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

March 12, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-12 (PDF)

L057 - Thu 12 Mar 2015 / Jeu 12 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 12 March 2015 Jeudi 12 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’immigration en Ontario

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Climate change

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Labour dispute

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Environmental protection

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Private members’ public business

Visitor

Deferred Votes

Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’immigration en Ontario

Members’ Statements

Jared Keeso

Sally Hooke

Sir John A. Macdonald Collegiate Institute

Police

Juno Awards

Johnny Seto

Colonel Fitzgerald Branch 233

Connect School of Languages

Neil Young

Introduction of Bills

Helping Volunteers Give Back Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 visant à aider les bénévoles à contribuer

Petitions

Wind turbines

Gasoline prices

Water fluoridation

Privatization of public assets

Automotive industry

Probation and parole services

Student safety

Student assistance

Water fluoridation

Privatization of public assets

Automotive industry

Lyme disease

Hydro rates

Motions

Consideration of Bill 56

Private Members’ Public Business

Microbead Elimination and Monitoring Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination et le contrôle des microbilles

Visitors

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario

Climate change

Microbead Elimination and Monitoring Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’élimination et le contrôle des microbilles

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario

Climate change

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’immigration en Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 11, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 49, Loi portant sur l’immigration en Ontario et apportant une modification connexe à la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item of business was last debated, we had completed questions and comments on the speech from the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. We’re now into further debate.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise today as the representative of Windsor West and speak to Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act.

I want to thank all those who spoke before me on this bill, especially our immigration critic. I think she’s doing an outstanding job on this portfolio as well as raising the concerns of her constituents from London–Fanshawe.

I’m thankful to have the opportunity to debate this bill today. I know this government has been making a bit of a habit of cutting debate time in this chamber, and I’ve waited patiently all week, hoping I would have the opportunity to speak to this bill today.

Given recent actions by this government to stifle important debate, I know we all get excited when they allow us the opportunity to speak to important and, in many cases, life-altering legislation in this chamber without cutting off our ability to debate things democratically and passionately in this chamber.

After 10 years without a comprehensive immigration policy for this province, I’m glad we are here debating this bill. Broadly speaking, this bill, as several of my colleagues have indicated, provides the authority for Ontario to establish and govern immigrant selection programs. If passed, the bill would empower the province to set target levels of the number of persons chosen by selection programs and give consideration to Ontario’s labour market needs. It would also allow the minister to pursue regulations that can set up registries for both employers and recruiters interested in participating in Ontario’s selection programs under the act.

This, of course, is not an exhaustive list of what the bill hopes to accomplish, but I think that what I’ve outlined is sufficient, given that my time is limited this morning.

To add some context to this debate, I would like to bring up a few points that were already raised, but I think they are worth bringing up again. Immigration in this province would need to be more than two and a half times greater than it is today in order to offset the decline in Ontario’s labour force being caused by our aging population.

Let’s unpack this for a minute. Besides the productivity losses that we may face, we need to consider all of the knowledge that will be lost if we don’t effectively pass it along to our next generation of workers, which includes Ontario immigrants as well as young people. I’m thinking specifically of auto workers and the tool and die makers that are foundational to the success of Windsor and Essex county. These are craftspeople. They employ skills that cannot be learned overnight and, a lot of the time, require extensive on-the-job training.

Utilizing the skills of our current workforce to train those who will take over for them is something we need to think seriously about. If the people that will take over these jobs have not even entered this province yet, we need to get them here and we need to set up on-the-job training programs so that Ontario shares its knowledge with the next generation of workers.

We also need to remember that a number of Ontario immigrants already have the skills they need to be employed in this province. Bill 49 speaks to recruiting and targeting highly trained and employable individuals in Ontario. This initiative is only as good as our ability to recognize their skills.

We’ve heard this before. It’s not new, and the government has been aware of this trend for over a decade. Yet for over 10 years, we have not seen this government come forward and commit to an Ontario immigration plan. I’m glad that finally we are seeing something today.

I think that one thing that is not in this bill—and this issue was touched on by a number of my colleagues—is a focus on immigrants who do not fit into the economic class being discussed in this bill. Furthermore, adequate housing is not addressed in this bill.

All of the concerns I’ve raised thus far are concerns in my community. Windsor welcomes a large number of new Ontarians every year. Unfortunately, over the past few years, we’ve also lost a number of Windsorites to the western provinces. I hope that we can build the economy required to welcome them back one day and reconnect families. Nevertheless, I’m glad to welcome new families to our great city every year.

We have people coming from all over the world to live in our community, and continue to develop the cultural institutions that allow people to enjoy their unique cultural practices and share them with others.

I would like to specifically highlight the excellent work done by the Somali Community of Windsor. This community organization services all residents, but specializes in offering social services targeted to at-risk, marginalized communities in the region, specifically residents originating from Somalia or those of Somali heritage. This is a not-for-profit organization of staff and volunteers that works tirelessly in my community.

Most recently, the Somali Community of Windsor informed me about a project to target Somali youth who have escalating problems of school discipline or are suffering from low self-esteem or delinquency. The program seeks to establish a mechanism for early forms of intervention to help at-risk youth succeed in the community. Programming includes workshop sessions on enhancing social skills and building linkages to provide youth with mentors and support networks.

I’ve met with this community several times since being elected, and they are motivated, organized and dedicated. I don’t think I will ever forget the lessons I’m learning about community activism and engagement from this organization. I really hope this government is taking note of my remarks here, as the Somali Community’s program is not yet implemented and is an excellent model to be implemented and duplicated elsewhere. I hope the government looks at these programs when they are designing the criteria of what would qualify for settlement services, and I hope they provide specifics very soon.

I brought up the Somali Community and their work on community programming today because I think it underscores a number of issues yet to be determined in the Ontario Immigration Act. While the goal of bringing more people into Ontario is admirable and needed, we need to look at what support networks we have for these people once they come to our province. We need to assess whether or not those that come here to work have access to affordable housing. We need to look at targeted programming for at-risk youth and how the need for this programming is intensified when we are talking about minority populations.

Rest assured that I can speak until adjournment and beyond about the ambitions and achievements of all of the cultural institutions in my riding and all of the culture we celebrate in Windsor and Essex county. But somehow I don’t think you would allow me to do that, Mr. Speaker, even though I know all the members of this chamber would enjoy the discussion. Maybe indulge me one last time by allowing me to highlight one more group, and then I’ll bring up the rest at a later date.

I want to highlight the work being done by the Essex County Chinese Canadian Association. Chinese Canadians have a proud tradition in Windsor. I’m sure we all remember that there was a time in Canada when, if you were Chinese, you were not allowed to immigrate to the country. We can all recall the dark

chapter of Canadian history that saw the Chinese Immigration Act in effect from 1923 to 1947.

The Essex County Chinese Canadian Association has held events in the past celebrating the repeal of this truly discriminatory legislation. I think that remembering how tragic immigration legislation was in the past helps ground us in how far we’ve come and how far we have yet to go when legislating immigration policy in Ontario. I thank the Essex County Chinese Canadian Association for reminding us of this.

I think my time is coming to an end, Speaker, and I would like to say that I enjoyed my time speaking to this bill today. While I’m glad to see that we’re having a discussion focused on immigration policy for Ontario, I know I am not alone in thinking we should have had some sort of comprehensive immigration plan over a decade ago. Nevertheless, I hope that, moving forward, the government will reflect on my remarks.

First and foremost, I hope they look at the work being done by organizations in my riding that ease the transition for people new to Ontario, remind us of our past and work to build a more inclusive and thriving Ontario. And, Speaker, this bill is incredibly significant to my riding, as Windsor is a border town. In my riding alone there are two border crossings, whether it’s through the tunnel into Detroit or across the bridge, and, hopefully, a new publicly owned bridge as well very soon.

More and more, I see that immigrants come across with incredible skills that are not transferable. We need to make sure they have supports in place so that when they come here those skills can be put to work right away and we’re able to support their communities.

I mentioned the Somali Community in my speech. They’re currently looking to relocate facilities, because they just don’t have the funding in place to run their fantastic program. These are things we need to look at when we welcome people into the country and into Ontario, and make sure they have the supports in place specific to their cultural needs. And we need to make sure that the youth they bring with them are supported, so that when they grow up and go through our education system and move on to work, there are jobs out there for them and they have the skills they need in order to succeed.

I think that’s just about it for my time, Speaker. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act. The intention of this bill is to recognize the long history of immigration within our province. Like many places in our province, my riding of York South–Weston has been tremendously strengthened by the success of the communities and individuals who have come from other places to call Canada their home.

My community also has a significant presence of the Somali community and of the Filipino community. This bill would address establishing settlement integration programs that are targeted at them, and I think this would be very beneficial to them.

It would also establish, and asks the authority to govern, Ontario’s immigration selection programs. I believe that’s very important. We have communities such as the Italian community and the Portuguese community that, like my family, came much earlier compared to the Somali community and nowadays can’t even come here. There’s just no way that they’re accepted. Even if they would make the selection, we’re just not taking in people from countries that belong to communities that in a way helped to build Canada and helped to build cities like Toronto and the province of Ontario. Sometimes it’s sad to think of it that way.

I think we do need to shake up the system. I know that every one of us who comes from another place in the world could tell a quite interesting immigration story about their family; there’s no time. It’s time, instead, to bring this bill forward and to get it to committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks very much, Speaker. Good morning to you. It’s nice to see you in the chair. I’m pleased to provide two minutes of questions and comments on the fine speech by the member for Windsor West. Her community, like mine in Leeds–Grenville, is a border community. We have two international bridges in our riding. Some of the issues that the member put on the table today are similar to issues that we have in our riding.

I would like to thank the government for bringing forward this motion to debate this bill this morning. I have to tell you that we’re excited to join in the debate. Nine of our members have spoken to this bill so far, so we still have 19 members of our caucus who are eager and anxious to speak. In fact, other than Ms. Jones and I, every one of the members here in the chamber in our caucus has yet to speak to the bill. We’re all ready and excited to put our comments from our ridings.

I’d just like to say that one of the events that I enjoy in my riding—and it has been going on for over 30 years—is the annual multicultural festival. I can’t get over it; every year that I go there I meet new Canadians who have just come to Brockville, who have joined our community and who take great pride in attending that festival and showing the men and women in the city and in the riding as a whole their culture. This is a great event where you’ve got food and music. But most importantly, this group, this multicultural council, has worked for over three decades to help educate the community.

I think they’ve done just a tremendous job. I know that they’re very supportive, as our caucus is, of this legislation. We look forward to further debate this morning. Our Conservative caucus is eager and anxious to join in the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you. I welcome the discussion on Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act. It’s something that I’ve been actually bringing forward to certain ministers and ministries for the last couple of years.

Northern Ontario, as you know, was devastated by the downturn in the forest industry. Things are turning around. The mining industry is starting to pick up. There is such a need and an opportunity for employment, particularly in the northern part of my riding. We are looking for workers. Anybody who is looking to relocate to that area has an opportunity to come to beautiful communities such as White River, Chapleau and Wawa, which are looking to secure individuals to come to their area.

Having the discussion in regard to setting target levels based on the labour market needs—we’ve been crying and yelling about that for a very long time. Also, to conduct research, organize educational and training programs and have a registry list where both employers and recruiters can actually submit their names—we welcome that opportunity, and it’s long overdue that we should be having this discussion. But—I need to say “but”—a lot of the discussion is failing in that we need to make sure that our federal cousins are on board with this as well. Without them, it’s going to be difficult to move this forward.

On behalf of the vast communities that are across my riding, particularly in the northern boundaries of my riding, I welcome the opportunity to have the discussion. I will be listening very closely to the discussion and will be relaying this because I do know there are some individuals who will love to come and provide some comments and their views as to what they need, when they need it, the specialties that they need and how quickly they need it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. It is my pleasure to speak on Bill 49. I had the privilege during the last session to work on Bill 161, which is similar legislation. Unfortunately, an election got in the way, but here we are today debating this bill. It’s such an important bill because it really captures the spirit of who we are as Ontarians.

You know, over the last few hundred years in this province, we’ve been able to build a province like Ontario because of our immigration. I always say that outside of our aboriginal population every single person in this province has an immigrant past. My father is from Grenada. I was born in England; my mother is from England. We all have an immigrant past, and we need to continue to work on immigration to strengthen the way in which our immigration policies work federally to allow us to meet some of our needs here in the province of Ontario.

We know that over the next 10 years there will be 2.5 million job openings here in the province of Ontario. We do have a low birthrate and an aging population. It is important for us to continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world so we can continue to build the type of province that we’ve been so fortunate to have over the many years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Windsor West, you have two minutes.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to thank the members from York South–Weston, Leeds–Grenville, my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

In my community, because we are a border town, we have a high population of immigrants come in and out of Windsor. Some choose to stay in Windsor; some use it as a portal to move on to somewhere else in Ontario. Although the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport boasted of the investments in programs for immigrants, I will say that from what I’m hearing from my community, there is still a large gap that needs to be addressed, a large gap when it comes to training or being able to transfer their skills.

I can share a story—it seems like another lifetime ago. I was a dental assistant in an office in downtown Windsor, right in the heart of Windsor. We had two people that would come in to clean the office. We got talking about where they were from, how long they’ve been in Canada and why they chose Windsor to live in. I eventually asked what it was that they did back in the country that they had come from. It was interesting and kind of disheartening to find out that the lady who was cleaning our dental office is actually a trained and licensed dentist back in her own country where she came from.

She chose to come to Canada, chose Ontario as her home and chose to stay in Windsor and yet her skills were not transferrable. There was a great barrier for her to go back to school and get the credentials she needed in order to be able to practise here.

So I think there’s still a lot of work to be done. This is a great step forward. I mentioned Somali Community. Again, the minister had mentioned all the money they’ve thrown into the system and the wonderful things they’re doing, but we still have immigrants who are coming here who have to fund their own programs for their youth.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Speaker. Good morning to you, sir. It’s good to see you in the chair this morning. I am pleased to stand and add my comments on Bill 49.

It’s interesting, and I’m sure you’ve heard these comments before, that we’re all products of immigrants, in this country, who came to this country for a better life. My own ancestors came here about 200 years ago, back in the 1820s. There were about six of them who came over at one time. We’ve certainly done the historical—we’ve looked back in history to see who we’re related to and what branch of the trees and whatever else. We’ve done a pretty good job of it. As they came and settled in the Ottawa area—actually, they settled in North Gower, which is a small community in the Ottawa area. That’s where they settled, and they branched out from there.

My great-grandfather, I believe, ended up in Essex county, which was where I was born and raised. But they ended up going across to the United States and certainly across Canada.

I could just imagine, Speaker, when they got off the boat. I can just imagine that. They got off the boat; we don’t know exactly where they got off. We believe it was somewhere around Montreal. But coming from Ireland, which was quite a different country, I suppose, than what Canada was back in the 1820s, I can just imagine what they were anticipating. I don’t know what they were thinking of. I’m sure they were hoping for a better life and an opportunity to raise their families and continue on in this country, which they did. It was about the third generation of those original settlers that started to move across Canada and the United States and settle other regions of the province.

It’s interesting, as you look back in history or look back in your own history at some events that happened back then that can be related to what I’m doing right now. If you go to Manotick, in Ottawa, you’ll find a street that’s named after us, and it was named for those first settlers who came to that area. There’s also a road north of Rivers, Manitoba, that has our name on it. In fact, there used to be a town out there called Pettapiece at one point.

The individuals involved in how these things were named, if you read the history, had a lot to do with municipal politics, and they were quite well respected where they lived.

I’m going to fast-forward to now. There’s a chap I met in Stratford. His name is Gezahgn Wordofa. He’s got quite an interesting history. He’s worked for the United Nations, and he actually came here from Russia. He spent about eight or nine years in Russia. He met his wife, a Canadian girl, in Russia and came to Canada.

He started the Multicultural Association of Perth-Huron. It’s one thing to get immigrants to come to this country—and a lot of them want to come here because they know that Canada is the land of opportunity, although Ontario is certainly having its issues right now and we lose a lot of these immigrants, who go to the west because of job opportunities.

Gezahgn has started what they call the Multicultural Association of Perth-Huron. He got me involved. He’s invited me to a couple of meetings, a couple of different functions they’ve had. One of the issues that immigrant people have in Canada, especially in rural areas, is a sense of inclusion in the community. If there are only one or two families of a certain group that come over, they sometimes have problems meeting their neighbours, for example, and things like that, and finding jobs and feeling comfortable in their situation.

So what Gezahgn has done is started this multicultural association. I was at a celebration they had last fall. There are about 250 members in this association right now. It’s not just one group from one country; it’s countries from all over the world that are involved. I didn’t realize there were that many countries represented in Perth–Wellington because they tend to keep to themselves. They aren’t in the communities as much as we would like them to be. This is not their fault, certainly; it’s just a matter of getting to know who is around you and getting comfortable with who you’re with.

So he started this association. What he does is, if you’ve been here for a while and you’re having difficulty, say, finding a job, getting your records in order or whatever else, then he and his organization will help you out with these types of things, if you request it. It has grown so much that, actually, this organization is sponsored by the United Way and they’ve taken them under their wing to help them with the organizational part of it and also to get the word out as to what they are doing.

We welcome these people into our communities. We’re in an enviable position, I think, in Perth–Wellington, where our jobless rate is very low. We’re probably under 4% in our unemployment rate. We are looking for people to fill jobs. In fact, some of the communities in the riding actually go into the larger cities and bus people into some of the places in Perth–Wellington to work for the day and then bus them home, which is quite unusual. But we have an underemployment problem where we are. We welcome these people or anybody who wants to come out into the rural areas because of this unemployment situation that we have.

Anyway, the multicultural association does exactly that. They will find these people work that they may be interested in. Unfortunately, some of them come here with an education that might not fit the bill; however, they want to work.

I was told by a Chinese girl at one of these occasions that her father has a degree in agriculture from China and cannot find the employment here that he’s after. I think there’s probably an issue with the language—that’s probably one problem, but he’s still continuing on. There are jobs for these people so at least they can get settled in Ontario and in our riding.

We are actively seeking people to come out to our riding because there are job opportunities out there. This multicultural association helps people navigate the system. When we see that the province is trying to encourage this, we would ask that they not only encourage them to come to the cities but encourage them to come to rural Ontario, where I think these people can fit into our way of life and certainly be able to progress and have a good life.

Also, I would like to advise you, Speaker, that our housing costs are probably not as high as in some of the major cities. We do have housing in Perth–Wellington that would probably be affordable to anybody moving to this country as long as they wanted to work hard, and for most people who come to this country that’s exactly what they want to do: work hard and raise their families with a decent income and certainly the security that this country offers.

Anyway, that’s a little bit about the Huron-Perth multicultural association, which I will be working with on a number of things in the riding just because it’s something that really interests me. Also, Mr. Wordofa, who is running this organization, likes to keep in contact with members of the Legislature, both federally and provincially, just to see if there are any programs coming down the pipeline that might help his organization. Certainly we do that; if he needs some help with something or any of the people involved in that, our phone lines are always open. We try to do as much as we can to make these people more comfortable and welcome in our community.

That’s a little bit about what’s going on in Perth–Wellington, and I welcome a bill that does encourage immigration. I thank you for your time, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, it’s a privilege and a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin. I listened very closely to the comments that the member from Perth–Wellington brought forward.

Again, I wanted to touch on the impact of this, which I see as a discussion that we’re going to be having in regard to how Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act, can actually identify particular labour market needs and how we could actually capitalize on those particular areas across this province.

Once again I’m going to toot my horn: Algoma–Manitoulin is in need of individuals who would fall under such of these discussions that we’re looking at having, particularly conducted researches. There has been lots of research that has been done across the Algoma–Manitoulin area, particularly in the northern part, where AWIC has been working tirelessly in order to identify the shortages that they have in regard to support jobs, industry jobs and service jobs. These are the individuals and the skilled people that we need in that area.

I’ve been asking the minister—I think we’ve been talking about this for a year or two since I’ve been up here, particularly in regard to my northern region—about why we need this discussion and why this is so important to securing that labour workforce to come up to northern Ontario.

There are a lot of parts of this province that are really struggling, but we are struggling even more greatly because it is so easy for an individual to leave those communities, because of the downturn in the forestry and mining sectors, that our skilled labour workforce has moved on. The others who were there in support positions are now into those skilled positions. We need a new, fresh influx of individuals to come to northern Ontario. This is something that I’m going to be working very closely with, along with many across Algoma–Manitoulin.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Chan: There’s an urgency to pass this bill and to move it to committee. Bill 49 allows us to act on recommendations made by the Auditor General—I know that some members opposite mentioned the Auditor General’s report a number of times.

As well, Bill 49 will position us to take full advantage of express entry, a new system introduced by the federal government this year, on January 1. In Ontario, we will be rolling out express entry in upcoming weeks.

Again, there’s an urgency to hopefully pass the bill. I think the opposition party debate Bill 49 by continuing to put up speakers. I want to let you know, Speaker, that the bill has been debated for 10 hours now and that over 70 members of the Legislature have either spoken to this bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments. The government extended debate beyond the 6.5-hour threshold so some members could have an opportunity to speak to the bill. Listening, it has been clear that the majority of the members are in support of this bill. So it’s really time to stop the debate and send it to committee when possible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I was listening intently when my colleague from Perth–Wellington was speaking about the Ottawa area. I find it a little odd that the city of Perth doesn’t seem to be in the riding of Perth–Wellington. I know Perth very well because I went to summer camp there and my kids go to summer camp there.

Perth is such an interesting community. I invite everybody to go visit it. It was settled by Scottish immigrants who were working on building the Rideau Canal. They have some really incredible historic buildings and bridges to go see there. You really get that feeling in that community of the Scottish immigrants—that they came here to work on the canal and weren’t planning necessarily to stay but they decided to stay. Why did they decide to stay? Well, they had work, but that wasn’t the only reason they decided to stay. They decided to stay because they felt comfortable in the area because they had a sense of community and because they had supports within that community.

I think that what this bill does address is part of what is needed to attract skilled immigrants, the best and the brightest, as the minister just said recently. We want to attract people, and we want them to be comfortable. We want them to be happy. We want them to be integrated and to stay and invest in our communities.

We have to look at how we can go about that, and I think what we need to do is consult with those community groups. They’re not necessarily asking for money, but they are asking to have a say in how best to welcome members of their communities to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I’m glad to add a few minutes of debate to Bill 49, specifically one part of the bill that’s called “Other Amendments” under the Regulated Health Professions Act. I can support the parts of the act that are there. They want to make the process more timely and they want to make the process more accessible through having to pay a fee to get information. But all of this is for naught if they cannot get training spots.

I’d like to give an example from my riding. We have this pediatrician who comes from Brazil. She married a Canadian who lives in my riding, who lives in Nickel Belt and works at the mine. She knew as she was finishing her training that she needed to get some Canadian experience, so she did part of her training in Alberta. She is a phenomenal pediatrician with skills that are needed all over. Sick Kids here in Toronto is quite willing to give her a job so that she can get her licence, but she lives in Nickel Belt. Her husband is in Nickel Belt. Her family is in Nickel Belt.

Why is it that people in the health professions in the Regulated Health Professions Act who want to continue their training cannot have those opportunities throughout Ontario? New immigrants to our province don’t only want to be in Toronto—nothing against Toronto; a lot of them come and settle here. But more and more of them would like to be able to settle in the north. We certainly want the skills that they are bringing to the north, but if they are not able to complete the required training so that they are allowed to practise, then all is for naught. This family is going to move to Toronto, and Nickel Belt and Sudbury will continue to be underserved. This has to change.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I listened intently to the comments from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, the member from Thornhill and the member from Nickel Belt.

Especially when I listened to the member from Nickel Belt, she expressed some of the same issues that I raised in my comments about being underserviced and people not coming to the rural areas, and there is work available. I think that’s something that needs to be promoted by governments, that work is not just in the cities and not just in the GTA, although it’s certainly here too.

When we get into situations where we have an underemployment problem in Perth–Wellington—like I say, we have people who are being bused in to work in some of our factories from the large centres—that should throw up a red flag, but it should also point to an opportunity that we have. We can encourage people to move into some of the areas outside of the GTA and the London-Windsor corridor because there are good jobs and there are jobs available. We must encourage not only people who are new to this country; we must encourage people who are already here.

Again, I get back to the Huron-Perth multicultural association. This is what they do. They try to encourage people to come out. They try to make it easier for them to settle in Huron and Perth counties, because there are opportunities out in those areas.

I am sure anyone who has been to Perth–Wellington and has been to the theatre in Stratford would know that we are a multicultural society there and we have many opportunities that we believe new immigrants would cherish in Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to make a couple of points on this morning’s debate on this legislation. As we said earlier in this debate, I think most Ontarians and pretty well everybody in this Legislature is in agreement that Ontario has to play a larger role when it comes to immigration policy in Ontario. If you take a look at the history of Canada, there are a number of provinces like Quebec that play a much larger role when it comes to dealing with the policies and dealing with the various issues having to do with how people immigrate and where they immigrate to.

Certainly Ontario, being the province that traditionally gets the greater number of immigrants than any other province in Canada, should have a role, because we’re in great need of people to immigrate to different parts of the province. I’ll speak to that a little bit later.

I just want to pick up on the honourable minister across the way—minister for something, and I can’t remember the riding, I’m sorry—who got up and said, “Oh, my God, we’ve been debating this bill now for 10 hours, and it’s so important that we pass this bill.” I think he used a word like “imperative” or “urgency.” It was going to be like the end of the world.

I was sitting back here thinking, “Was it, what, about eight years ago, 10 years ago that the current Liberal government said it was going to do something to deal with foreign-trained doctors, foreign-trained electricians, foreign-trained engineers, foreign-trained all kinds of people that have been trained in Europe and different parts of the world who immigrate to Ontario and Canada and who can’t get a job because their qualifications are not recognized here in Ontario?” If I’m an electrician or I’m a doctor or I’m an engineer from Europe or somewhere else in the world who has been trained, I still have the same problems that I had back in 2007, when the government said they were going to do something.

There have been some small steps made, but by and large there has not been the type of change that the government promised would happen when it comes to allowing those people trained in foreign universities and colleges that provide qualifications comparable to Ontario’s to be dealt with.

I still see people in this city on a daily basis—a lot of them driving taxis, and I’m a good booster of the taxi industry, using taxis almost every day—where I run across them and I say to them, “So what do you do?” They say, “Well, I’m an electrical engineer.” “Oh, and you’ve not been able to get work?” “No, I can’t get my qualifications recognized here in Ontario.”

Since 2007, this government was supposed to do something, and we’re now being told in this debate today: This bill has to be passed like yesterday so that we can deal with the issues that Ontario needs to deal with when it comes to immigration policy in the province. I’d like to believe the government, I truly would, and I think there’s not a member in this House on either side of the aisle who would not want to believe that in fact passing this legislation three days ago, or this minute or two minutes from now is going to have an immediate change when it comes to immigration policy in this province.

I just don’t have confidence, quite frankly, in the government’s ability to deliver, because far too often the government has come to this House—and this is not a prop; it’s our order paper—and brought legislation forward that has a great title, that is accompanied by some of the best press releases I’ve ever seen written, that gives the citizens a sense that something is happening, but in fact, other than the title and the press release, minimal baby steps are being made to address the issue.

We just saw that with the passage of Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act, yesterday. It’s a great idea. Everybody in the House voted for it. We think that expanding the whole idea of crop—what’s the word I’m looking for?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Business risk management.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Risk management, thank you.

Expanding risk management is a great idea, but without money being tied to it, it means to say potentially that there will be more people needing to be insured with the same amount of money, which means to say it’s a reduction. Yet the government says—great title, great press release, moving with Godspeed to do all kind of things. But we’re actually possibly taking a step back.

So I want to believe the minister when he stands in this House and says there is such an urgency to pass this bill. I’m not filibustering; New Democrats are not filibustering this bill. I just want to put this on the record.

There are some legitimate concerns being raised by members of this House. We just heard from our member from Nickel Belt, who raised issues in regard to doctors in her community who can’t stay because they aren’t able to get their credentials recognized when it comes to the work that they do within the health field. I look at the case that I have in northeastern Ontario, as my good friend from Algoma–Manitoulin does, where we represent large industrial sectors such as mining, forestry and hydro development, and we have people who are trying to get work who are qualified and can’t get jobs because their credentials are not recognized.

Those people who live in Ontario who do these kinds of jobs are already working, so it’s not as if we’re displacing people who want the job. The people who are able to do the job are working, but there’s a whole bunch of people still needed above and beyond that, and we can’t recognize their qualifications.

If I thought for one second that the minister was right, that, my God, if we pass this today, tomorrow our problem will at least start to be dealt with, I would have some confidence. But given the track record of this government, I have very little confidence that the government is actually going to move with any kind of speed on this.

Is this a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Is this something that is long overdue? Darn right it is. But I think the government should maybe take some of their own rhetoric a little bit more seriously and actually try to do something so that we’re able to deal with the issue that has been plaguing us for so long, which is the ability for people trained outside of Ontario, in countries across the world that have education systems, qualifications and regulations that are comparable to Ontario, to be recognized much quicker than they are now.

Je veux aussi prendre l’occasion de parler de l’immigration francophone dans cette province. La province de l’Ontario et le gouvernement fédéral, dans ce cas-ci, dans mon opinion, ne font pas un très bon job quand ça vient à dire qu’il y a d’autres opportunités pour les immigrés francophones de s’établir dans la province, autrement que dans les villes de Toronto et Ottawa.

Ottawa est une très belle ville; mon frère reste là. La ville de Toronto—une très belle ville; il n’y a rien de mal avec elle. Mais il y a beaucoup d’autres places en Ontario où on est majoritairement francophones, où il y a l’opportunité pour des emplois qui sont très bien payés et où il y a un style de vie que moi, je dirais, est au-dessus de ceux d’Ottawa et de Toronto.

Je regarde la ville de Hearst. Je regarde la ville de Kapuskasing, la ville de Timmins et beaucoup d’autres communautés à travers le nord-est de l’Ontario, des communautés qui sont vives, qui ont des économies assez fortes, qui ont des emplois disponibles. On a besoin d’être capable de renforcer la communauté francophone dans ces places-là, parce que, comme on le sait, la réalité est que tous les citoyens de cette province, francophones ou anglophones, ont moins d’enfants aujourd’hui qu’ils en avaient dans les générations passées.

Moi, je pense à pépère et mémère Lehoux sur le bord de ma mère; eux autres, ils ont eu neuf enfants. Sur le bord de mon père, mémère et pépère Bisson ont eu 10 enfants. Si on regarde notre famille, les Bisson de ma génération, on est trois. Et là, moi, j’en ai eu deux et nos filles en ont eu deux. On a moins d’enfants aujourd’hui qu’on en avait dans le passé, et quoi qu’il arrive, ça fait une pression sur la communauté francophone où ça a un effet de réduire le nombre total.

Donc, je dis, ce projet de loi, je n’ai pas grande confiance que ça va changer cette affaire-là à la vitesse que, moi, je serais satisfait avec. Mais je veux dire au gouvernement, si on regarde les expériences que le gouvernement a eues quand ça vient à reconnaître les qualifications d’outre-mer à travers les différents secteurs comme la santé, les métiers et autres, on se trouve, depuis 2007, à avoir fait des pas très minimes quand ça vient à être capable d’accepter ces qualifications d’outre-mer quand elles sont comparables à celles de l’Ontario.

Il est quasiment encore bien proche d’impossible pour ce monde-là de se qualifier. Donc, ils s’établissent où? Ils s’établissent ici à Toronto et ils s’établissent à Ottawa en attendant une bonne journée où ils vont être capables de travailler dans le métier ou la profession de leur choix.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister talking about the urgency of this bill and how important it is to be passed. I have no doubt that the government is going to try to invoke closure on this bill when they call the question in the next rotation. But let’s not kid ourselves. The government, since 2007, has said, “We’re going to do something to deal with foreign credentials.” Since 2007, very few steps have been taken to deal with this issue.

If anybody believes that the government is going to move at breakneck speed on immigration law for Ontario that deals with issues like foreign qualifications and where people are able to go and establish themselves once they immigrate, you’ve got another think coming.

This is a great title, tied to a great press release, but I think it’ll have little in the way of action.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to speak this morning to Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act.

I think it’s worthwhile to note the history of this bill. This bill was originally tabled prior to the 2014 election. There was, in fact, extensive debate on this bill back in the winter of 2014. Of course, then, an election intervened and it died on the order paper.

We’ve reintroduced the bill, and just since we’ve reintroduced this bill and started debate all over again—the bill has now been debated for 11 hours; over 72 members of the Legislature have already spoken to this bill, either with their speaking turn or in questions and comments, and we’re well past the six-and-a-half-hour threshold.

Everybody seems to be pretty supportive of the bill, and, quite frankly, I think some of the members are getting bored with debating the bill. I couldn’t help but notice that when the member from Nickel Belt spoke to the bill a few minutes ago, she totally devoted her remarks to the health practitioners act, which didn’t seem to be terribly connected to the Ontario Immigration Act. So I would suggest—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Come on, you should know better than that.

Hon. Liz Sandals: That’s not in the act. I think, Speaker, they’re proving my point. They were speaking to a different act. They admit it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order. Order, please. Would the member from Timmins–James Bay come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. Liz Sandals: So I think that what we really need to do is get on with looking at this act, which will formally recognize Ontario’s role and give Ontario a much more active role in choosing immigrants to come to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me Gila Martow: J’ai entendu ce que le membre de Timmins–James Bay a dit au sujet de l’immigration. C’est vrai qu’on a une communauté francophone en Ontario très forte qui veut être un membre dans la discussion sur cette nouvelle

loi sur l’immigration parce qu’on veut donner la chance aux immigrants des pays francophones autour du monde de venir au Canada et de choisir le Canada et l’Ontario pour être leur nouveau milieu d’emploi et d’éducation, pour y travailler et y jouer. J’espère qu’on peut avoir cette discussion avec toutes les communautés francophones en Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very large francophone community, as the member from Timmins–James Bay just said, that wants to welcome francophone immigration from across the world from francophone countries—and to choose Ontario. I think that the added bonus of targeting some francophone immigrants to Ontario isn’t just for the obvious nature of making our francophone community strong. It’s because many of these francophone communities are away from the urban centres, and that’s kind of our target: to try to draw immigrants to Ontario but not necessarily to the large crowded urban centres like Toronto and Ottawa.

Since many of these francophone communities are spread out across the province, by targeting francophones, perhaps we can attract people to those other communities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I sort of take offence to the comments that were made by the Minister of Education. I am talking to the bill. I do my homework, Speaker. I read my bills before I come here—and I will read for her

part VII of the bill that is called, “Other Amendments.” The Regulated Health Professions Act, under subsection 38(1): “Subsection 43(1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991”—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The Minister of Education has got to go back to school.

M me France Gélinas: —“is amended by adding the following clauses:

“‘(h.0.1) requiring that decisions made under subsections 15 ... of the code be made within a reasonable time;’”—I commented that I support this part of the bill.

I’ll continue to read: “‘(h.0.2) requiring that notices required under subsections 15 ... of the code and written reasons required under subsection 20(1) of the code be provided within a reasonable time;’”—I said that I also supported that part of the bill.

Then I went on to talk about

section 16 of the bill, that is amended as follows, and I will continue to read from the bill: “

(3) The registrar shall establish a process for the purposes of dealing with an applicant’s request under subsection (1).” They’re allowed to charge a fee.

This is where I started to say that all of this is all good, but if on the ground they cannot get training in Nickel Belt, if on the ground they have to stay in Toronto in order to get their credentials recognized, then all of this is for nothing.

I think the Minister of Education owes me a bit of an apology. I stayed within the bill. I had read the bill; I supported part of the bill. I thought I was being a pretty fair person here, where I supported the bill and I put it on the record. Where I thought the bill needed some improvement, I stood up and said that for my constituents, this needs to be changed. Otherwise, we will still continue to have problems of access to physicians in Nickel Belt.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments—

Hon. Liz Sandals: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order: the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to apologize to the member from Nickel Belt.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order: the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would also like to apologize to the minister, because I was hot under the collar when she made her comment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Are you going to apologize or not?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I recognize the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. I’m not going to apologize, because I’m a bit disappointed with the third party and their expression that this bill has really no teeth and it’s just a press release. I believe the member from Timmins–James Bay said that it’s just about a hollow bill that goes out to a press release. I think this piece of legislation is so important for the province of Ontario.

The third party and the official opposition continue to delay great pieces of legislation that are so needed in this province right now, especially considering that the federal government has changed its immigration framework in Ontario and the country, and the express entry model is in play. We need to make sure that we can comply with that piece of legislation and actually benefit from it.

In the last session, prior to the NDP calling an election, technically, through not supporting our budget, we had seven hours of debate with Bill 161. Today, we have 11 hours of debate in this Legislature on this bill.

This is an important piece of legislation. Setting targets—5% of the immigration in the province of Ontario, and our target will be to attract francophones so we can support our small francophone communities in large cities, so we can continue to build a strong francophone presence here in the province of Ontario. These two parties are delaying this legislation.

We set targets to ensure that we can have control of our immigration process here in the province of Ontario and that we can get ahead of other provinces, to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. But it’s the opposition and the third party that continue to delay this bill—almost 20 hours of debate in this Legislature, and they are not supporting it to this point.

We need their support. We need to move on. I hope that we can continue to build the type of province—

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order: the member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: The minister is incorrect. This bill has not had 20 hours of debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Carry on, Minister. You have seven seconds.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you, Speaker. So, 11 in this session, and seven from the previous session on Bill 161: You do the math; it’s close to 20.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Are we ready to proceed?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I’ll go, with questions and comments—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Okay, I’ll get to you. I just want to make sure they’re going to be quiet. I recognize the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Imagine that: There are people around the world who are dying to give their people the right to vote, the right to expression of ideas and a right to oppose governments when they think right; and we’re being told, because this bill is 10 hours into debate, that somehow or other, the loyal opposition of Her Majesty’s government is thwarting democracy in some way and the third party is doing the same.

The reality is that neither the Conservatives or New Democrats are filibustering this bill. The reality is that we are putting on the record some of our concerns.

My concern is that, when I look at the government and what they’ve done over the last 14 years, they never brought this bill forward until the last Parliament. Now we have a whole bunch of new members who were elected who were not party to the last debate, who have the right to both debate and to hear debate in this Legislature. For the government to say, “Oh, well, it had debate in the previous Parliament, so, therefore, we don’t need a debate now,” I think is really an affront to those members who were elected in the last general election, who were not here for the previous debate.

I, for one, will always stand on the side of caution when it comes to trying to truncate debate or trying to, in some way, say that somebody who expresses their view, either by way of the media or by way of protest in this province or by way of words in this House, is somehow an affront to the government’s authority to do what it has to do.

The British parliamentary system invented this system, and it’s quite wise. The government gets to propose, the opposition and other government members get a chance to give opinion to that proposal, and at the end of the day, the government always gets its way, even in a minority Parliament.

I just say to you: Be careful what you say in this place, because people do take their jobs seriously. If we want to put our thoughts on the record, we have the right to do so. People died to give me this right, and I will not give it up.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me to speak on a very important bill. I do want to pick up on where the member from Timmins–James Bay left off, because I’m one of those people who had the great privilege of coming to this great country and this incredible province when I was 15 years old, about 26 years ago, because my parents did flee an oppressive regime. Many of you may know that my father spent nine months as a political prisoner. We were very fortunate to come into a free society, a free country like ours, where a kid like myself could get elected in the Legislature and stand here and debate—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: And be the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —and become the government House leader, indeed. We are very lucky and privileged to have that, because immigration has been, and will continue to be, such an incredible source of economic prosperity and vitality for our country and for our province. Thanks to the First Nations of this country and this province, many have come in successive drives from different parts of the world to this great land and have built lives. We need to make sure that we continue to do so.

This bill very much is about that shared responsibility that we have the privilege of in making sure that we continue to play that role. That is especially true when a province like Ontario is the number one destination for newcomers. People line up around the world to come to Ontario and to build their lives in this province.

I’m very privileged to have some incredible settlement agencies in my riding of Ottawa Centre, organizations like the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization, known as OCISO; the Catholic Centre for Immigrants; and Immigrant Women Services Ottawa. All of these organizations—and there are many more, Speaker—do a lot of incredible work in my community of Ottawa Centre in providing supports, jobs training and settlement services so that newcomers, the immigrants, can build their lives in my hometown of Ottawa and be full members of our society.

But we need to continue to do more to make sure that we have a vibrant immigration system in our province. That’s why this bill, Bill 49, is so important.

Our government believes that a strong partnership between the federal government and the province is essential to the successful integration of newcomers into our communities and our workforce. That’s why we have moved forward with Bill 49, and that is to strengthen the province’s role in immigrant selection.

Ontario needs to be well positioned so it can take full advantage of the express entry immigration model that the federal government introduced this year, in 2015. The new express entry system will oversee applications for permanent residents under several economic immigration programs. In simple terms, potential candidates will fill out an online profile, and the highest-ranking candidates will be invited to apply for permanent residence.

Ontario very much looks forward to working with the new express entry system when it is fully operational later this year. I think a lot of us can testify that we hear on a regular basis from people who have applied for immigration about how long that process takes and the uncertainty that comes with it, and this will help.

We need to move forward with this bill to be well positioned to take full advantage of this new immigration model. We welcome the opportunity through express entry to grow the number of nominees and position Ontario as a full partner on immigration with the federal government.

Speaker, we need to move forward with this bill and send it to committee. As you know, we introduced this important piece of legislation in November 2014. The bill was introduced and debated in the previous Parliament as well, where it was referred to as Bill 161, and it was debated for over seven hours then. We allowed the debate to continue when we reached six and a half hours of debate in this Parliament so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views on this bill that all members support. Further, speakers from the government side shared their 20-minute speaking segments among three or four members.

This bill, thus far, has seen 11 hours of debate in this Parliament and seven hours, as I mentioned earlier, in the previous Parliament. According to my count, there are about 73 members who have either spoken to this bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments. I really believe that there has been considerable debate on this bill and that we have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. It is time that this bill is put to a vote for second reading and hopefully referred to committee, where the real work takes place.

Speaker, therefore, I move that this question be now put.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. Point of order, member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’ve got members here—Mr. Arnott, Ms. Scott and Ms. Martow—all wanting to speak to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: The question should not be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Naqvi moves that the question now be put. Taking into consideration the length of time this bill has been debated, the number of speakers and the historical range under which the question of closure has been allowed by previous Speakers, I will allow the question to be put.

Mr. Naqvi has moved that the question now be put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be taken during deferred votes after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce somebody very special from Oakville today, and that’s Sydney Clark. A few short years ago, SickKids hospital saved Sydney’s life, and as a result of that, she decided she would make a career. Sydney Clark is here today from the SickKids Foundation.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence and certainly page Arlyne James, I’m pleased today to introduce her mother, Sheliagh Flynn James; her father, George James; her sister, Keelin James; and her brother, Conall James. They will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Would members please welcome them.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I would like to welcome Tina Afridi and Reza Rizvi from my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East to the Legislature this morning. They are seated in the members’ east gallery. They’re the parents of page Ali Rizvi, and we’re having lunch together in the dining room today. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, today is the last day at Queen’s Park for our pages. I want to thank them for their hard work and wish them all the best in the future.

Today, the wonderful page from my riding, Victoria Soltau, is page captain. This is the second time she is the captain, so I’m promoting her to page general.

I would also like to welcome Victoria’s family to the House: parents Tony and Karen, sister Melanie, and grandmother Gloria Richards. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I know we’re going to debate this, but I cannot resist. I need to acknowledge someone who’s here today, a former member of this House and my former member, Mr. Phil McNeely, in the gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions that won’t step on the Speaker’s duties?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to welcome and introduce the family and loved ones of Adam Brunt, a firefighter hopeful who passed in February—Al Brunt, Christy Brunt, Ashlee Brunt and Dr. Jenna McNamee—and also to welcome the family of Gary Kendall, who passed five years ago in a pre-service training accident: Brenda Kendall, Paul Kendall and family friend Wes Mazur. They are here today, along with the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Carmen Santoro, to join us in our press conference to call for a coroner’s inquest into the deaths, and also to call for regulation of the private training industry.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: It’s my delight to introduce several guests from my riding of Kitchener Centre today. We have Sarah George and Catarina Costa. They are broadcasting students at Conestoga College. I just had a chat with them. Carolyn Longman is also here. She’s an important team member in my constituency office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not to miss my opportunity, in the east members’ gallery, a former member from Ottawa–Orléans in the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments: Mr. Phil McNeely.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve got one check mark for you already.

In the Speaker’s gallery, we have with us today a delegation from the Parliament of Romania. They are accompanied by the Romanian ambassador to Canada, Her Excellency Maria Ligor, and the Romanian consul general in Toronto, Mrs. Antonella Marinescu. We welcome them and thank them for joining us here in Ontario.

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m back.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Not for long.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a serious note, members will be aware that there appear on today’s Orders and Notices paper two notices of an opposition day to be debated in the week following constituency week.

Under standing order 43(c), the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration. I would like to advise the members that the motion by Ms. Horwath is the one that I have selected for debate.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On just as serious a note, it is our tradition to say thank you, as it is the last day for our pages. We want to thank them for the work that they’ve done.

Applause.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, the Chief Electoral Officer’s report into the Sudbury by-election states, “Summonses were issued requiring attendance at a designated time and place.”

Acting Premier, did the Premier receive a summons from the Chief Electoral Officer or his investigators, and is that how she came to be interviewed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite knows that the Premier has repeatedly answered questions in this House about this issue. We know that she takes it very seriously and that she is co-operating fully with the investigation.

I must say that I don’t think I’m the only one in this province who finds it very, very strange that the opposition has asked nothing but questions on the Sudbury by-election for the past several weeks, to the exclusion of all others. But I do know that the opposition party cares deeply about the economy of Ontario and I know that they would want to know about some very important information about our economy that was released just this morning. This is from RBC Economics—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and I look forward to the supplementary because I know they care about the economy. I know they want a healthy economic future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Acting Premier: Acting Premier, you know that two thirds of Ontarians think this is a very serious issue. Two thirds of Ontarians want Pat Sorbara to step aside and don’t believe she should continue with her paid duties in the Premier’s office.

Pretty well all Ontarians by now who pay attention to this place know that the Premier is not answering questions about the bribery scandal; she’s not co-operating with the police. It’s been nine weeks since the investigation was reopened in Sudbury by the OPP, and she has yet to set a date, as far as we know, to meet with the OPP.

I’m going to ask you: Is the only reason she met with the Chief Electoral Officer’s investigators in a timely manner because they had the power to summons her and throw her in jail, frankly, if she didn’t show up? Is that the only reason? You know the OPP doesn’t have that power. They have to wait for her to say yes to a meeting. Is the only reason she showed up the threat of a summons?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I find the innuendo underlying that question beneath the dignity of the interim leader of the opposition party. The member knows that the Premier takes this very seriously. He knows that she’s co-operating fully with the investigation.

I do think it’s important to think about a bigger issue, and that is the economy of this province. RBC reported today that, “Ontario is expected to top provincial economic growth rankings in 2015, something that has not happened since 2000, according to the ... RBC Economics Provincial Outlook.”

Listen to this. I know people want to hear this: “RBC forecasts real GDP growth for the province to accelerate from an estimated 2.5%”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please wrap up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —“to a five-year-best rate of 3.3% in 2015.” That is great news for the people of this province, the people we all represent. This is great news. We should be applauding this news.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Acting Premier: It took six weeks for the Premier to meet with the Chief Electoral Officer’s investigators into the bribery allegations. It has now been over nine weeks since the OPP reopened their investigation into the allegations. We know now that the only reason the Premier met in a somewhat timely manner with the Chief Electoral Officer’s investigators is because she was subpoenaed, and we all know that the OPP doesn’t have those powers. They can request an interview, and you have to voluntarily go for an interview.

Acting Premier, can you tell me what other citizen in the province of Ontario can just put the OPP off for over nine weeks, thumb their nose at investigators and then come into this place and pretend that they’re co-operating with the investigation? That doesn’t hold water. The people of Ontario see right through it.

Tell us: What’s the real reason why the Premier is stalling her meeting with the OPP?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely reject the innuendo and the suggestion in that question. The Premier is co-operating fully, as she has said in this House several times. She’s setting up that meeting with the OPP.

But let’s talk about the economic growth in this province. “RBC notes that economic developments over the past several months have been overwhelmingly favourable for Ontario’s economy.

“‘The plunge in oil prices, sliding value of the Canadian dollar, surprise interest rate cut by the Bank of Canada and mounting evidence of the US economy hitting its stride—these factors should all boost growth in Ontario’”—that’s great news, not for the government but for all of the people of this province—“said Craig Wright, senior vice-president and chief economist, RBC. ‘The positive effects from the drop in oil prices and related developments will coalesce at a time when the provincial economy is already displaying rising momentum.’”

They’re not asking any other questions because there are no questions that are priorities for them.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Sylvia Jones: We’re asking questions because we’re trying to get to the bottom of scandal.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): For who, please?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today, I wrote to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ask that he begin an immediate investigation to ensure that appropriate documentation retention procedures have been followed by the Premier’s office in relation to the Sudbury by-election. It’s pretty clear that your Premier intends to stand by Pat Sorbara while she is under active investigation.

Please explain: What steps have been taken to ensure emails, memos and all documentation regarding the Sudbury by-election have been preserved for the police investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the Premier has said, the investigation is happening outside this House by people who are competent and trained to conduct such investigations. We’re seeing a lot of amateur detection work here. The Premier is co-operating fully with the appropriate officials when it comes to this investigation.

Let’s talk about the economy. What RBC said today is that “In 2014, there was clear evidence that activity picked up, particularly in the trade sector where merchandise exports grew by 8% in nominal terms.” Congratulations to the minister responsible for trade. “Also encouraging, nearly all major export categories recorded gains, including consumer goods (up 14.4%) and motor vehicles and parts (up 8.5%).”

This is fantastic news for Ontario and it demonstrates we’re focused on the important—

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

Before I move to the supplementary, I’m going to remind the member and anyone else answering that you relate it to the question.

Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The only reason you don’t want us to ask any of these questions is because there is a stench surrounding the Sudbury by-election and we have a right to know the answers. I’m concerned that history is repeating itself right now because the Premier has refused to ask her deputy chief of staff to step down while the OPP investigations are ongoing.

It’s beyond belief to think that absolutely no records exist: memos, like a list of the pros and cons of what the problems would be if you took on an NDP MP; the process of how you were going to eliminate your former candidate. Where are those records and are they being protected? Why should the people of Ontario believe that that documentation hasn’t already been deleted?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We take our obligations very seriously when it comes to document retention. We are committed to being open, accountable and transparent. They can throw all the mud they want but we are committed to being open and transparent. We promised to open up government completely. We’ve done so to an unprecedented degree, certainly far more than when your party was in office.

In fact, it’s not just me saying this. The Information and Privacy Commissioner credited our government with improving record-keeping across government. A directive was sent to all political staff. Mandatory training programs are being implemented. Chiefs of staff are accountable for record-keeping. We’re improving archiving requirements. The Premier’s office worked with the Integrity Commissioner and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The accountability act prohibits the wilful deletion of records and creates—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: If this is their idea of open and accountable, I would hate to see their definition of transparency.

Two OPP investigations have been launched into the actions of Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed Jr. While these investigations continue, both Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed remain in their jobs.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Liberals have a history of deleting emails and changing their story when it came to the gas plant cancellation. Is that what we can expect with the Sudbury by-election debacle?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s listen to what the Information and Privacy Commissioner had to say. She said, “I have appreciated the co-operation I have received from Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Minister of Government Services.... the Premier issued a directive in accordance with the recommendations made in the report and committed the government to greater transparency and accountability.... In addition, political staff received in-depth training on their record retention responsibilities. I applaud these developments.” Let me repeat: The Information and Privacy Commissioner said, “I applaud these developments.”

I will listen more to the Information and Privacy Commissioner than I will to the member opposite.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. On February 17, the first day of this session, the Premier said, “My responsibility is to answer honestly.... Ontarians deserve to understand exactly what happened.”

Four weeks later, instead of answering questions and explaining anything, the Premier has been hiding behind a police investigation, and she’s too busy holding photo ops beside oversized birth certificates and giant porcupines to meet with OPP officials.

Yesterday, we suggested that the Premier take question period off in the morning. I just want to know if the Deputy Premier can confirm that the Premier is being interviewed by the OPP on her knowledge and role in the Sudbury by-election scandal at this very moment.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the NDP knows full well and first-hand that it’s not appropriate to comment on a police investigation.

On December 11 last year, the leader of the NDP held a press conference at the Queen’s Park media studio. She was questioned on criminal allegations against an NDP candidate. Here’s what the leader of the third party had to say: “Right now, this is a matter that’s in front of the police.... I can’t talk about details at this point because the police are investigating.”

She was asked over and over again and kept with the same answer. So I don’t know why the leader of the third party thinks there are two standards: one for her and one for the Premier. When the police are investigating, we leave the investigation to the police.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, perhaps I can move the issue at hand along a little bit. I’m pretty sure that the Premier and the Deputy Premier have staff who watch question period every single day—perhaps even Pat Sorbara is watching question period—and they can write this down: 705-329-6111. You can call that number and you can ask for the corruption branch of the anti-rackets squad. You can tell them your name and the name of the Premier. They’ll know who you are, however. After four investigations—trust me—they’ll know who you are.

I’ll give you the number again. That number is 705-329-6111. Will the Deputy Premier call the OPP? Will she have her Premier call the OPP at that number and

schedule that interview before the end of the day?

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, if the leader of the third party wants to hear some numbers, I’ve got some great numbers. Let me read again the RBC economic growth rankings, their provincial outlook that was released just this morning: “RBC forecasts real GDP growth”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. You can make all the gestures you want. I’ll make the decision. You don’t need to.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if you say one more word, you’re out.

The answer is to come towards the question, please. Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me thank the leader of the third party for that phone number. Thank you for that number.

Let’s talk about numbers that really matter, Speaker: “RBC forecasts real GDP growth for the province to accelerate from an estimated 2.5% in 2014”—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is the final supplementary, Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier said she would answer substantially when the question is appropriate to the place. Is the Premier so arrogant that she thinks that just because a question is inconvenient, it’s also inappropriate?

I disagree with that, Speaker. It shouldn’t take the armed detectives in the corruption unit to get simple answers to simple questions. Can the Deputy Premier explain why the Premier—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —can avoid investigators for six weeks, while the average Ontarian—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. While I’m asking him to come to order, he continues—the Minister of Economic Development.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can the Deputy Premier explain why the Premier can avoid investigators for six weeks, when the average Ontarian involved in a criminal investigation is expected to co-operate fully and quickly with police investigations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me repeat: The Premier is co-operating fully with the police investigation. It doesn’t matter—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —how many times they suggest that she is not. The truth is, she is.

That investigation is happening. It is happening outside this House, by people who are qualified to conduct such investigations. The Premier is co-operating fully.

Meanwhile, both opposition parties have neglected all of the issues that are important to their constituents, by focusing on throwing mud, muckraking and skulduggery. Speaker, I think it’s time to talk about issues that are really important to the people of this province.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Given my particular moment right now, I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Withdraw.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Deputy Premier. It’s clearly not in the interests of the Liberal Party, the Premier or her government for the Premier to answer questions about the Sudbury bribery scandal. On the other hand, it is in the interests of the people of Ontario to get some answers about who offered bribes to Andrew Olivier and who gave the orders.

Will the Deputy Premier stop putting the Liberal Party ahead of Ontarians and start giving honest answers to honest questions like, “Who was pulling the strings in the bribery scandal that happened in Sudbury?”

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think anybody watching at home would like to know what this is all about, so let’s just review a little bit of history.

In the last general election, the NDP won the seat of Sudbury. The member took his place. A few months later, he resigned, creating a by-election. The NDP federal MP made a very difficult but I think very wise decision, and that was to leave the New Democratic Party to join the Liberal Party, to leave the House of Commons to join the Ontario election. The people of Sudbury made a very clear and wise decision to send Glenn Thibeault to this House to be their representative.

I know that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know that it’s very difficult when you lose a member of your party to another party—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said it was a great day in his life “when Premier Wynne told us who our candidate in Sudbury was going to be.” Minister after minister went on the record yesterday arrogantly endorsing what the OPP and Elections Ontario have described as criminal activity.

Who in the cabinet and the caucus did the Premier share her plans with to offer Andrew Olivier jobs or appointments in exchange for stepping aside in order that Glenn Thibeault could run without any opposition?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I simply reject the allegations within that question. In the Ontario Liberal Party, in our constitution, which has been debated and passed by the membership of this party, the leader of the party has the right to appoint candidates. That does not happen in the New Democratic Party, but it does happen in the Liberal Party.

When the Premier met Mr. Thibeault, when he indicated to her that he was prepared to change parties and change the level of government, she was very pleased and she decided that he would be the candidate. There is nothing untoward about that. That is a decision that is the right of the leader. She made that decision, she exercised her right, and now we have Glenn Thibeault as a member of this House.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Since election day in Sudbury, Ontarians have learned that the corruption unit of the anti-rackets branch is investigating the Premier and her inner circle for bribery; that Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer believes Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed were offering bribes to get Andrew Olivier out of the way of Glenn Thibeault, something that is punishable with a jail term; and that, while evidence has come to light that shows bribery, the Premier can’t show a single piece of evidence that backs her version of the story.

The Premier insisted that the bad old days were behind us, and yet here we are again, Speaker. Why do Liberals never, ever seem to change?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We just get stronger, and I’m very pleased that the Liberal Party is getting stronger.

If we’re going to talk about how nomination races are run in this House, I think we do have to revisit what happened in Scarborough–Guildwood during the by-election in 2013. There was a long-standing party member named Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra, an extraordinary woman who was hoping to run as the candidate there. The party brought in Adam Giambrone to make sure the process was fair, and then, as a surprise to everyone—I can’t imagine anyone was more surprised than Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra—presto, Adam Giambrone became the candidate.

If you want to call that a fair nomination process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —I would like to disagree. I would like to know about the conversation that the leader of the third party had with Amarjeet. I’d like to know how she explained to—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last night, your party’s official Twitter account retweeted Pat Sorbara. Her tweet read, “Happy to introduce @GlennThibeault to folks at @OntLiberal Heritage Dinner 2015. Hanging with friends, raising money.” Attached was a photo of the two of them as she obviously paraded Mr. Thibeault around.

Deputy Premier, Pat Sorbara was found to be in apparent contravention of the Election Act. She is under investigation in two open OPP investigations. Does the arrogance of the Office of the Premier know no bounds?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I am happy to say that we had a wonderful event last night. The Premier gave a wonderful speech. We had an outstanding number of people there and extraordinary support for the Premier’s speech. In fact, I heard many people say it was the best political speech they had ever heard.

It was an extraordinary speech. She outlined her vision for the province. She talked about what it is we’re doing to build Ontario up. It was an excellent evening. I will be happy to get you a copy of the speech because I think you would like to know what she was talking about.

Speaker, we’re focused on growing the economy. We’re delighted to see that RBC today said that our economy is growing faster than they had anticipated. That’s great news.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Acting Premier: That answer and Pat Sorbara’s tweet are a pure display of arrogance and utter disdain for the Chief Electoral Officer and the Ontario Provincial Police’s open investigations.

As the Premier’s office computers remain unsecure and information vulnerable, we wait as the Premier continues to duck the OPP. We’ve waited over nine weeks since I asked for this investigation to be reopened. That’s a lot of time to make sure people’s stories are aligned.

My question: Acting Premier, after the photo and the tweet went out, did Pat Sorbara and Glenn Thibeault get their stories straight?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, I’m loath to say this, but as soon as I get quiet is not the time for you to take advantage.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we had a great event last night. It was a very rousing speech. If the member opposite wants to spend his time analyzing Twitter accounts, that’s fine with me, I guess.

But our focus is on a growing and stronger economy. We were very pleased this morning to see that RBC Economics is projecting continuing and accelerated growth for our economy. They’re not the only ones. The latest forecast by TD Economics calls for Ontario to post the strongest growth in the country. Let’s look at what the Conference Board of Canada says: Ontario’s economy is projected to grow by 2.9% this year, bolstered by strong exports and consumer spending.

This is great news. I hope that the opposition does not consider this to be bad news, because this is fantastic news for your constituents and for our constituents.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The continuing bad news is the arrogance of this government.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. For five weeks now, the Ontario Provincial Police have been trying to get an appointment with your Premier in order to continue their investigation into the bribery scandal in Sudbury. We thought maybe, when we didn’t see the Premier show up, that she was, in fact, meeting with them today. That not being—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows full well that you’re not to mention anyone’s attendance in this place. I would remind him: If he does it again, he’ll lose his question.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I withdraw, Speaker, and you’re completely right.

The Premier has an opportunity next week during constituency week; there’s a whole week for her to be able to meet with the OPP. Is the Premier prepared to set up a meeting with the OPP in order to be investigated by the OPP?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Premier has said repeatedly that that meeting is being set up.

I don’t know why the opposition continues to squander their questions in question period on questions that have already been answered. There are many issues facing the people of this province, and we are not hearing those issues raised by the members of the opposition. We are not hearing issues about homelessness. We are not hearing issues about poverty. We are not hearing issues about the environment or climate change. We haven’t had one question on rail safety or Gogama.

These are important issues in the ridings represented by these members, and they are choosing to spend their time in question period, as is their right, on trying to destroy the reputation of the Premier. They’re off base, Speaker, and they should focus on issues that matter to their constituents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again to the Deputy Premier: What is really galling in this entire thing is that the Premier’s office staff—Ms. Pat Sorbara and Mr. Lougheed—have been found in contravention of an apparent breach of the Election Act. They are being investigated by the OPP for breaking the Criminal Code when it comes to their actions in this bribery scandal, and you’re not taking it seriously. You come into this House over and over again, we ask the questions, and you never answer. You’re trying to stonewall what has to happen in this case.

So I ask you again: Is the Premier prepared to meet with the Ontario Provincial Police next week, during constituency week, to answer questions about the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, if the member opposite wants to apply to be the scheduling assistant to the Premier, I’m sure we can get the phone number where you can make that application. The Premier has said over and over again that she’s co-operating fully, that she is setting up a meeting with the OPP. I don’t think there’s a vacancy there, but if the member from Timmins–James Bay wants to apply for that job, I’ll hand-deliver that application.

Climate change

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Speaker, it’s great to see my former colleague MPP Phil McNeely up in the audience. He was a great champion of climate change awareness. Welcome.

Climate change is real. It’s one of the greatest challenges of our time and poses a threat to our infrastructure, our food supply, our drinking water and our economic competitiveness.

I’d like to thank the minister for joining me this morning as we talked about my motion at a press conference on climate change. My motion will be debated this afternoon, and I’m calling upon all members of this House to recognize that climate change affects all of us and requires immediate action.

Speaker, through you, could the minister please inform this House on the importance of raising the issue of climate change above partisan politics, and if he intends to support my motion?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It will be a great honour to support the member’s motion. I also want to acknowledge the former member, who continues to be an active voice in policy development. Thank you very much, Phil, and thank you, Grant.

We’re very concerned about this. We’ve seen it around the world now. In the United Kingdom, all three parties, in open votes in the British Parliament, endorsed this. We saw this in New Zealand and, more recently, in Norway, where they have had open votes, asking all members of their Legislature to put it forward as a unanimous legislative position so that governments can act on solutions and not fight this.

Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that this opportunity this afternoon will see all 107 members in the House today. I think it would be a very powerful statement of unity if we could do that.

When you look at the results of what happened in Norway, what happened in the UK and what happened in New Zealand, it triggered a level of momentum behind it and gave confidence to industry to act—

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

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for that response. It’s great to hear that you’ll be supporting my motion this afternoon.

It’s unfortunate that the opposition aren’t focused on the priorities of what matters to Ontarians. Climate change is a great challenge—the greatest challenge of our time. As I mentioned in my previous question, it’s going to be affecting our food supply, our infrastructure, our drinking water, our agricultural community and our economic competitiveness.

I’d like to ask the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change about our government’s actions to combat climate change here in Ontario. I know that in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, we have a lot of agricultural producers that have concerns about the changing temperatures and the impacts that they have on their crops, their livestock and their ability to continue with stable production.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he inform the House about what action the government is taking to combat climate change?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to again thank the member. The last five years have seen, globally, the highest level of GHG emissions. Later this year in Paris, the world will gather to try and yet again hammer out another agreement. After 20 years of agreements, we will probably see the next five years being at very high levels of emissions, because it would take five years to implement the Paris agreement, if we’re successful in getting it.

This government is working with Quebec and British Columbia and California and some national governments around the world to broker meaningful reductions. Why is this important to Ontarians, Mr. Speaker? Part of it is, in 2012, we lost 80% of our apple crop. In the years since, we’ve lost as much as 60%.

When you think of something as basic to Ontario’s food security and food supply and our economy as an apple—when it’s hard to grow those, you know this is a problem.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I wasn’t going to go down there, but I’m being heckled. The member for Nepean–Carleton should read the Pentagon’s analysis of ISIS. That wasn’t me.

The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s it.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier.

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: She must be at the OPP meeting. I guess it’s to the Acting Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That doesn’t make me happy at all. If it happens again, you’ll lose your question.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Sorry, Speaker.

The question is to the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, last night at your heritage dinner, the Premier is quoted as saying, “When people ask me when are you going to slow down, the simple answer is I am not.”

Acting Premier, why does this not apply to scheduling interviews with the police?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Premier did say last night that she’s not slowing down. I tell you, we are all amazed at the energy of our Premier, and she gave a fantastic speech last night. She has been to more community events; she has met with more people. She is as energetic and committed a Premier as we could ever hope to find. So you’re right: She’s not slowing down.

Is she scheduling a meeting with the OPP? I think you’ve heard repeatedly that that is under way. Again, if you want to apply for the job as scheduling assistant to the Premier, I will hand-deliver your resumé as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, if I gave her my resumé, she’d probably delete it, with her staff.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine weeks since the investigation was reopened. It has been over five weeks since we learned that the OPP requested an interview. Acting Premier, has the interview with the OPP been scheduled?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as the Premier has said over and over again, that meeting is being scheduled. I don’t think the OPP are complaining. Maybe you know they are; I don’t think they are.

What I can tell you, though, is that in this by-election—I understand why the PCs are unhappy with the outcome of the by-election.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It doesn’t happen very often that the opposition party loses its deposit. In fact, I believe they ran fourth in the by-election. So I think that if you’re going to be focusing on Sudbury, there might be other things you could be focusing on.

Let’s actually think about what happened. The Premier became aware that Glenn Thibeault, the sitting federal member, was interested in crossing to the Liberal Party and running provincially. We were delighted and thrilled that a man of this calibre wanted to make that change, to represent his constituents here, and that’s exactly what happened.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Attorney General. Criminal defence lawyers often caution their clients about making statements to the police. That’s because anything said can be used in a future prosecution. In fact, legal counsel often advises clients, if arrested, to exercise their right to remain silent.

Has the Attorney General advised the Premier to exercise her right to remain silent, and has the Attorney General cautioned her about making statements to the police?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Let me talk about the good news that happened in Sudbury after the election.

Hon. James J. Bradley: They’re sore losers.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, because the Premier did an excellent job in exercising her right to choose this wonderful candidate of ours, Glenn Thibeault. Last week on Monday night, I had quite a few francophones who came to me and said, “Us, in Sudbury, we’re very happy to have Glenn Thibeault as our representative.”

So the Premier did an excellent job, and I want to congratulate her.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Perhaps the Attorney General can’t advise whether or not she has given that advice, but perhaps the Attorney General can advise whether the Premier sought independent counsel and if that independent counsel has provided advice to the Premier on whether or not she should exercise her right to remain silent, or whether or not this independent counsel perhaps has advised the Premier and cautioned her about making a statement to the police.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, like I said yesterday, I am not involved in the investigation. I’m not involved in anything related to the Sudbury election.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The deputy House leader is using somebody else’s mike, and he will come to order.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It was made very clear by the Chief Electoral Officer in a letter that was sent to their House leader, Gilles Bisson—a copy of the letter that I have here—about the process. I hope that he has informed all of his caucus about the process. If not, I will say that it’s about time that he informs his caucus about the process and how the Attorney General is left out of this exercise.

Labour dispute

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Speaker, through you to the minister: Workers who live in my riding have been on strike from their jobs at Crown Metal Packaging for 18 months. They are concerned. It has been very hard for their families, since they have been on the picket line for all these months. We all know how cold it has been this winter, and despite this, Crown Metal workers continue to walk the picket line.

I’m not sure everyone is aware, but a group of these workers went out and looked for and found little Elijah Marsh, the three-year-old boy who tragically died in Toronto 10 days ago.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What can you tell the people of York South–Weston and neighbouring ridings about this situation?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I really do want to thank the member from York South–Weston for that very important question.

Crown Metal operates a beverage and food manufacturing plant in Weston. The Steelworkers represent 133 employees at that plant. They’ve had a strike at that facility since September 6. Under

section 42 of the Labour Relations Act, my ministry conducted what’s called the “last offer vote” on March 24 of last year. The employees voted overwhelmingly to reject the offer.

We’ve had a labour mediator in to assist both parties. He remains in touch but, as the member noted in her question, our government and all Ontarians are increasingly concerned that this dispute still is not being resolved. It’s the responsibility of the employer and the union to reach an agreement, but I want to be very clear, Speaker: I’m, in the strongest possible terms, urging both parties to get back to that table and to reach a resolution to this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Back to the Minister of Labour, whom I would like to thank for the reply and for addressing this important issue before the House.

Just this week, we’ve heard of the extreme lengths that Crown Metal—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Come to order, please.

I would like that the debates back and forth not take place during question and answer period unless you’re putting the question or giving the answer. Please finish.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you.

Just this week I was saying, we’ve heard of the extreme lengths that Crown Metal employees are taking to be heard. The United Steelworkers issued a news release noting that they had been leafleting the homes and businesses of the crown’s board of directors overseas.

Can the minister provide further details on how the Ontario Labour Relations Act governs disputes like this?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I thank the member again for raising this important issue, and we should all applaud her for standing up for her constituents in this regard.

The length of a strike or a lockout is far from business as usual in this province, Speaker. Last year, over 98% of contract negotiations were resolved without any—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation, come to order. The member from Essex, come to order.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker.

In this case, however, the workers have been off the job for 18 months. It’s not good for business; it’s not good for the workers; it’s not good for anybody in this province. The Labour Relations Act contains provisions and processes that assist the parties to reach a collective agreement. On the rare occasions where they don’t work, special action may be required. That includes a

section 42 final offer vote we already undertook. It includes other powers, though, which are used under only extraordinary circumstances.

It’s essential to understand that the best deals are made at the table, but as strongly as I can, I’m urging those parties back to—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Just last week the new member from Sudbury was promoted and became parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I can’t help but note—

Interjections.

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

Please put your question.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I can’t help but note that this means he will receive a 13% pay increase after a mere four weeks on the job. We know Pat Sorbara offered Mr. Olivier an appointment to step down as the candidate for Sudbury. But my question to you is this: Was the PA perk offered by Pat Sorbara to the member from Sudbury to cross the floor and step up as candidate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s the first question from my critic almost on an environment issue—almost.

You know, the position of the Conservatives has been that they’ll take positions after they have a new leader, apparently. I guess we’ll wait till then to find out when they ask a question.

But we have some real problems in your part of Ontario, where we lost 80% of our apple crop in 2012—we have a 60% loss.

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member says it’s north of her. I guess she doesn’t care; if it’s not in your backyard, you don’t care about farmers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Please finish.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: She wants to bring, inappropriately, a police investigation into this House. She doesn’t care about apple farmers because she doesn’t represent apple farmers, apparently. She doesn’t care about rural Ontario, apparently. That’s really a problem. They don’t care about climate change, because the member for Mississippi Mills says CO 2 is a positive gas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Sadly, Speaker, there’s a lot of hot air in this House.

But I want to go back to the Deputy Premier. Last night, we saw how close Mr. Thibeault and Pat Sorbara were. According to Twitter, she was responsible for parading him around your fundraiser like a show horse. She wasn’t letting him too far off the harness. And just today, Mr. Thibeault confirmed in an exchange with one of my colleagues that he has been asked to meet with the OPP.

My question is this: When are the Premier and Mr. Thibeault going to meet with the OPP?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Actually, I’m sure that the new parliamentary assistant—

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I am sure that Mr. Thibeault will meet with whoever wants to meet with Mr. Thibeault. As a matter of fact, he doesn’t wait: Mr. Thibeault went up to Gogama to be on the ground, taking pictures, sharing information. We’re working together right now, because we just got the results of the surface water studies and water supply studies for Timmins and for Gogama. We would like to talk about that in the House, but they’re not asking questions about basic things like the safety of the water supply.

But then, the Tories have a long history on the safety of the water supply. We thought that they had learned that water supply and protecting the water supply was important. Surely, the member from Huron–Bruce would know better than any other member in the House how important it is for the opposition to hold the government to account for safe water. We just had one of the worst spills ever, Mr. Speaker. We haven’t had a question from the member for Huron–Bruce, from Walkerton—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Pat Sorbara is facing a criminal investigation for her role in Glenn Thibeault’s nomination. Instead of showing any contrition, last night, Ms. Sorbara tweeted a photo of herself with Glenn Thibeault at a Liberal fundraiser. This is Liberal arrogance at its best. Pat Sorbara thinks she’s above the law. She thinks she’s above contrition, just like the rest of the Liberal members.

Does the Deputy Premier think it’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would appreciate very much not elevating this debate in the way it has just been done, particularly those people who are trying to tell me that the other side needs reprimanding any more than the other side does.

Please put your question.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Speaker. Does the Deputy Premier think it’s appropriate for Ms. Sorbara to be that arrogant when she’s facing two police investigations connected to Mr. Thibeault’s nomination?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the NDP’s line of questioning on this, I think, reveals—I don’t know quite how to say it, and any word I use you will ask me to withdraw. So what I will say is that the NDP knows full well and first-hand that it is inappropriate to comment on police investigations.

Let me remind you: On December 11 last year, the leader of the NDP held a press conference in the media studio. She was questioned on criminal allegations against an NDP candidate. Allow me to read to you what the leader of the third party said during the press conference. She said, “Right now, this is a matter that’s in front of the police.” She said, “I can’t talk about the details at this point because the police are investigating.”

The member was asked time and time again. After 14 times, she said, “I’m not going to talk about this” anymore.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the Deputy Premier: The OPP and Elections Ontario say Pat Sorbara offered bribes to Andrew Olivier to get out of the Premier’s way, so she wouldn’t have to appoint Glenn Thibeault.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Government Services.

Miss Monique Taylor: Instead of stepping down, Pat Sorbara is throwing it in the face of Ontarians. She’s saying that she doesn’t care about two police investigations; she doesn’t care about the integrity of the Premier’s office. Because she’s a Liberal, she thinks she knows better than the police, better than Elections Ontario and better than Ontarians.

This is about what is good for the people of this province. Does the Deputy Premier really think that this is appropriate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I recall fondly the days when the member opposite asked questions about children. As the critic of children and youth services, she asked questions about children. I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services was always prepared to answer those questions. But for four solid weeks, we have had no questions—

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I say, I remember fondly the days when we actually got questions—I would have expected questions on Hydro One. I would have expected questions on conversion therapy today, but we didn’t get them.

Let’s review again what happened: In the 2014 general election, the NDP won the seat for Sudbury, Speaker. Fewer than five months later, the NDP’s brand new MPP resigned his seat, and that forced—

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

Environmental protection

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure on government business that is of high concern to my constituents, unlike the questions from the opposition, which aren’t even focused on government business that matters to Ontarians.

I would like to thank the minister for recently updating this House—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If this persists, I will continue to allow the clock to finish.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Our government’s position on federal Bill C-40,

An Act respecting the Rouge National Park, which is part of my riding: The minister clearly stated that the federal bill, as it stood, failed to provide the necessary protection for the Rouge’s environmental integrity. As a result of the federal government’s inability to put forward legislation with strong ecological requirements, our government, in good faith, could not transfer provincially owned lands.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please update this House on the developments?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question and I want to thank him for his passion for ensuring that we do what we need to do to protect the Rouge Valley lands.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had the opportunity to collaborate very closely with our environmental stakeholders and to consult very intimately with our farming community in the Rouge Valley, and we were able to draft up proposed amendments and submit them to the Clerk of the Senate committee that’s looking into the proposed Rouge park. Those amendments struck a fair balance between protecting the ecological future of the park while promoting its vibrant farming community.

I’m extremely disappointed at this point in time that the federal government seems bent on ignoring these very constructive opportunities, I think, for us to work together. This was a constructive attempt to provide an opportunity for the federal government to strengthen their legislation up to the level of the provincial legislation. Thus far, that attempt has been rejected by the federal government. It’s a sad day for the environment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I would like to thank the minister for that update and also his tireless work to protect these lands. Embodied in these proposed legislative amendments were key improvements that would have truly enhanced the park while bringing all partners to the table. It was short-sighted for the federal Conservatives not to adopt these proposed amendments that would significantly strengthen the piece of legislation.

I understand that this morning, in fact, the Senate committee examining this bill started its clause-by-clause review. Senator Eggleton, a strong advocate for the Rouge, brought forward the minister’s proposed amendments. Would the minister please update the House on the committee’s response to his proposed amendments brought forward by Senator Eggleton?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member again for the supplementary, and I want to thank Senator Eggleton for putting forward these very constructive amendments. Unfortunately, again, the federal Conservatives have rejected a fair compromise in rejecting these amendments this morning.

The federal government’s mixed agenda on the environment and their obstinate behaviour in working with our government and the stakeholder community has blown an opportunity for the Rouge. This government and I will not turn our backs on those who have dedicated their lives to protect these lands. We will not let the federal government weaken these important protections, because they are important protections not just for us today, but for future generations. We will not sell out our commitment to the ecological future of these lands.

We have the support of the opposition parties, so that makes me confident that there will be a Rouge national park. It may not be this government that delivers it, but we will get what we want. But we’ll make sure it’s done in the right way to protect farming and to protect—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, everyone knows the history of record retention in the Liberal Premier’s office. The old tradition was to designate a staff member to double-delete and wipe the hard drives.

But this Premier said she is different. Acting Premier, has the Premier designated a staff member to preserve all documents, records and emails that would assist the OPP in their bribery investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question. I think the member knows full well the steps that have been taken by our government with respect to record retention, the training that has gone on with staf