ontarians, this is what the priorities look like: It seems like this government is ready to do whatever it takes to benefit large corporations—large corporate donors—but they continue to ignore the benefits or the concerns of Ontarians struggling to make ends meet, Ontarians like Mary and Mike Billon, whose insurance policy went up by 6%, from $1,852 to $1,995, this summer, at a time when these folks had no insurance claims, no accidents and did not change their car.

The Liberals promised to reduce auto insurance over the summer, but instead the Billons saw their insurance rates go up. At a time when millions of Ontarians are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their end-of-the-month bills, why is it this government’s priority to continue to shovel more favours towards its largest donors?

Hon. Charles Sousa: One of the things that we are doing, as opposed to just talking and creating uncertainty and misinformation—the fact of the matter is that rates are going down. Here it is: The Co-operators General Insurance Co. has said “rates for private passenger automobile clients in Ontario, effective October 15,” are going down. “The Co-Operators was in a position to pass on savings to its clients due to the positive impact of the auto insurance reforms in Ontario.”

That’s not talk. That is action, action which your party acknowledges by way of a memo. I quote the NDP: “We cannot truthfully say they’ve broken a promise,” because we’re delivering results for all Ontarians.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. In this knowledge-based economy, investing in programs and projects that support research and innovation is critical. Research and innovation translate into jobs and economic growth, and provide the answers to our questions.

The path from research to commercialization is a journey with many steps along the way. As a government, it is important that we invest in all stages of research, from basic research to the commercialization and marketing of products and services.

Ontario has an impressive record when it comes to research. It is the birthplace of many important discoveries that have had huge impacts—not only in Ontario, but around the world—such as the discovery of insulin by Banting and Best.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Research and Innovation, what is our government doing to support research so that important and innovative breakthroughs are possible?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I thank the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for that question. Our government recognizes the importance of research and innovation for the economy of our province. Our investments include a $126-million commitment to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo that supports cutting-edge research in foundational theoretical physics. Through the Ontario Research Fund, we have invested $1.3 billion to build research facilities in this province.

Our Early Researcher Awards program has enabled researchers to build their research teams and also train over 1,200 highly qualified researchers for this province. I am proud that our government investments have made our province a research powerhouse, not only in Canada but in the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m so glad to hear that our government is taking steps to support innovation that will drive Ontario’s future economy and create jobs. In this global economy, it is critical that we promote collaboration and build on our research strengths. Investments in research will help Ontario remain competitive. Our government does recognize that bringing leaders across sectors together is one of the best ways to drive innovation. Through collaboration, best practices can be shared, ideas can be exchanged and important resources pooled together.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Research and Innovation, what is our government doing to promote collaboration across sectors so that our research can be translated into commercial products and services that help create jobs and economic growth?

Hon. Reza Moridi: Again, I thank the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for that question. Our government recognizes the importance of investing in the research to commercialization life cycle. By bringing together our world-class researchers, leading research institutions and also a strong private sector, we are helping to turn great ideas into products and services that the world market needs and wants.

Since 2003, our government has invested approximately $493 million to support Ontario Centres of Excellence, which are helping connect industry to researchers in our academic institutions. Also, in June 2013, we announced the Collaboration Voucher program which will help businesses of all sizes to develop and refine their products and services.

Our government is ensuring that Ontario remains the powerhouse of research in Canada and in the world.

NATURAL GAS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Premier. Premier, this afternoon there will be a vote on Bill 97, the Natural Gas Superhighway Act, 2013. Bill 97 promotes the use of cleaner and more affordable liquefied natural gas as a transportation fuel for heavy-duty freight vehicles in Ontario. South of the border, private investment has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building fuel stations and developing the next generation truck engine technology that will take advantage of this clean fuel. B.C., Alberta and Quebec have already taken legislative action to support their truck industry and the economic benefits that come from it.

Premier, Ontario is late to the game. Will your government support the Natural Gas Superhighway Act and help put Ontario back in the fast lane?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question and certainly for the initiative. There has been a lot of action with respect to gas and oil transportation and additional usage in the economy. We are listening to the stakeholders. We are going to look at your private member’s bill very carefully. It’s a private member’s bill, so obviously each member will be able to make their own choice on that. But there is a resurgence of the interest in natural gas for transportation. We’re following it very carefully, and we’ll continue to listen to the industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the Premier, but through to the minister if that’s the way she likes it. Minister, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles make up just 3% of the vehicles on Ontario highways today, yet they contribute over 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from on-road sources. Bill 97, the Natural Gas Superhighway Act, by promoting the use of liquefied natural gas, a cleaner, next-generation transportation fuel, will help this sector of the transportation industry by cutting those emissions by over 30%.

Minister, your government talks a lot about doing what is right for the environment, but the Natural Gas Superhighway Act is where the rubber meets the road. Will you commit today to paving the way forward to the Natural Gas Superhighway Act and cleaner air for Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The principle of the private member’s bill makes a lot of sense. However, we’re talking about significant infrastructure investments. We’re looking at the possibility of public-private partnerships. We have a lot of industry stakeholders who have spoken with the Minister of Infrastructure and with people in the Ministry of Energy. The additional use of more liquefied natural gas is an agenda item that needs to be dealt with seriously, and we are taking it seriously.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre is bursting at the seams. The hospital has been forced into Code Gridlock more than 15 times since January. Nine months after the problem was supposedly fixed with a plan from the local LHIN, the situation only continues to get worse. While this government puts all of its energy into passing legislation that will benefit one Ontario construction company, more and more patients in Thunder Bay are getting care on gurneys in alcoves and waiting areas because every bed in their hospital is full. Is this the government’s idea of transforming health care in the north?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the Premier said earlier, it is possible to do more than one thing at the same time, and that’s what our government is doing. The member opposite knows that we’re really working hard to improve care across the province, including Thunder Bay. In Thunder Bay, since 2003, we’ve built 668 new long-term-care beds. We’ve redeveloped 134 beds. Through the Centre of Excellence for Integrated Seniors’ Services, we are in the process now of constructing a 544-bed long-term-care home in Thunder Bay. We’re investing more in community care so that people can get the care they need in the most appropriate place— home, whenever possible.

I know that this is an issue that the North West LHIN and the people of Thunder Bay are working hard to resolve. We’re not there yet, but we’re on the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that hospital overcrowding is nothing new under this Liberal government. In Thunder Bay and across the province, hospitals are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Patients who should be in long-term-care facilities or getting care at home are stuck waiting in a hospital, while the patients who need to be in hospital beds are stuck waiting on gurneys in the hallways.

Will the Premier please tell us why her government is more focused on passing a bill to benefit one of their biggest donors than it is in meeting the health care needs of the people of Thunder Bay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the lea

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2013-09-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p40 s2 2013-09-26 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	56b588f2dfee3ea3f5091c8dd8bb1f5f50b3c8a8

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).