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

February 27, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Feb-27 (PDF)

L006 - Wed 27 Feb 2013 / Mer 27 fév 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 February 2013 Mercredi 27 février 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

TEACHERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR

ACTIVITIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

POWER PLANTS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

POWER PLANTS

TAXATION

ENDANGERED SPECIES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NATIONAL BLIND CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

MARION BRYDEN

MARLENE STEWART STREIT

BEN SMITH

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

HEART MONTH

HYDRO OPERATIONS

JAYESH’S LAW

MARY VERVOORT

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

REQUEST TO THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT OF

WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

DE L’ONTARIO (HAUTEUR DES BÂTIMENTS À OSSATURE DE BOIS)

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

GASOLINE PRICES

GREENWATER PARK

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

WIND TURBINES

PROVINCIAL PARKS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

PENSION PLANS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES GRANDS LACS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 26, 2013, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Good morning. Thank you, Speaker.

It is a privilege to rise today and speak about the throne speech. Perhaps, if I may, Speaker, I’ll start off with some of the highlights from the speech and then talk more specifically about that, and then I’d like to also discuss what the throne speech means in terms of my new portfolio as Minister of Consumer Services, and then hopefully tie all that back together.

In terms of the throne speech itself, we know that one of the key features of it is to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. That was in the budget last year. As you know, Speaker, we are ahead of

schedule to do that; our projections are looking very good. But that really is a cornerstone of the speech, because at end of the day we need to be able to make sure we protect the programs and services that Ontarians have come to expect and enjoy, and make sure that our citizens are supported and that they are receiving the services they need from our government. That is a very critical piece of the throne speech.

It’s very much an even-handed approach: balancing the budget, allowing all parties to work together, finding savings where we can, but not just finding savings for the sake of finding savings—not at the risk of not helping the most vulnerable people, not at the risk of not providing the services that Ontarians expect their government to provide.

We also talked in the throne speech about increased accountability in the Legislature. We’ve seen some of that with respect to what the Minister of Health has put forward with Ornge, for example. The accountability framework there is, in my view, a model for other areas of government. I think that is an important feature of our throne speech, because at the end of the day we’re all accountable to the public, not just individual ministers and their portfolios, but all MPPs of the Legislature. So I don’t think there would be any disagreement that accountability is absolutely key.

Something I’m really excited about that was in the throne speech is a focus on employment opportunities for Ontario’s youth—in partnership with education, labour and private sector partners—because at the end of the day youth are our future. I think we can all agree on that. We do have some challenges with respect to youth unemployment, so focusing on a youth employment strategy—a real one that addresses the unemployment rates of young people in Ontario and helps create opportunities and paths for youth of our future. That ties in, of course, to what we provide from an education point of view for young people—whether it’s at high school or post-secondary.

I know my kids in grade 10 are picking out their courses for grade 11 right now, and in a good way, I think, there are expectations that the kids start thinking about what it is they want to do and creating that path, whether it’s employment after high school, college, university, the trades, and starting to think about what that looks like. Having said that, we all know that we don’t always end up doing what we think we’re going to do after we come out of the school system, but I think it is very helpful, the emphasis on career assessments and the emphasis on career planning.

Another feature of the throne speech is ensuring municipalities and families have input on local energy infrastructure in their communities, so that we ensure that we have willing hosts when it comes to energy infrastructure. Because at the end of the day municipalities are, as we know, independently elected democratic bodies, and it is not the role of the province to interfere with those decisions. We are very happy that we’re going to ensure that municipalities do have input on local energy infrastructure.

I know that’s really important in the Durham side of my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East, because it’s very much an energy hub. We have the nuclear facilities; there’s an emerging nuclear belt, if you will, for the GTA. Getting that right balance between nuclear and renewables is very important, and working closely with municipalities is what we’re going to do going forward.

Next—and this isn’t in any particular order—is ensuring a respectful partnership with labour leaders by building a sustainable process for wage negotiation through collective bargaining and interest arbitration. Already, just a mere matter of days after the throne speech, we’re seeing good progress there in a discussion with our education partners. We had fantastic news last Friday about extracurriculars at the high school level. This is incredibly promising. It’s very important, not just to our government—in fact, more importantly, to the students of our education system.

I think we set a new tone and a new pace with our bargaining partners, and I’m very, very hopeful that that positive approach will continue and that all parties involved in the process will be respected and that in turn will help us to continue to build the best education and health care system in the world.

Health care—I think it goes without saying that if you don’t have your health, you don’t have wealth, as they say. Our investments in health care are absolutely record-setting. They are well regarded, not just in Canada but around the world. It’s very important that we continue to make the progress that we’ve made, whether it’s reducing wait times, whether it is continuing to move with the health care agenda set out by the Minister of Health, which is focused, as you know, on providing the right health care at the right time in the right place.

We have an aging population, and it is important that we understand the dynamics of that aging population. Within that aging population there is not a homogeneous group. We have young seniors; we have older seniors; we have seniors who may want to stay at home. So this whole concept of delivering health care in the community closer to home when it’s needed is very important to seniors. For those seniors who cannot stay at home, we will, of course, continue to invest in long-term health care.

At the end of the day—we’re doing a switch-up here with the Speakers—none of this can be achieved without working collaboratively with all the parties in the Legislature. We really are demonstrating that. The Premier has reached out to the opposition parties very early in the process, and there are good ideas. There are good ideas on all sides of the Legislature, and I’m hopeful that that positive tone that the Premier has set will continue and that we will work together, identifying good ideas from all parties, because at the end of the day it’s in the best interests of our constituents that we do that.

Just to share a quote with you from the throne speech, and what Premier Wynne talked about, she said, “Our government is committed to co-operating with opposition parties to move ... forward. We will focus on balancing the budget and ensuring opportunities for every Ontarian without letting anyone slip through the cracks. When we work together, Ontario is a place of endless possibilities.” That was a quote from our new Premier.

I’ll turn, if I may, to what the throne speech said about my ministry, the Ministry of Consumer Services—if I could give some highlights there and share that with the Legislature today.

You may recall, Speaker, in the throne speech, the Premier talked about strengthening the rights of Ontario consumers when it comes to door-to-door sales, debt settlement services, real estate transactions and mobile smart phone contracts.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s all important stuff.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s very important stuff, as my colleague is mentioning.

When I think about the Ministry of Consumer Services, it is two parts. One is protecting consumer confidence and building public safety, but it’s also respecting businesses and carrying a bit of a flag for businesses, reducing regulatory burden. When we have that right balance and we increase consumer confidence, that directly ties to jobs and the economy in this province. So it’s a pretty small but mighty ministry.

It’s a regulatory ministry; it has a very small number of employees. That has shifted dramatically over the last 10 years, from over 1,000 employees to about 150. But when you look at the agencies, the delegated administrative authorities associated with the ministry, they have about 1,200 employees. When you look at all the registrants and licensees of those agencies, I believe that number is about a quarter of a million.

The impact is broad, and as I said, it’s all focused on consumer protection, public safety and ensuring that businesses adhere to the law but also are not burdened by regulation. I think it’s a pretty exciting ministry. Many of the initiatives that have come out of consumer services are relatively low-cost and have a huge and positive impact on Ontarians.

Getting back to the throne speech, I think when we talk about what’s in there, those initiatives also are not necessarily huge investments by the province but really promote the principle of consumer confidence and—

Interjections.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes—investments that make a big difference, as my colleagues are saying.

In the throne speech, what the Premier talked about is, because our marketplace must be fair and the prices we pay for certain services must be transparent, those specific initiatives—door-to-door sales, debt settlement, real estate transactions and mobile smart phone contracts—are going to be addressed.

There are some other things we’re looking at in the ministry that weren’t specifically mentioned in the throne speech, but let me just touch on the specific ones. I should also say that these, as well as other initiatives of the Ministry of Consumer Services—we’ll take very strong action to protect Ontario consumers, and that is part of our commitment to ensuring a fair, safe and informed marketplace.

Looking at door-to-door sales, I think when we talk about door-to-door sales, people think of water heaters in particular. I think we all have heard about—or maybe even experienced it ourselves—the aggressive door-to-door sales practices of some door-to-door sales for water heaters, and it’s a widespread and growing concern for many Ontario homeowners. In fact, I believe it’s the number one complaint that gets called into or emailed into the Ministry of Consumer Services. That’s why it’s on the top of my to-do list; it’s to look at that.

Just to put it in a bit of context, the number of inquiries/concerns/complaints the ministry has received on this topic has increased more than tenfold from 2008 to 2012. So it’s a big concern, and it’s at the top of our list in terms of making sure our marketplace is fair. We’re going to consider strengthening consumer protection measures in this area, and I look forward to making announcements soon on this.

Debt settlement services is another topic we’ve heard about a lot here in the Legislature and in our ridings. We intend to regulate debt settlement companies to protect vulnerable consumers from exaggerated claims and any abusive practices in the marketplace. We want to ensure that all businesses in this sector obey the law.

After consultation with stakeholders, which is already under way, we will move forward to look at banning debt settlement companies from charging upfront fees, limiting the amount of fees consumers are charged and, of course, requiring a clear and transparent contract for these services, as well as a cooling-off period. That’s high up on our list in terms of consumer protection.

I know that real estate transactions have also been in the news. I’ve had some inquiries from the media as well, since becoming Minister of Consumer Services. We’re looking at ways we can do two things. One is to reduce the cost for consumers and provide them with more choices when they want to buy or sell a home. But we also want to look at ways we can reduce the regulatory burden for the real estate industry.

This is a prime example, Speaker, where we need to balance the interests of consumers in Ontario but not put businesses out of business, not overly burden industries such as the real estate one with regulations. We want to make sure that they’re necessary, that they’re appropriate, that they’re clear and that they’re understood.

Another one I mentioned is mobile and smart phone contracts. I think we’ll remember Bill 82, the Wireless Services Agreements Act that was introduced by a colleague of mine in the Legislature last session. We are looking at that very aggressively right now. Also, Speaker, the CRTC has come along too, and they’re proceeding with consultation. So we need to determine how we can align ourselves with what the CRTC is doing: Is their code that comes out of that process going to be strong enough, or is our bill going to be strong enough? The good thing is that I think our bill has continued to strengthen.

So we’ll be determining fairly quickly what future action might be needed to protect consumers on this whole file of mobile and smart phone contracts.

For me too, Speaker—as I mentioned before, I have two teenagers, twins, and they have cellphones, and I have to confess that I’m not entirely clear what we signed up for when we got them their cellphones. I think many Ontarians feel that way too, and when you go to make a change in your contract or your phone or whatever, then you realize what the fine print actually said. The bottom line is that we need to make sure these kinds of contracts are fair and transparent. At the same time, there’s no intent to overly burden the industry or put the industry out of business; that’s not the intent here at all.

So I’m looking forward to moving this file forward in my new role as Minister of Consumer Services.

Just to mention, too, some related initiatives—they weren’t specifically mentioned in the throne speech, but they do fall under our commitment to a fair and transparent marketplace. The review of the Condominium Act: As many people here know, we’re continuing with a very collaborative and public engagement process. My colleague MPP Albanese from York South–Weston actually held a second-round consultation in her riding just this week. I went to that, and it was just fantastic. She had people from all perspectives.

She had owners, she had property managers, she had condo board members and it was a really good session. I know that another colleague of mine is having another session tomorrow night.

The reason this review of the act is happening is because the condominium market has changed dramatically since it came into force 11 years ago. As I mentioned in the House the other day, condos now account for half of all new houses built in the province, and over one million Ontarians call a condominium home. So it’s very important that we look at that, going forward.

We’re also going to look at what parts of the consultation findings we can act on sooner rather than later. We want to make sure it’s a thorough consultation. We have an expert panel, we have a residents’ panel and there will be a further public review before this comes back to government. We’ll look at what part of it we can move forward on based on the feedback from all stakeholders.

Home inspection is another popular issue out there, because at the end of the day, in the current state, anyone can call themselves a home inspector. We’re working with home inspector associations, consumers, representatives—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s Bartolucci’s next career.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Pardon? Whose next career?

Interjection: Rick—

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Okay, it might be someone’s next career here in the Legislature, so maybe we’ll get him involved in the stakeholder consultations.

Like other consumer protection initiatives, Speaker, our intent is to increase transparency of this profession and ensure, perhaps, a minimum standard of training and consistency in home inspections, and at the end of the day, enhancing consumer protection.

Last but not least, we’re going to continue to focus on a fair marketplace and transparent prices. Consumer laws prohibit false, misleading or deceptive representation—such as ads, contracts or sales pitches. In sectors like motor vehicles and travel and credit, the law actually goes further. It regulates how advertising discloses all costs to ensure prices are transparent. We call that all-in pricing, Speaker. We will review these measures to see if they’re providing the right level of pricing transparency and fairness in the marketplace.

In conclusion, Speaker, I look forward to supporting these measures in the throne speech as the Minister of Consumer Services. I look forward to hearing more feedback from all of my colleagues across the Legislature and the public as we go forward. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Huron–Bruce.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to acknowledge the comments that we heard earlier with regard to the throne speech. The Minister of Consumer Services actually quoted the Premier as saying that Ontario is a place of opportunities. This is where there’s a divide in the road, Mr. Speaker, because unfortunately, with regard to the riding that I represent, Huron–Bruce in rural Ontario, people really can’t agree to that any longer.

When you examine the throne speech further, my goodness, when it comes to the second-largest sector in this province, there was not a lot of mention in the throne speech in terms of how we can prop up rural Ontario, give them their voices back and, for goodness’ sake, drive our sector forward in terms of the agri-food sector. Agriculture was mentioned once; rural was mentioned three times. Food was only mentioned once, which is rather ironic because we know it was forgotten about last week until it was drawn to their attention. But let that alone.

A place of opportunity means that Ontario needs to be a forum whereby voices can be heard. And really and truly, this Liberal government continues to strip away authority from municipalities. This Liberal government continues to turn a deaf ear to the issues that really matter. If Ontario was a place of opportunities, they would let municipalities have a voice and give them an opportunity to represent their constituents in their municipalities and define whether indeed they want to be a willing host community for development, such as industrial wind turbines.

If Ontario was a place of opportunity, they would listen to experts that are coming forward, citing the fact that this Liberal government in no way can identify or prove that there are no associations to negative health impacts by industrial wind turbines.

This throne speech does not go far enough and we cannot support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Consumer Services for her appointment to cabinet. Congratulations on that. I know that you will do your best in that portfolio.

I was listening to your speech from the throne, and there were a lot of buzzwords in there: “working together,” “making sure we’re not letting people fall through the cracks.” The NDP is prepared to support the throne speech. But we really—

Interjections.

Miss Monique Taylor: But—but, but, but. Listen for the “buts.” But there needs to be action. There need to be results when it comes to the budget. The budget is not going to be the same story as the throne speech with buzzwords and love-ins and—

Interjection: Kumbaya.

Miss Monique Taylor: Kumbaya. “Kumbaya” is a good word that I’ve used often.

This is something that we’re serious about, and the Liberal government has to understand that the budget needs to prove results.

I was listening when you were speaking about the condos. I know that our member from Trinity–Spadina has put a lot of work into condos. I hope that you’re planning on working with our members, working together, to create good results on behalf of the people of this province.

You know, there are priorities that we’re looking for in the budget: home care, putting young people to work. These are things that were very vaguely touched on throughout the throne speech, and we’re continuing to look for that dialogue to see specifics on how you’re going to be pushing those priorities for us on our behalf and making sure that you truly are working with this side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. Let me first of all congratulate the Minister of Consumer Services for the initiatives that she is bringing forth with respect to consumer protection initiatives. Whether it relates to cellphones, hot water heaters, gym memberships—these are all good initiatives from which the people of Ontario will benefit as a whole.

Let me just address a couple of issues. You know, the thing that I was really taken with as far as the throne speech was concerned was the mention of a fair society. That’s really what government should be all about: creating opportunities for everyone. Now, you know, by—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Huron–Bruce.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I find it very interesting that the Tory members would laugh about trying to create a fair society; a fair society in which everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. That surely is what government—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay, folks, we’re a little feisty this morning. The Attorney General knows what buttons to push, and you’re biting. I would suggest we cut it back a bit, please, because I cannot hear him. Thank you.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. I cannot imagine why anybody would laugh at trying to create a fair society. That’s what we should be all about in government, whether it’s at this level, the federal level or the local level of government: to create as much opportunity as possible for our young people and to make sure that the most vulnerable in our society are looked after in the best way possible. That’s why I look forward to the implementation of the Manure-Rankin—Lankin report.

Interjection: Manure?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Munir-Lankin report. Speaker, it’s very early in the morning.

We need to make sure that the people, particularly at the bottom end of the economic scale, are given the best opportunities to succeed in life so that they can enjoy the same kind of lifestyle that many of us in this province have been able to reach.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: You haven’t seen the light, John; that’s your trouble.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you to the member from Oxford. The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to address the speech from the throne. As my esteemed colleague across the way from Kingston mentioned, there is a whole boatload of manure here.

I listened with intent to the Minister of Consumer Services talk—and rightfully so—about local input from municipalities and how this new Liberal government is going to actually listen to elected officials in a democracy, which is what we have. Mr. Speaker, this is lip service; we’ve seen this before. This is the same old song that we saw under Mr. McGuinty: how they respect and they want to listen and create some dialogue and reach out to the municipalities. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this government has ignored—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay, folks, it’s getting a little out of hand, yelling across the floor. I can’t hear the member speaking. The next person that has a little outburst might be taking a walk.

Continue.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I will be talking about this a little later on, but I’m a little disheartened by what I’m hearing from across the floor. They talk about wanting to work together and co-operating together and moving forward. Again, this is the same old song that we hear repeatedly, over and over again. As a former educator—this is how we learn: through repetition. But the people of Ontario obviously haven’t learned their lessons by listening to this government over and over again. We need a change, and we’re putting forward some bold ideas that are going to bring positive change to the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to acknowledge the participation of the members opposite from Hamilton Mountain, Northumberland–Quinte West and of course the Attorney General as well, for their comments on the throne speech this morning.

There was some suggestion that the throne speech had high-level words, commitments that were not necessarily very specific or even believable. I just want to assure the other parties that that is not the case. There is a genuine commitment here to work with all parties. I know for me, as the Minister of Consumer Services, the first thing I did was I called all four of my critics—four critics—and I was very pleased to have a discussion—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: You’ve got four critics?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Yes, I have four critics. I have a red tape critic, a consumer services critic on the PC side; and also two members from the NDP, one for consumer services—and someone mentioned the member from Trinity–Spadina on condos, my fourth critic. I was very happy to talk to him about what he has done so far, related to condo review. I have arranged a technical briefing for all four critics, and I am very happy with our start in working together on this file. So I’m confident, I’m hopeful, that we can work together.

This is a minority government. The people of Ontario expect us to work together. The Ontario population has sent us here to work together, and I’m confident we can work collaboratively. We won’t always agree, of course, but at the end of the day I think everyone will put forward what we believe is best for Ontarians. We have to do it within the fiscal framework I discussed earlier, and we’ll provide the programs and services Ontarians will continue to enjoy. Thank you.

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

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: When I listened to the minister—and I’d like to congratulate her on her new post, by the way, Mr. Speaker. It’s always nice to see a fresh face in the ministry. But again, it’s a lot of the same old same old.

When the new Premier was selected by the Liberal Party—she wasn’t elected by the people of Ontario, I would like to say—there was some hope. We were actually hoping that this new Premier would be sincere in working with us. But so far, we’re only one week and a couple of days into the new session, and we’re getting a lot of the same old same old: “We’re reaching out to the opposition; we want to work with the opposition.” But the fact of the matter is that is not the case.

Again, they say, “We want to step back and we want to consult with local municipalities and give local municipalities a stronger voice,” but that is not happening. If the new Premier was sincere in what she’s saying about working together and getting municipalities the rightful dignity that they have as elected officials in a democracy, she would put a moratorium on wind turbines today, Mr. Speaker—today.

We also heard from the Minister of Consumer Services, talking about the Green Energy Act and how that is a key to moving forward together for the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, this is the Auditor General, not myself, saying this. When this Liberal government came to power almost a decade ago, 25% of our electricity was produced by hydro, water power, in the province of Ontario. Today, after these intrusive industrial-sized wind turbines have been thrust upon us—unwillingly—only 22% of green energy in hydro is produced in the province, and 3% is made up of wind and solar, so 25% is renewable green energy.

We’re at the same stage we were at a decade ago. We’re spilling water over the falls at Niagara Falls and we’re venting steam at nuclear power facilities because these industrial wind turbines are not producing energy when it’s required. I just want to say that that was definitely a flawed policy, and if this new Premier wanted to actually listen, she would bring in a moratorium today.

We also heard the Minister of Consumer Services talk about extracurriculars. Well, Mr. Speaker, the backroom deals made by the new Premier with the federations and the union bosses haven’t been disclosed. We don’t know what deals have been made; we’re not sure as to what the secret deals entail. What’s going to happen when those details do come out? There’s a two-year wage freeze, but when you have the president of OSSTF, Mr. Ken Coran, come out and say, “We’re very pleased with the progress we’re making,” it makes one wonder.

It makes one really sit there and wonder what kind of deal has been struck, whether or not this Liberal government—should they actually be in power a couple of years from now—will give the teachers an 8%, 10%, 12%, or15% pay increase.

Mr. Speaker, transparency is what the people of this province asked for. This is what they want. They want us to work together. I agree, but we’re not getting any of that. We’re getting lip service from this government. It’s the same old song, and people are really getting tired of it.

We heard about this government focusing on education and how it’s a priority. Well, I am here today as a former high school teacher because these policies that the Liberals have brought in over the last decade have made a mockery of the education system in the province of Ontario.

They also said they’re not going to make any cuts to education or health care. It was enlightening to us yesterday to hear that the Toronto District School Board will be actually firing hundreds of teachers and support staff because they have to make up for the $55-million shortfall in their budget. The Liberals are firing teachers and support staff, and these are the individuals who do a great job day to day. I know, Mr. Speaker; I was on the front lines. These are people who actually care about the state of education in the province of Ontario. They don’t have a political agenda.

They get up in the morning, and they go and do their job to make sure that the young people of this province are going to have opportunities in the 21st century. We’re not seeing that.

We also hear this government repeatedly say it’s either horses or health care. Right? So here’s the double down, if you will, when it comes to the gambling on that scenario: We have the horse industry with 60,000 people whose livelihoods at stake, who are going to lose their jobs, because this government has ignored, again, the voices of people in Ontario. These are individuals who aren’t asking for handouts. These are hard-working Ontarians who pay their taxes. They contribute to the coffers of this province that support health care.

Over a billion dollars last year was made by the horse racing industry that went into health care, went into education. I know the member from Niagara Falls would agree that this is important.

However, we’re seeing cuts. Quinte Health Care is facing a crisis when it comes to the care that is given at the hospitals in Trenton—Trenton Memorial—Belleville and Picton. Some $10 million has been slashed from their budget this year, yet we don’t hear about this.

The Liberals are saying, “We care about health care. It’s either horses or health care.” Well, they’ve doubled down. They’ve killed the horse racing industry in this province, and they’re killing the health care system that we can deliver.

They talk a good game. They’re all about, “Oh, we’re doing marvellous things in health care and education.” I’ve given you examples where they’re failing on education. They’re failing on providing world-class health care, and they’re failing the people of the province of Ontario.

We talk about the budget in the throne speech. The Minister of Consumer Services mentioned that they are serious about addressing overspending and taking austerity measures to make sure that the province gets back on track. Again, this is the same old song going round and round.

The first thing that the new Premier did when she was voted in by the Liberal Party to be the new Premier was to increase the size of cabinet by 22%. Now, what does that mean? People at home, watching on their televisions, are thinking, “Well, what does that mean?” It’s not significant; it’s not tangible. But here’s what it means: It means an increase of $3 million annually in salaries that go to friends who supported the new Premier—$3 million. It doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but I’m sure $3 million could be spent better elsewhere.

I’m throwing it out here: perhaps health care, or putting more EAs in the classrooms to ensure that children with special needs get the proper education that they’re going to require.

We heard the minister talk about red tape, and how the Liberal Party is going to cut red tape to ensure that small businesses in the province of Ontario are going to be successful. The only red tape I’ve ever seen this party cut is at photo ops. If the minister and the Premier are serious about getting down to work and creating new jobs when it comes to small business, and reducing red tape, I would encourage the government to actually listen to the people.

When I’m in my riding—and I’ve had a lot of time in my riding in the last several months, since this government’s prorogued government. I went around to the small businesses. I put out a small business survey, to get some feedback. What are the challenges that they’re facing? You know what the number one thing was? The number one thing was red tape. The amount of time that the businesses spend in filling out forms and complying with regulations that this government has brought in takes away from their profit.

We definitely heard that, through the agricultural survey that my esteemed colleague from Oxford brought out. Mr. Speaker, four months is what the average farmer spends filling out forms—that would be four weeks. Sorry. Four weeks filling out forms—so one month out of a 12-month year; right?

Interjection.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Yes. Four months every four years; right? One month out of the calendar year is what farmers have to fill out annually. That takes away from their productivity.

What I’m also hearing from the survey that the member from Oxford put out is that this takes away time from their families, time from their businesses, but also, more importantly, sometimes the forms are so complex that they actually have to hire other individuals to fill out the forms. It’s unacceptable.

Red tape should be a priority, and Tim Hudak and the PC Party have made it very clear this would be a priority for our party, should we come to power. Mr. Speaker, we do care about small businesses. We do care about agriculture in the province of Ontario. We do care about listening to elected officials at the municipal level.

We heard the minister also talk about “top of the list.” What is not at the top of the list with this party? We hear them talk over and over again—again, lip service. What’s the top priority? Well, the new Premier has said agriculture is a priority. That’s why she took on that portfolio. But not food—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Not food.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Yes.

Yesterday, the minister, when questioned by the member from Oxford, our esteemed critic for food and rural affairs and agriculture—he has been asking for months to sit down and discuss the issues of agriculture and food and rural affairs. And what was the response we got from the new Premier? “I’m sorry. I’m sorry I haven’t had time to sit down with you.”

Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the second-largest sector in producing revenue for this province, and we have a new Premier who doesn’t have time to address the issues that we have in rural Ontario. It’s unacceptable. “We don’t have time.” Who says that? If it’s truly a priority, give the portfolio to a competent individual who actually cares about rural Ontario.

We heard the minister, again, talk about fine print. Mr. Speaker, this is the fine print government. If I was to sign any kind of deal with the Liberals, either under Mr. McGuinty or the new Premier, Ms. Wynne—same old same old—I would definitely make sure that I would have my lawyers go over the fine print with a microscope, because this government cannot be trusted. The new Premier is not new at all. She was at the table for the gas plant scandals. She was at the table for Ornge. She was at the table for eHealth. It’s the same old song.

Fine print is absolutely correct—when it comes to fine print, I would caution any individual or political party to make sure that if you’re entering a deal with this same old Liberal government, make sure you read the fine print.

Interjection: Same old.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Same old.

They talk about thorough consultation with stakeholders. Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m repeating myself because this is how we learn, but it’s the same old song over there, right? They talk a good talk. I have to give credit where credit’s due. The Liberal Party is extremely good at spinning the issues. They are very good at making sure that the general public doesn’t actually get the facts.

So when they say they want to consult—thorough consultation, as the minister pointed out—the fact of the matter is they turn a deaf ear to elected officials at the municipal level. We’ve seen this, again, with the wind turbines that are cropping up throughout the province of Ontario—in rural Ontario—with no consultation. They’re denying the rights of elected officials. What does that say about this party and their views on democracy? Mr. Speaker, it’s disheartening.

Again, as my esteemed colleague from Huron–Bruce pointed out, agriculture was only mentioned once in the throne speech. Now this Premier, Ms. Wynne, who has taken on the portfolio of agriculture and food—

Interjection: And food.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: And food—if she’s truly committed to working with rural Ontario and the agricultural sector, you would think it would be a priority. You know what the priority is here, Mr. Speaker? The priority is trying to rebrand the Liberal Party as an actual party that can govern.

How many times in the throne speech was “new government” mentioned? Sixteen times, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection: More than that.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: More than that. The member from Cambridge obviously, as a professor, has an astute account of how many times things were mentioned in the throne speech. But here’s the fact: If the new Liberal government was interested, they would have mentioned agriculture more than once. So I’m a little disheartened, Mr. Speaker.

When it comes to the Liberal Party trying to spin and fool the people of Ontario once again, well, I’m here to say today it’s not going to happen. It just cannot happen. It’s time for a change. Ontario needs change. Tim Hudak and the PC Party are going to bring that change. We put forward white papers and bold ideas that are going to get this province back on track. We’re going to provide the best health care, the best education system the world has. I’m proud to say that I sit over here today with my colleagues, and that’s what we’re going to do because Progressive Conservatives are good on their word.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thank you, Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the chair and it’s nice to be back here in the Legislature four months later. Welcome back, everyone, and congratulations to the new Premier and to all the new cabinet ministers. I’m looking forward to getting things going here again in the province of Ontario; it’s been too long.

I think we can try to put a good spin on things, but as my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West was saying, people will not forget. You can’t fool people all the time. So when we hear members from the same old government come here and talk about respect for workers, I can assure you that workers in this province have not forgotten this government’s record when it comes to negotiating fairly, and that the parents in my community have not forgotten because their kids still do not have extracurriculars in their schools, and that’s a result of very poor decision-making by this government. Nevertheless, we want to give them a chance to try to turn things around.

In response to the throne speech, I heard a lot of good things in there—a lot of talk, a lot of talk about talk, a lot of talk about conversations. Frankly, Speaker, when I talk to people and listen to people in my riding, people are desperate for action. They’re desperate to see results come out of this Legislature. I think that we’ve been fairly clear—Andrea Horwath and the NDP have been quite clear—that we’ll support the throne speech. It puts out some good concepts, but we actually need to see some concrete things in the budget.

We’ve put forward some good ideas, things that matter to people across this province to make life easier, to make life more affordable. We want to see this government take these ideas seriously.

We want to see more affordable auto insurance in this province. People cannot pay their bills. The Premier may have forgotten to put “food” in the title of her ministry, but we’ve also seen that food has been totally forgotten by this government in terms of making sure that people can put food on the table. We need to make sure that we see those results in the budget.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning and respond to the comments from the member from Northumberland–Quinte West. When you contrast those to the comments we’ve just heard from the member from Davenport, you see two different approaches. One, I think, is a healthy approach; one is a positive approach; one is the approach that the people of Ontario would like us to bring to the table. The member from Davenport—if I could summarize his comments, what I took out of them is, “We don’t agree on everything. We think you can probably do better on some things, but we’re prepared to try to work with you as a government.”

When I listened to the first speaker, the speaker from Northumberland–Quinte West, I got this: “The sky is falling. Everything is wrong. The school system is in chaos. Health care is in chaos. I did a survey”—which I’d love to see. I think you should share that survey, certainly with the minister. Bring the survey into the House. We’d all love to have a look at it. That’s what people in Ontario are expecting us to do. If you’ve got information from your constituents, bring it into the House—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The members are all aware that we go through the Chair. We don’t have cross-dialogue and arguments between each other.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I will determine that. You come through the Chair.

And you: Don’t respond directly across to the member. You know the rules. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker.

To get back to what I was trying to say: The approach we bring to this House is equally as important as the substance of the throne speech. I think the throne speech reached out to the other two parties. People in Ontario would like us to work on a number of priorities: jobs; the economy; making sure that everybody in the province of Ontario gets treated in an equitable way. Can we work together as three parties to ensure that happens? It appears, from the comments I’ve heard, that one party is showing a willingness to do that. The other—it’s just the same old same old.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House, and it’s good to be back. Again, I would like to extend my congratulations to the new ministers and the increase of government by 22%.

Having listened to the speech from the throne, personally I found it somewhat condescending. I also found it to be full of a lot of different platitudes. Premier Wynne’s statement initially was encouraging to me, when I heard “a new way forward.” However, it’s still more of the same.

Let’s look at the stats. Right now, there are over 600,000 Ontarians out of work. The government will say that they’ve also created 300,000 jobs, public service jobs. Let’s talk about ability to pay. Who pays for those public service jobs? Well, the taxpayers do.

Let’s talk about debt for a moment. The debt, when this government came into being, was about $125 billion, back in 2003. Unfortunately, on the backs of taxpayers that debt has just skyrocketed 220% over the last 10 years, somewhere in the neighbourhood—that could be escalating anywhere from $275 billion to upwards of $311 billion; a huge increase in the debt, and on the backs of taxpayers.

We talked about agriculture. Agriculture is huge in my area, and of course there’s very little mentioned about that. But one thing I would like to make mention of: There was talk about downloading, allowing municipalities to have greater say. You know what? We, as a caucus, put forward motions on this floor, asking the government to put moratoriums on wind turbines, asking the government to give municipalities a say in whether they want turbines or not. My area now has over 300 turbines. In my opinion, it’s too little, too late. We need a new change, and the PCs will provide that change.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I too want to extend congratulations to the new Premier and the ministers in their new roles. It’s nice to see the new faces. It will be also enjoyable to start building some bridges so that I myself can start helping my constituents who are in desperate need in Algoma–Manitoulin.

I enjoyed the throne speech. I have to say I enjoyed it because it touched on a lot of everything, but the specifics are not there. That’s definitely something that I’m going to be focusing on—seeing how that throne speech is going to materialize into the actual budget that is going to be coming—because that’s the important part. It’s what’s going to come out of that throne speech, and how that is going to assist the people of Algoma–Manitoulin and also the people of Ontario.

I enjoy listening to the debate on the throne speech, and that’s one thing. I’ve listened to the government and I’ve listened to the Conservative Party, but when we do that, you listen, you kind of gauge yourself as far as what people are thinking and where the government is going to be coming with certain policies and the reaction that the Conservative Party has towards this. I choose to say that we can do something right now. I don’t want to say that not until we come into power will we be able to do something.

I choose to believe that we will do something where we can do something efficiently right now for all of our communities, and we need to get those results right away, not when we come into power. We need to get it done now because that’s what Ontarians are expecting of us. We need to roll up our sleeves, we need to get focused as far as what we need to do, and we need to get this accomplished.

I like the nice words of having a genuine commitment, and I like hearing what my counterparts are saying as well. But until we actually get focused on what we need to accomplish here, we need to make sure that we look at everything that’s going to be here. It is only responsible for us as the NDP to look at this budget, but we will hold you to the fire on it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Again, I want to thank the members from Oakville and Davenport and also my esteemed colleague Mr. Nicholls, from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

What I’m hearing—and I like to listen because the fact of the matter is, you have to step back and listen to what is actually being said, but more important is what is actually being done. This government, unfortunately, has not learned their lesson. They’re not listening or doing, and that’s rather unfortunate.

I know my esteemed colleagues here in the third party, the NDP, have good intent in wanting to work with the Liberal Party. They’re always optimistic that the Liberal Party is going to do something they can support, maybe the budget, but unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, the governing party and the same old Premier that we’ve had for the last decade are not going to change. They’re not going to change. They’re not going to listen to the people of this province.

They’re not going to actually do anything substantive that is going to improve the lives of 600,000 individuals who woke up this morning without a job. They’re not going to do anything that is going to improve the spending that this government spends. So, unfortunately, we can’t trust this Liberal government—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you very much. Further debate?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: It is a pleasure to stand up and speak in response to the speech from the throne. I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to it and to raise a northern perspective.

As I told my constituents, my initial reaction was surprise and then disappointment. Surprise because, as it appears, this government has been listening; at least they’ve been doing that much. They touched on a number of issues that are important to northerners and to people across the province. But then disappointment because when you listened closely to the speech from the throne, you noticed that yes, they had mentioned broad issues, just broad strokes of some of the key priorities, but there was a failure to commit, and that’s what’s really frustrating. So, really, when you scrutinized it, it was a hollow speech and one that didn’t provide much in the way of solutions to our problems.

It did touch on a number of issues, as I said. It committed to having an aboriginal focus: sharing in resources, closing the gap with First Nations, Métis and Inuit children; and a commitment to energy conservation. It also touched on home care, which is very big in the northwest; youth employment; hydro prices, also something very big in the northwest; auto insurance rates; and economic development. But again, that’s all it did: touch on these issues.

When it comes to a vision, a plan or even a direction, we’re left looking for answers in the Premier’s chair, and really, what we’ve been left with is basically the sound of crickets just chirping in the distance. There’s no plan. There’s no vision. That’s what’s truly disappointing.

So other than it being a desperate attempt to rebrand the same old Liberal government as a new one, we’re left with hollow phrases. Here are some quotes that I pulled in terms of any kind of commitment in the throne speech: understanding and expanding “access to home care”—very vague concepts; “protecting individuals against fraud and working to reduce” auto “insurance rates”; working “to evaluate corporate tax compliance”; and to work with partners to help young people “find placements, internships and co-op programs.” It’s not exactly the strong language that we’re looking for; again, no real commitment to any of these really important concepts.

Really what it did was it just made a mockery. That’s what I felt like; I felt like I was kind of mocked. I think people in the northwest felt they were mocked. Again, there’s a recognition that these are some of the issues, but it seemed as though the government wasn’t really committed to making any changes.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Lip service.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Lip service; exactly. I was kind of left with the impression that the government knows what the problems are, but they almost seem to hope that we go to the polls quickly enough, before the electorate figures out that they don’t really have a plan.

Another analogy I was thinking about is, essentially this government is banking on the new-car smell, on making the odour of the last eight or 10 years of neglect kind of go away and hoping that with a new mandate we won’t suffer from buyer’s remorse. But that’s just not acceptable.

I wanted to start off by talking a little bit about northwestern Ontario and how this throne speech really affects our area. Truth be told, there’s not a lot in this throne speech that really offers very much for those of us living in the northwest. There’s not a lot in this speech that offers much for anyone in Ontario, but for those of us in the north who are used to fighting for table scraps from the province of Ontario, there’s literally nothing. Other than suggesting that northern and rural voices will be heard, the north is only mentioned twice, and both times it was only mentioned in passing—

Interjection: That’s more than agriculture.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Yes, that’s true. And both times, it was lumped in with just about every other area of this province.

To be honest, we had higher expectations, especially because while the new Premier was campaigning, there was a lot of talk about northern Ontario, about understanding our issues and really raising expectations that there would be some movement. This Premier does claim to be, as I said, in tune with northern voices, but she also claims to be in tune with rural voices, southern voices, urban voices. Let’s just put it this way: If you have a voice, the Premier claims to be in tune with it.

To me, that’s suggesting that the government continues to feel that a one-size-fits-all policy really does fit all, and that’s simply not the case. There are many different regions in Ontario today, and unfortunately, we’re not all being treated equally. This is a real problem, especially in the northwest.

You can’t run a government based on a “we can win without ... ” approach and cater only to narrow interests that have enough power to re-elect you time and time again. That’s really the government that we’ve had for the last eight years, and it simply hasn’t worked. Good government looks beyond those narrow interests and governs for the whole province. It shows leadership, and it goes in a direction that suits all of those whom it serves. But we haven’t had that type of leadership in Ontario for decades, and it’s literally tearing this province apart.

The first step is to give those who are feeling disenfranchised a voice, to look at the system and to see the source of the problems. If we do that in Ontario, we see that the problem really is the electoral system: the idea of representation by population with no attempt to compensate for regional cleavages or difference. It’s very unjust to have one riding that can be, for instance, more than 350,000 square kilometres, with more than 70 municipal councils and First Nations, where another riding can be only a few city blocks or a small portion of one municipality.

In the throne speech, the government does say that they will work to eliminate issues like the gas plant cancellation by doing more advance consultation, which is a nice idea, but the better way to ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars aren’t wasted on narrow partisan interests is to create a system where the government cannot be so focused on one small area of the province. Five ridings: That really could be the balance of power.

We have a system that encourages catering to narrow regional interests. Oftentimes, that leads to one part of the province imposing its will on another part—areas where they don’t live, areas where they don’t work, areas where they probably will never visit—because they have louder voices, because they have better resources and because the electoral system discriminates based on population.

This isn’t just the case for northwestern Ontario; it’s the case for northeastern Ontario, central Ontario, rural Ontario—we’re all trapped in a relationship with Toronto, Mississauga and the rest of the GTA, in the northwest, and most of us would like out of this relationship. We’d like autonomy, but we don’t have the clout or the power to be in control of our own destiny.

By contrast, in my region what most of us would really like to do is join Manitoba. If we were to do that, we could expect to have five or seven ridings that would have a significant amount of influence on the legislative agenda. We would also have a province that would represent our needs more closely. Of course, that’s contrasting to what we have now, which is one riding. What happens is, when we only have, basically, one riding to represent the diverse issues and concerns that we have, we have bills like the Far North Act and the Species at Risk Act, where there are some narrow interests that are influencing the agenda. We need some balance.

If you break it down even further, there are rural areas that find themselves lumped in with large urban ridings and they’re just not given the population. We see that also in the north, where there are communities like Atikokan, Red Rock, Nipigon and Terrace Bay, and they’re lumped in with larger centres like Thunder Bay, so there are even some of those challenges. What I’m saying, just to be clear, is that what we need to do is if we can’t make changes to the electoral system, what we can do is make changes to the Legislature.

One of the best things that we could do is to create a northern committee, where we could have those voices that are brought forward and we could have legislation that impacts certain areas. We could start with the north; we could maybe have other committees that represent other areas of the province and they could, as my colleague says, kind of do a road test: see how the proposed legislation would affect these areas of the province.

That’s something that would be inexpensive, it’s something that we could do to achieve some immediate solutions and it’s one that I strongly would encourage the Premier to go ahead with. It’s just not acceptable for the Premier to decide to, instead of doing something that would represent the democratic will of northern Ontario, set up a very exclusive committee made up of only a couple of people belonging to one particular political party. That goes completely against the spirit of the northern committee, which would have representatives from all political stripes who would be involved.

I’m not sure if we’re still going one more minute. One more minute? Okay.

Again, we have an opportunity for change. The Premier has done a lot to raise the expectations of people in northern Ontario, but there hasn’t been very much that’s been delivered. Really, after all of the conversations and the relationships—there’s been a lot of talk of these two concepts, and after all these conversations that the Premier has had with northern Ontario, we had really hoped that we would see some of our priorities make their way into some of the government’s priorities, and we really haven’t seen that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to thank the member from Kenora–Rainy River, and I’ll remind her that she has the floor when the debate resumes.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m delighted to welcome to the Legislature today Mrs. Natalie Giordano and page Alexander’s sister—that’s his mum—Anjelica Giordano, to enjoy an opportunity to hear what’s going to happen in question period today. Thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to introduce Susan Violin, who is the mother of Charlie Violin. Congratulations on Charlie’s appointment and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome two political science students from the University of Toronto. Colin Campbell is visiting here today by way of Don Valley East and Amani Rauff is here by way of Mississauga–Streetsville. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Good morning, I’m always pleased to introduce people who come and visit from the Windsor-Essex region. Today we have Tom Touralias, who is the director of engineering and infrastructure with the town of Lakeshore, who, of course, has been here in the last couple of days for the ROMA/OGRA conference, so some of you may have met with him in the last couple of days. Tom, welcome.

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family of Daniel Forestell, from Blessed Sacrament Catholic School in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence. His family is visiting from north Toronto to see their son in action; Lisa Shrenk-Forestell, Paul Forestell and Daniel’s brother Matthew and sister Sarah are all visiting the Legislature from north Toronto. Welcome.

Hon. David Zimmer: I want to acknowledge one of the Legislature’s new pages, Stephanie Tom, who is from my riding of Willowdale, and to welcome her family, who have braved the weather to visit us here at the Legislature. Stephanie’s parents, Christopher and Julie Tom, are here in the members’ gallery. Joining them are Evelyn Tom, Stephanie Chen-Wong, and Stephanie’s grandparents George and Susan Wong, both respected elders in the Wong Family Association.

Hon. John Milloy: I know members will want to join me in welcoming former page Mary Stuart and her mother, Christine Purdon, who are visiting from the great riding of Kitchener Centre today.

Hon. Liz Sandals: About to join us—I don’t think they’re here quite yet—are four representatives from the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association with us this morning. They’re Jacob Pullia, Noah Parker, Hirad Zafari and Kourosh Houshmand.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to call your attention to a memo that Ken Coran, the head of the OSSTF, sent out to his membership on February 24, particularly page 4. Mr. Coran indicates that you have a central table that is going to work to utilize the Ontario Labour Relations Act process “that allows mid-term amendments to collective agreements.”

Can you please tell us what Mr. Coran means by utilizing “mid-term amendments to collective agreements”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to commend the student trustees who came in to meet with me and the Minister of Education this morning to talk about the extracurriculars that are coming back in their schools and the schools that they’re hearing from and students. I made it very clear that when I was privileged to begin to be the Premier that I would be reaching out to the leadership, that I would be asking them to come in to talk to us about how we could move forward, how we can put in place a better process going forward and make sure that our students have the supports that they need in their schools.

The fact that OSSTF has been willing to engage with us, that they’re going to have an ongoing conversation with us, the fact that they understand that there is no more money to put into the system at this point is a very positive step forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think, Speaker, it should give us pause that the Premier didn’t even attempt to answer my very direct and simple question. I’m concerned that it goes beyond simply reaching out. I’m worried that the Premier is handing over the keys to the education system to the teacher union bosses. I think there’s a good basis for this.

When you were education minister, you gave the teachers a 10.4% salary increase and 12.5% to the secondary panel in 2008, at a time when we were in a deep recession. We were $20 billion in debt and many families—the 85% not on the government payroll—had pay losses, pay freezes or lost their jobs. Instead of being chagrined about that, you seemed to celebrate that.

Let me put the question again. Mr. Coran basically is referencing the ability to open up the current agreement to seek improvements from the teacher union perspective. Since he can’t do that on his own, the Premier or her education minister must have given an indication you’re open to that. Premier, will you close the door on this or are you open to changing the collective agreement?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been very clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more money to put into these contracts. I’ve been very clear about that, and the leadership of OSSTF understands that and has been willing to engage in a conversation with us.

I’ve also been clear that there needs to be a new collective bargaining process in place. There needs to be a process that recognizes the provincial level, recognizes the local level, and that that needs to be formalized.

There were other issues, Mr. Speaker, that OSSTF had identified. These are not—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —money to the system and we have said that we would engage in a conversation with them about those issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that we need—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, time’s up. Second of all, right after I speak, you just carry on as if I didn’t even say anything, so I would appreciate at least acknowledgment for a few seconds.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker. I listened very closely to the Premier’s response and my concerns have become stronger. You’re parsing words here. You did not say no. You have left the door open, clearly, to revisiting the collective agreement. I hope that you will take this opportunity to actually shut this down once and for all and say that’s off the table. You haven’t done so to date.

Other concerns I have on Mr. Coran’s letter: He talks about the consequences of taking on the teachers’ union, and then he lists a number of the results of his actions. Specifically, he claims and boasts that he stole the ability of the Liberals to form a majority government; he boasted he influenced Dalton McGuinty’s decision to resign his premiership; he boasted he kept Laurel Broten from seeking the leadership of her party; and he boasted they forced the repeal of Bill 115 when the Liberals fully intended to keep it on the books for three years.

The union boss is practically chortling. This kind of political arrogance by the union leaders, I think, has no

part in the education system in the province of Ontario. Why do you want to give even more power to the unions?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s interesting. I actually wouldn’t expect the Leader of the Opposition, on this particular issue—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would not actually expect the Leader of the Opposition to understand why we think it’s important for the government to be able to work in partnership with the people who work in our schools, because my experience of the party opposite is that they really don’t believe in or support publicly funded education.

One of the reasons that many of us got involved in provincial politics was because, under that government, the previous government, there was a relationship in tatters between the provincial government and the education sector.

We believe in publicly funded education, Mr. Speaker. We are going to work in partnership with the education sector. That is absolutely part of our DNA as Liberals. We’re going to continue to do that, and that is in the best interests of the students in our schools. I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to at least support that.

TEACHERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to call the Premier’s attention to a second rather odious document, and that’s the ETFO provincial takeover bulletin in the name of another one of the Premier’s personal friends and allies, Sam Hammond. Mr. Hammond says on page 6 of the memo that teachers “deemed to be in non-support during a job action may be subject to disciplinary procedures that include the possibility of monetary fines of up to $500 per day.” The Premier is aware that they have also talked about naming and shaming teachers who defy the wishes of the union bosses.

I want to give the Premier the opportunity to divorce herself from these types of tactics by the unions. Will you stand in your place, Premier, as members of the PC caucus do, and condemn the fines that unions have threatened on teachers—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a conversation with one of the organizations, the Leader of the Opposition can do that. He can talk to ETFO, he can talk to OSSTF about their internal politics. What I think is important, Mr. Speaker, is that we recognize that the teachers in our schools, the support staff in our schools, deserve our respect. They deserve a government that is willing to work with them—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —to make sure that the students—and the students are here—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Students deserve a government that will work for them.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s right—and the student trustees—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much to the member from Nepean–Carleton, because the student trustees who are here today, who represent students across the province, Mr. Speaker, came in to talk to us today about the reality that in their schools, extracurriculars are coming back. They are concerned that in some places they’re not and they wanted to talk with us about how to celebrate what’s coming back and encourage teachers to continue and resume those activities. It’s a very good-news story, Mr. Speaker, for the students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess there’s one thing the Premier and I agree on; the Premier and I agree that there is an imbalance in the power between the union leaders and front-line teachers, principals and parents. The problem is that the Premier thinks we need to give more authority to the union leadership. We stand with the classroom teachers. We stand with the students. We stand with the parents and the taxpayers who fund the system.

Some have said that the teacher-union bosses have no greater ally than Kathleen Wynne; they’ve had no greater ally in the Premier’s chair in their history. I want to know where your loyalties actually lie. How can you actually not respond to my questions—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —Sam Hammond? How can you not condemn the notion of fining a teacher who wants to stay after school to help out a special-needs kid learn the opportunity to read? How can you not condemn that? Whose side are you on?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, my allegiance and my loyalty lies with the students; it lies with the kids in our schools who deserve to have the most supportive, the most enriched environment possible.

My other loyalty lies with civil society. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition completely negates, by his attack on organized labour, by his attack and his characterization of people who have come together to improve working conditions—he denies the gains that have been made over hundreds of years: safety; working conditions; a guarantee that we will have safe places to work all across all sectors, not just in education but across all sectors. He denies the gains that have been made by organized labour. I reject that notion categorically, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question, Speaker, that I have for the Premier is a question of where her loyalties truly lie. When we see this type of union political arrogance displayed by Mr. Hammond, by Mr. Coran, the union bosses, I would expect a Premier who wants to stand up for students to condemn those tactics—they are odious tactics—and to stand up for teachers—and unions.

Premier, they positively boast—and mock your former education minister and what they did to her career. I wonder where your loyalties lie when you simply accept that and not stand up for one of your colleagues within cabinet.

Premier, my final question—my dad was a principal, and he was a damn good principal. He had the ability to decide the teachers that would be in the classroom, to decide to reward those teachers and decide who would be hired out of those for long-term leave.

Why are you stripping that power away from principals to decide who the best teachers are? Why are you handing that power instead to the union activists? I think principals should make those decisions.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t know how old the dad of the Leader of the Opposition is, but his dad would have been part of a federation if he was a principal before Mike Harris was the Premier. So he was part of that organized labour organization that created the working conditions, that created the supports, for students in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, my loyalty, our loyalty, lies with the students in the classroom. We want to make sure that government is working in partnership with the education sector, with school boards, with teachers, with support staff, to make sure that students have the supports they need so they can succeed—and part of that is having extracurriculars. That’s why it was so important that we engage with the leadership—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and make sure that we can re-establish that respectful conversation, so that we can have some success going forward. That’s what has happened. I would expect them to be celebrating.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. As the Premier knows, I’ve put forward some concrete proposals to get some results in this session. I’m wondering whether the Premier will commit to making life more affordable by giving the Financial Services Commission a mandate to reduce auto insurance rates in this province by 15%.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll have the Minister of Finance speak to the specifics, but I have been very clear that this is one of the issues that I think we can work together on, because we have recommendations from the anti-fraud task force. I’ve been clear that I’m interested in having those implemented. I’m also interested, if there’s money to be saved by the implementation of those recommendations, that we sit down with the industry, we make sure that those savings are passed on to the premium holders. We agree that there’s work to be done in the auto insurance industry, and I think it’s something that we can work on together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2010, the Liberal government changed the rules around auto insurance benefits. As a result, insurance companies were able to save $2 billion a year already, but drivers saw their premiums rise in this province. Now we’re being told that stopping fraud is the answer to getting rates down. Does the Premier really believe that putting more money in insurance companies’ pockets, with no strings attached, is going to make insurance more affordable for the drivers of the province?

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. Let’s be clear: We are in the midst of trying to renegotiate and understand how we can lower rates all around. We’ve already had a discussion about this in the last year; we’ve got a report before us to look at the root cause of those problems. We also recognize that auto rates went up 43% in the last three years that the Conservative government was in power, and they went up 26% when the NDP was in power.

In the last year, the rates actually went down by 0.26%. So we have made some headway, but more needs to be done. I recognize what you’ve asked us to do, and I’ll work with you. I encourage that discussion so we can look for better ways to make it more affordable for all concerned.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Another round of “no strings attached” giveaways are not going to help drivers who are feeling the pinch. I need to know, straight out: Is the Premier going to defend the status quo that leaves everyday people in this province paying more and more for insurance every year, or is she ready to deliver some real, concrete results for drivers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We aren’t going to stay in the status quo; we recognize that we need to improve this. So we are going to take every step necessary to do that. We’ll work with you, and with all of you, to try to make it happen. We’re working with the industry; we’re having those discussions as well. We recognize that the commitment that we’ve made in their recommendations is to require the insurance to provide claimants a reason for denying the claim. We recognize that we need to increase the role of the claimants in those fraud-prevention activities, and we need to prohibit the overcharging of goods and services provided for accident victims.

Let’s be clear: In Ontario, things are more expensive than they are in any other parts of Canada. Those are the issues that we’ve got to resolve as well, and we’ll take those steps necessary.

I do appreciate the recommendations brought forward, but we can’t make this a band-aid solution. We have to get at the causes of the issue so that we can resolve them and get over the systemic issue that’s creating the problem.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On the 22nd of March, 2012, the then Minister of Transportation said about New Democrats’ efforts to bring fairness to the auto insurance industry this: “What this bill does is it opens a dialogue. It starts a discussion about a badly understood area that I think we all need to know more about.”

We can discuss it, but at the end of the day, we know it costs insurance companies about $226 less per person to insure a safe driver, but that hasn’t stopped premiums from going up. Why does the Premier think it’s more important to give auto insurance companies a no-strings-attached giveaway than it is to give safe drivers a break?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Finance has said we’re not happy with the status quo. We know there’s more that needs to be done.

I understand that the leader of the third party needs to get her issues on table, but we’ve said that we want to address this; we want to deal with this. We believe that there are changes that need to be made. We want to implement the recommendations of the anti-fraud task force, and as the Minister of Finance has said, we want to get to the root of the problem. We don’t want to just band-aid it over; we want to make sure that we understand what’s causing the rates to go up, what the issues are in the system, and work with the industry to make sure that those savings are passed along to the premium holders.

I think that’s the issue that the leader of the third party is addressing: How do we make sure that the premium holders see the benefit of the changes that are made in the system?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are ready for action that actually puts them first for a change. They saw the Liberal government take action in 2010 to save the auto insurance industry $2 billion a year. That’s $226 the insurance companies are saving on each and every driver in Ontario thanks to the largesse of the Liberal Party.

But Brian from the GTA knows what that means for everyday drivers. I’m going to quote from something he sent us: “Over the last three years, my insurance has gone up $20 a month every year like clockwork.”

Will the Premier agree that making auto insurance more affordable for drivers like Brian by reducing their rates by 15% this year is an achievable goal and that we’ll see it in the budget?

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: There has been a number of recommendations that have been made by the NDP. Certainly the private member’s bill that has come forward has talked about some of the ideas and solutions, many of which, however, would create greater rates in the other parts of the province. We know that there has to be an understanding as to what’s going to happen, and in some respects, we have to be more restrictive, especially with those who are drunk drivers and others. Some of the suggestions would actually reduce the rates for those who have violated the system. That can’t happen.

We don’t want to then penalize those who do have a good rating. Those are things that we’ve got to resolve, and that has to take a bit more thought, so we need to have those discussions on an ongoing basis.

But, as I’ve said, we recognize—

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And we’ll work with you too. We are going to do what’s necessary to make this work.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Linda from Brampton knows the real story. I’ll quote from something she sent us—

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Maybe the Liberals don’t like to listen to the people of Ontario, but New Democrats certainly do.

“I’m 48 years of age. I have been driving since I was 16. I have a clean record—no accidents—ever....

“My insurance has just increased to $3,800 a year. This is outrageous.

“My wages are not increasing at such a rate.”

I’m sure Linda agrees with everyone in this Legislature that we need to crack down on fraud. I think everybody agrees about that. But the Liberal government has already given auto insurance companies $2 billion a year in savings.

Will the Premier finally commit to saving drivers 15% on their insurance rates this year?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As I’ve already explained, our rates actually went down last year, not to the extent that we would like and certainly not at 15%. But we also have to recognize that we need to do even better for the long term, and some of the suggestions being made, unfortunately, are going to actually increase rates for other parts of Ontario. We’ve got to be fair right across the province—but that’s what’s going to happen.

To all members: We understand the proposal being put forward. We are looking at ways in which we can reduce the rates even further, but we can’t make it just arbitrary. We have to make sure it makes sense for the long term, and that’s what we’ll do. We’ll review it, and we’ll work in conjunction with all parties.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR

ACTIVITIES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Premier: Premier, I listened intently to your responses to my leader, Tim Hudak, who was firmly standing behind students in this chamber, asking whether or not you would condemn a memorandum by Sam Hammond of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, who threatened to name and shame, sanction and fine members who decided they would put students first and continue on with extracurriculars. I was shocked by your stunning silence.

We also have mentioned several times in this chamber a memo that was leaked to us on Sunday from OSSTF that took credit for a number of things, including the resignation of Dalton McGuinty, the demotion of Laurel Broten and the NDP win in Kitchener–Waterloo. Things have changed, Premier, after they gave you a $10,000 donation to your campaign. The question we have before us today is: Why won’t you put students first? Why are you standing behind these union leaders? What did you promise them in exchange for that money?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not appropriate. I ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I actually think the question that is before us is: Why isn’t everyone in this House supporting the notion that students should have their extracurriculars back? Why isn’t the member opposite pleased that the OFSAA swim meet is going to be held? Why isn’t the member opposite pleased that in schools around the province, teachers are working with students and giving them permission slips so that they can take

part in extracurriculars? Why isn’t the member opposite pleased that as of Monday, there were extracurriculars coming back into schools? That’s what the student trustees talked to us about this morning. Why isn’t the party opposite very pleased that government is working in partnership with the education sector so that students can have their extracurriculars?

I am committed to making sure that that partnership works in the best interest of the education sector—teachers, support staff and students.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s very clear that this Premier thinks it’s okay for union leaders to sanction their members for helping students—and withholding extracurriculars. That Premier knows full well that not all extracurriculars will be restored. She knows that they’re not there in elementary schools at the moment. She also knows that her friend Ken Coran cannot guarantee that all of his teachers will be giving extracurricular activities again. We also know that this could happen in the future if there is further labour disruption and those union leaders get angry at either this government or another one.

So I ask her: Why did she stand there yesterday, firmly behind the union bosses, thumbing her nose at Ontario students, when all we want for our kids is the best education possible, a full education for our students? Why does she stand behind—

Interjections.

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

I will repeat my charge from yesterday, and that is: We race to the top and not to the bottom. I do realize that emotions are involved when we talk about these kinds of things, but I would also challenge us to continue to treat each other with the utmost respect.

I will not tolerate, when I do get quiet, people starting it all over again immediately after I finish speaking.

Premier?

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. More than a year after the crisis at Ornge emerged, Ontarians are still wondering: How come it went so wrong?

Yesterday, the air ambulance bill was reintroduced, and it gives the government greater power, such as the ability to appoint a supervisor. But the reality is that the government ignored problems for years, in spite of whistle-blowers and in spite of warnings. You did not use the power you already had.

Can the Premier explain to Ontarians, after hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted, after the ministers failed in her basic responsibility to provide oversight over Ornge, why would anyone believe that her government would take action this time around?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action. I think everyone in the Legislature agrees that the leadership at Ornge let the people of Ontario down, that what happened there was unacceptable, and we’ve heard the Minister of Health speak to that many, many times.

The legislation that is being introduced addresses those issues and puts more oversight in place and tightens up the monitoring of the organization. That’s exactly what a responsible government does, Mr. Speaker: It learns from situations, puts in place the remedies for those issues, and works to make sure that they never, ever happen again. That’s what that legislation is about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Ontarians are once again told that they should trust the government to do the right thing, even though with Ornge this government has consistently failed to do so.

In the so-called new era that is upon us of full accountability and transparency measures, all of them should be on the table. Yet Ornge won’t be subject to Ombudsman oversight and it cannot be called to a government committee. Some would say that there are loopholes big enough to fly a helicopter through in this bill.

If the Premier is serious about getting Ornge back on track, if she’s serious about rebuilding the confidence in our air ambulance service, she will commit to full transparency and accountability, and that means allowing Ombudsman oversight and committee access.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As a result of much of the discussion that has happened in this House on this issue, there were changes made to the legislation. The legislation will allow the appointment of special investigators or a supervisor when it’s in the public interest to do so; appoint members to Ornge’s board of directors; prescribe terms of the performance agreement; provide whistle-blowing protection for staff who disclose information to an inspector; and also subject Ornge to freedom-of-information requests, which I think is something that the member opposite had looked for.

There has been an impact that the member opposite has had on this legislation. I think that is a good indicator of the government learning from a situation that should not have taken place and working to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We thank the member opposite for input into that legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question? The member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m quite aware of what my responsibilities are.

The member took his seat, so I will recognize the member from Nipissing.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we delved into the Oakville gas plant documents, code-named Project Vapour. As a cabinet member, you had these documents back in 2011, so let’s look a little deeper into the pages and let’s see what you can recall.

This one, entitled Confidential Advice to the Cabinet, should help ring a bell. It goes into great detail for you about Project Vapour and even offers a sample news release with a particular spin, which I suppose you agreed to.

Premier, will you acknowledge you were quite familiar with Oakville’s Project Vapour back in 2011?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and the member from Northumberland–Quinte West are warned.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the honourable member knows that the issue of documents and document disclosure is a topic that is being looked at by a committee of the Legislature.

It’s interesting that the honourable member talks about press releases. I’d like to share a press release with him and the rest of the Legislature. Saturday, September 24, 2011, just before the 2011 election, a statement by Mississauga South Ontario PC candidate Geoff Janoscik on the Loreland Avenue power plant press conference: “Unlike the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, the only way to guarantee this power plant does not get built is to elect a Tim Hudak Ontario PC government. A Tim Hudak government will cancel this plant.”

Again, Mr. Speaker, I bring this forward because we’re looking forward to the committee to hear about the policy analysis and the costing that was done by the Progressive Conservatives, and we look forward to all their documents coming forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: To the Premier: On September 25, you stood in this House and said all of the documents have been released or the documents are available. However, it’s clear you knew of the existence of Project Vapour documents over a year earlier. Premier, you’re saying one thing, but the absolute and complete opposite of that is proven here to be accurate. I realize your advisers are telling you to keep quiet about Oakville, but that’s not good enough for Ontarians.

Premier, will you strike the select committee you’ve already agreed to in writing so we can finally get to the truth from you?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, there is a committee of the Legislature which is looking into the document issue. The Premier has indicated her co-operation; our government has indicated their overall co-operation. But, again, I’ve brought to the House press releases, news articles, quotations and speeches. We’ve gone to Twitterverse; we’ve gone to YouTube. All we’ve found over and over again is the opposition of the Progressive Conservative Party to both these plants and how they would cancel them if they won the election. Again, Mr.

Speaker, we’re looking forward to hearing from experts that they consulted, to seeing the documents they bring forward of what I imagine was a very detailed policy analysis and costing, as they have put so much weight on this issue.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Taxi drivers in Hamilton have lost their taxi insurer, causing unprecedented insurance rate increases. Some rates have gone from $5,000 last year to $18,000 this year with no change in the driver’s record. Many have to park their taxis and their licences, leaving Hamilton with a significant loss of available taxi service.

Will the Premier require the Minister of Finance to direct the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to launch an investigation into why affordable insurance is not available for these struggling people?

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. Again, I’ll look into it, because if that’s the case and if people are being put out of a job—and I don’t appreciate or understand how it is that there are no taxis in Hamilton; my impression is that there are. So I have to understand more specifically what’s causing this to take place, and, yes, I commit to looking into it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, this is yet another example of an auto insurance system that just isn’t working for people or drivers. These are women and men who are working hard every day just to get by. For many of them, $18,000 a year in new auto insurance premiums literally wipes them out.

Speaker, is the Premier—the Premier—ready to admit that this is a system that isn’t working, and will she direct the Minister of Finance to ensure some real relief for these taxi drivers, who are in serious danger of losing their livelihoods?

Hon. Charles Sousa: My impression is it’s not something that’s exclusive to Hamilton; it’s probably right across the urban centres of Ontario. There are issues, and I have spoken to a number of limousine and taxi companies. They recognize the input costs are at times prohibitive. That’s one of the reasons that we’re looking at auto insurance and finding ways to make them more competitive. Yet again, this is not something that is only exclusive to just the taxi drivers; it’s actually something that has issues throughout. But I am looking into it and, as I said, I will commit to delving into your particular issue specifically.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question today is for the Minister of Education.

As we all know, today is Pink Shirt Day, and I’m very pleased the members of the Legislature are wearing pink to support a national anti-bullying initiative started in Nova Scotia after a grade 9 student was bullied in his school for wearing pink. Young people across Canada are wearing pink today to draw attention to the health effects of bullying.

According to a 2011 report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, nearly one in three Ontario students report being bullied at school. These instances of bullying come with harmful effects. Our students feel isolated and are afraid to come to school. When students do not feel safe in school, they will not perform well. I know that it is important for all members in the House that we work towards eliminating bullying in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Please inform this House about what the government is doing to address bullying in our schools.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for the question and for her advocacy on behalf of the students in her constituency. I’d like to thank all the members—from all three parties, I would like to note—who are wearing pink today in recognition of Pink Shirt Day, because it is important that we all take a stand and say that we will not accept bullying in our schools and we will not tolerate it in our society. I’m so glad that students in Ontario are taking a stand today against bullying. All across Ontario, there are kids wearing pink.

All of our children deserve to learn in a safe, accepting and inclusive environment, and that’s what I want for my grandchildren. They should not be afraid to go into the classroom, and that’s why we have got the Accepting Schools Act against bullying.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Soo Wong: Initiatives like Pink Shirt Day show that our young people want to stand up to bullying. I know that the students are also doing the same in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. But we know that bullying does not only happen in our classrooms; it occurs on the Internet, on websites like Facebook and Twitter. We also know that there have been tragic incidents of young people taking their lives because of bullying they have experienced in the classroom and online.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please inform this House of what our government is doing on combating bullying outside the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: We know that bullying doesn’t stop outside the walls of the school. What often happens at home at night can be just as damaging. That’s why, for the first time, we’ve recognized cyberbullying in legislation. In our schools, if a principal believes that actions that occurred online had a negative impact on the school climate, the principal has the legislative authority to take action.

Within the Accepting Schools Act, we include cyberbullying explicitly as part of the definition of bullying. That allows the principal to deal with those things that take place outside of the school, but that’s not all we’re doing to help our students. We’ve provided bullying-prevention training for up to 25,000 teachers and for 7,500 principals and vice-principals. We’re also working with the Kids Help Phone people to have a service available 24-7 for our students.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. On September 25 last year, you stood in this House and, in defending the indefensible, made a shocking statement about the gas plant scandal. You said, “To my mind, we’re dealing with a situation of manufactured discontent; that the opposition is deciding to create and fabricate.” In other words, you blamed us. Well, let’s look at what has happened since then: The former Premier and his energy minister have both resigned and now we’re on our third round of document releases, despite assurances, including your own, that we had them all the first time.

After all of that, do you still believe that this $1.3-billion scandal, which has outraged Ontarians, was still made up by us?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I can only repeat for the honourable member that, on the issue of the production of documents—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order. Last warning.

Hon. John Milloy: On the production of documents, Mr. Speaker, there is a standing committee of the Legislature that, I believe, will begin its work into looking at it tomorrow, and they will have a chance to examine all the issues and call the witnesses they want coming forward.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, it’s a little unclear what the opposition wants on this. First, we offer a standing committee; they say they don’t want it. Then the member from Cambridge says that he doesn’t want a public inquiry because it’s too expensive, and then the member from North Bay holds a press conference saying they want a public inquiry. During the whole case, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. When I was sitting, I told the member from Leeds–Grenville that it was his last warning. I did not imply that it was a warning—but now he has one.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the member from Cambridge says a public inquiry is too expensive; the member from Nipissing says that he wants a public inquiry. We offer them a select committee, they say they want a select committee, and then they vote against it by going forward with a mean and vindictive motion.

While all of this is going on, we have the Leader of the Opposition standing up and pledging to vote against a budget that hasn’t even been written yet.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s time the official opposition figured out what they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Premier, I can’t believe that on Pink Shirt Day, you referred this question to the biggest bully who has been bullying us since the last election—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I find that unacceptable. Withdraw.

Mr. Steve Clark: Withdrawn.

Premier, I still don’t think you’re taking this seriously. I want to remind you that we are asking for a select committee on Project Vapour or whatever code name you people are calling it this week. This $1.3-billion scandal is the biggest in Ontario history. In the midst of a tight election campaign, you and your party decided to save a handful of Liberal seats, sacrificing a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money.

You know what happened, because you co-chaired the campaign. So I’m asking you, will you admit today that you were wrong when you helped make that decision during the campaign? You were wrong in September when you blamed the opposition and you’re wrong by refusing—

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it was a tight election campaign. That’s why the Mississauga South PC candidate engaged in robocalls. Again, let me remind you: “Hi there. This is Geoff Janoscik, your Mississauga South Ontario PC candidate. I’m calling about the McGuinty-Sousa power plant that the Liberal government decided to build in your backyard. I’m against this power plant, and as your MPP, I will fight to stop the power plant from being built…. Our team has been out knocking on doors every single evening for several months, talking about the power plant and making sure that we defeat the Liberals in this riding and put an end to their bad decisions.”

As the Leader of the Opposition said, Mr. Speaker, if they had been elected, the power plant would have been “done, done, done.”

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Families in London have been hit hard by manufacturing job losses. They saw jobs disappear overnight when Caterpillar pulled up stakes and now they’re seeing it with Diamond Aircraft. The latest layoff announcement puts over 200 more families out in the cold in that community.

Can the Premier please explain to these workers why her government threw $10 million at a foreign-owned company without ironclad job guarantees?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question coming from the leader of the third party. Of course, as she alluded to, this government first and foremost is concerned for the workers and their families who have been affected by this layoff. It’s clear: We all know and are sensitive to the fact that losing a job is never easy, particularly under these circumstances. Too many families in this province are still struggling, so there’s a lot of work to do.

This reminds us of the work that this government is committed to, to keeping Ontario’s economy vibrant and strong and, as was mentioned in the throne speech, economic growth and job creation is one of the top priorities. Its investments continue, and certainly, as I mentioned yesterday as well, with opportunities like the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund, we will continue to pursue opportunities. But this is never good news for the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the reality is that the workers in the manufacturing sector of this province are actually looking for a job strategy that works. I think everybody realizes that we can’t save every job, but when people see companies handed public money, only to turn around and then lay off workers, they want some real answers. When will this government—

Interjection.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The previous economic development and trade minister is having a hard time with this one, Speaker. Nonetheless, these people actually want some answers.

When will this government take our advice about actually incentivizing job creation and tying investment dollars to job guarantees in this province?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s important to recognize that since the bottom of the recession in June 2009, this province and this government have created, together with the private sector, nearly 400,000 net new jobs.

I should point out that our commitment to the manufacturing and advanced manufacturing sector is strong. In fact, since the recession, Ontario has created nearly 32,000 new manufacturing jobs. This is such an important sector to the Ontario economy; it’s the bedrock of our economy. Nearly 700,000 people are employed in it. But the news recently has been good. The jobs are coming back. In the first 10 months of 2012 alone, the manufacturing average employment increased by nearly 8,000 jobs, and our commitment through my ministry and through this government to continue to invest in our manufacturing sector remains strong, and we’re beginning to see those results.

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In Scarborough Southwest, there’s quite a bit of co-operative housing. As I’m sure you are aware, currently, co-operative housing tenants and providers must take any disputes they may have through the legal system and cannot take advantage of the less costly Landlord and Tenant Board, as is the case with most residential landlords and tenants. Additional legal fees associated with going through the court system can cost as much as $5,000 per dispute and can be a lot for co-operative housing providers to take on.

I know that there has previously been legislation introduced in this House that would have worked to amend these issues. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us what our government is doing now to ensure that a fairer system is in place to benefit our non-profit housing providers?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for his question, and I want to say that our government certainly understands the very important role that co-op housing providers play in providing affordable housing in Ontario.

We also know that the current process for resolving co-op tenure disputes can be time-consuming and expensive for both the co-op housing providers as well as their members, which is why I’m pleased to inform the member in the House today that this afternoon I will be reintroducing the legislation that will amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. If passed, this would allow co-ops to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to resolve certain disputes, including persistent late payment of rent, illegal behaviour and willful damage.

Our co-op housing providers have told us that these proposed reforms are a high priority. They’d save them time and money and would relieve our courts of hearing approximately 350 co-op eviction cases per year, allowing them to devote those resources to other purposes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Minister. It is good to hear that our government is working to ease some of the burden that is facing our non-profit housing providers.

Minister, you mentioned that the proposed changes are important to our co-operative housing sector. I’m certain that they are, but could you please inform the House and my residents in Scarborough Southwest what discussions have gone on with the co-operative housing sector with regard to the proposed changes?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Going back to 2009, the ministry has been conducting substantial consultations with those in the co-operative housing sector and with the stakeholders. As many of us know, the co-op housing sector—in particular, Harvey Cooper, whom we all know and love, has been very vocal in his support for pushing for the proposed changes, and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, which represents the vast majority of over 550 non-profit co-ops in Ontario, is supportive of the proposals.

It’s worth noting that the last time we introduced this legislation, we received support from my opposition colleagues across the aisle. I hope we can depend on them again to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with our co-operative housing stakeholders and all members to ensure a strong, viable co-operative housing sector in Ontario.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have gone to great lengths to deflect and avoid talking about your role in the decision to cancel the Mississauga gas plant. Now, here’s what we know: Just days before the 2011 election, the Liberal campaign team, of which you are co-chair, cancelled the Mississauga gas plant. We know that the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Duncan, admitted at committee that the decision was politically motivated, to save at-risk Liberal seats in Mississauga. We know that by your own numbers, the cancellation of the Oakville and Mississauga plants will cost at least $230 million, while energy analysts say it will run as high as $1.3 billion.

As the new Premier, you promised complete accountability on this scandal, including a select committee to investigate. How can you, in good conscience, stand here and not keep your promise to establish a select committee immediately?

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, in 2011, three political parties made commitments in the election campaign that they would move the gas plants in both Oakville and Mississauga. We were fortunate enough to get elected and we did what we promised; we did what the other two parties promised: We relocated the gas plants.

We put the question of costs to the Ontario Power Authority. The Ontario Power Authority provided us with the documentation and the calculation of the cost. We made that information, which we received from the Ontario Power Authority, available to the opposition and the public. It’s as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, you are off to a very rocky start. I don’t think this is the way you planned your first few weeks. You could have prevented this by coming clean, by showing accountability, by showing respect and by being transparent. You made a commitment to the people of Ontario, and that commitment evaporated quicker than a June snow.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that the public’s confidence is restored. That will not happen as long as you continue to claim that you have nothing to hide, while at the same time blocking a select committee that would get to the bottom of this scandal.

Will you finally put the public interest ahead of the interests of yourself and your party, do the right thing, and establish this select committee so it can get to the bottom of your scandal?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the opposition loves it when the Auditor General comes to this place with a report on a particular area of activity of the government. They will have the opportunity to see the report within a short number of weeks from the Auditor General. The Auditor General has the power to ask questions of anybody under oath. The Auditor General has access to every piece of paper in every ministry. He will report.

In addition to that, the other side, the opposition, voted to have a committee, the justice committee, look into all the document-related issues. They will have an opportunity, starting tomorrow and next week, to ask all the questions of anybody they want, under oath. When will they take yes for an answer?

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last March, the government, through its then Minister of Finance, committed to give Trillium benefit recipients the option of receiving the benefit as a lump sum or in monthly installments. This would give flexibility to seniors and families trying to make ends meet. Why is it that a year later, this government has failed to put in place this promised change?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question. This is an issue. We did make that commitment that we would allow the public to have the option of receiving a lump sum payment or receiving it in advance by way of monthly payments. We’ve allowed, under the regulations and we actually increased the threshold, to enable that lump sum payment. More needs to be done in order for us to accommodate that request, and I’m looking into doing just that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Next month people will be filing their income tax and it will be too late. When the government says they’re committed to do it, we need to know when.

The government admitted that giving people choice helps lower-income Ontarians. Some families prefer the regularity of a monthly payment. Others, especially seniors, prefer a lump sum to help pay property taxes or other expenses. The government could have had the change in place and should have had the change in place by now. When will the government finally make good on this promise? You can’t do it this year. Will you have it for next year?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I agree, and I’m going to do everything I can to try to actually accelerate the process, if possible.

I know we’re dealing with the federal, because of the tax issues. That’s what’s creating some of the delay. We’re trying to find an innovative way by increasing the threshold to enable that choice to be made earlier than later.

But keep in mind—and to those who are watching—right now you’re getting the monies upfront. I understand that people would prefer to have it by way of a lump sum payment. I want to make that option available to them. I’ll work with both of you, from both sides, to try to put something—even if we can this year—so that we can accommodate that request.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, one of our responsibilities as a government and as custodian of our province’s natural resources wealth is to pass its diversity on to the generations that follow us. This means taking proactive measures to preserve species of animals and plants whose continued existence would otherwise be threatened by human activity in Ontario.

This government updated the Endangered Species Act in 2007 for the first time in more than 35 years. The Endangered Species Act is critical to supporting the recovery of many species across the province that might otherwise die off forever and to protect Ontario’s rich biodiversity.

Minister, please update the House about the status of the Endangered Species Act and its importance to protecting species at risk in the province of Ontario.

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to just take a minute and thank the hard-working member from Mississauga–Streetsville for raising this very important issue. I was also surprised to hear the leader of the official opposition claim that Ontario is doing too much to protect species at risk across the province.

Our government’s Endangered Species Act is a landmark piece of legislation and a leader in North America in the area of species and habitat protection. The act balances protections for species at risk in