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

March 11, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-11 (PDF)

L056 - Wed 11 Mar 2015 / Mer 11 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 11 March 2015 Mercredi 11 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Introduction of Visitors

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

Sexual violence and harassment

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Government assets

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Access to justice / Accès à la justice

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Mining industry

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Carbon monoxide

Correction of record

Correction of record

Visitors

Notices of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Supply Act, 2015 / Loi de crédits de 2015

Supply Act, 2015 / Loi de crédits de 2015

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

Members’ Statements

Hospital services

Speaker’s Book Award

International Women’s Day

Ontario Heritage Award for Youth Achievement

Developmental services

Family skate

Prompt payment

Crescent Town urban agriculture project

Conflict in Ukraine

Correction of record

Report, Ombudsman of Ontario

Introduction of Bills

Natural Gas Superhighway Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’autoroute du gaz naturel

Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’affirmation de l’orientation sexuelle et de l’identité sexuelle

Transparent and Accountable Health Care Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le financement transparent et responsable des soins de santé

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Growth planning

Petitions

Missing persons

Trespassing

Privatization of public assets

Trespassing

Severance payments

Legal aid

Office of the Ombudsman

Taxation

Privatization of public assets

Water fluoridation

Winter road maintenance

Diagnostic services

Road safety

Automotive industry

Orders of the Day

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

Adjournment Debate

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 10, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

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

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It is an honour to rise in this House and to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 40. Of course, we know that Bill 40 is the Agriculture Insurance Act. It’s

an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act of 1996.

This particular bill sounds impressive at first; however, Ontario farmers actually grow and raise more than 200 different commodities, so less than half are currently covered by production insurance. And so for far too long, Ontario farmers have been at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts around the country. Ontario is the only province left in Canada that does not have legislative authority to offer plans for a broad range of agricultural products. Ontario is once again left having to play catch-up.

If passed, Bill 40 would extend this coverage to farmers who produce products other than crops and perennial plants. They will finally have access to the insurance they need to protect their livelihoods, the same basic protections that other farmers across the country have had for years. This will of course increase the stability within our agricultural sector, and it is a move that I wholeheartedly support.

There are just about 2,200 farms in Chatham-Kent, which account for, surprisingly, 3.8% of Ontario’s total farms. This is down from the 2001 census, but it’s still a lot of farms.

Leamington is known as the greenhouse capital of North America, with an astonishing 1,500 acres under cover or, as I like to say, under glass. In addition to these farms, greenhouses in Chatham-Kent also now account for 3.2% of Ontario’s total greenhouse area. One of note—and I worked with this particular company to help them get established in their location in Chatham—was Cedarline Greenhouses, which recently partnered with GreenField Ethanol, which was actually a very unique opportunity.

With the partnering of GreenField Ethanol, they now are able to use surplus heat and carbon dioxide to save about 40% on heating costs. It was an amazing opportunity, an amazing business approach to reducing their costs and yet creating jobs and employment right in Chatham-Kent.

As an industry, agriculture provides about 16,000 jobs and is a $3-billion sector in just Chatham-Kent alone. Chatham–Kent–Essex is home to some of the most fertile land in Ontario and Canada. Cash crops include wheat, soy beans, corn—and apparently wind turbines. They’re sprouting up all over prime farmland, Mr. Speaker.

My riding is also the number one producer of tomatoes, seed corn and pumpkins in all of Canada, and in addition produces nearly 20% of all vegetables grown in Ontario. We’re the number one producer of sugar beets, green peas, broccoli, lavender, cauliflower and quail in all of Ontario. I’m very proud of my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Another group that comes part and parcel with agriculture is the food producers of Ontario. Food processors know the importance of local food. Nearly 40% of food manufacturers are in fact located in rural Ontario. They realize the value in using local food in their products. Of the total food produced on Ontario farms, roughly 65% of it is used by the province’s food producers. Food processing is a $33-billion industry that employs 110,000 Ontarians in related industries.

In my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, the food production industry has been hit hard over the last few years, most notably with the closure of the Heinz plant in Leamington. They used to employ 740 full time, roughly 200 part time, and they had roughly between 45 and 50 growers. Well, that number has been slashed, cut, reduced, almost cannibalized, and now roughly 250 people work full-time at the company that actually took over Heinz, which is Highbury Canco.

Last July, the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists released a report that indicated a mortality rate of 58% of Ontario’s bee population. The typical winter bee loss rate is around 15%, according to the report. This is a big reason why the neonics issue has become such a hot topic over the past year. Imagine a cattle farmer heading outside to tend the cows only to find that nearly 50% of them had died. Bees are in fact essentially livestock for beekeepers, and the past year has been devastating to the industry.

In December, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk asked the Premier why her government had not implemented an insurance model to help the province’s beekeepers. Manitoba currently offers such a program. Well, the government’s response was less than encouraging. The Premier declined to confirm if Ontario will be getting a similar program and then referred the matter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Of course we understand that we need to address the root causes, if you will, but beekeepers need a relief strategy that is more immediate than stopping climate change. The government needs to have a long-term plan to try to resolve the bee mortality issue, but in the short term, Ontario beekeepers are going to need some help. We want to hear the input of the entire agricultural industry on this particular issue. It is incredibly important that we listen to them, as they’re the real experts.

We have some concerns when it comes to ease of use and the response time of government when it comes to compensating for unexpected emergencies. Some 300,000 customers were left—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s a little bit noisy. The member is right here, and I can hardly hear him. It would be nice if some of his colleagues would listen to him. Thanks so much.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

You know, when we talk about the fact that 300,000 customers were left without hydro in Toronto alone, similar damage occurred throughout the greater Toronto and Hamilton area in the aftermath of that storm. Again, this ties into the government’s response to emergencies. After the storm, it was estimated that the cost would be somewhere around $190 million to cover the damage from the ice storm. It took numerous cities and municipalities over a year to get the application completed, as the application itself was not immediately available.

A recent

article in the Hamilton Spectator showed just how disastrous the whole process was. “Hamilton needed most of a year, special training for 15 staffers and thousands of pages of supporting documents just to ask for $4.1 million in provincial ice storm relief.” Hamilton councillor Chad Collins was quoted in the

article as saying, “I think everyone was kind of shocked at the hoops we had to go through.... If you think about it, we routinely apply for hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects and the process is far less rigorous.”

When we talk about this particular bill—another thing is that our government in Ontario has paid nearly $3 million to a company called LandLink Consulting to train municipal staff to fill out applications. With that in mind, we’re concerned about what the production insurance application and claim process will actually look like. If farmers are forced to wait over a year for relief from natural disasters or other impacts to their crops or commodities, they might not be in business by the time the insurance payment is actually issued. On this side, we call it red tape.

In conclusion, I just want to reiterate my support for Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act. It finally delivers on an issue that Ontario farmers have been championing for over a decade. As previously mentioned, Ontario is the only province left in the entire country that does not have the legislative authority to in fact offer plans for a broad range of agricultural products. While I am concerned that it took the government this long to act on the bill, it’s better late than never.

But what I don’t want to see is the loss or reduction of current programs that help farmers with the implementation of new measures. “‘Agricultural products’ means a product that is designated by regulation.” This means that the minister could make changes to the policy at a later date. The true test of the legislation will come long after it’s passed.

One of the things that I’m concerned about is the process of payment, but something else as well is the fact that you have a situation with dairy farmers and ground current, which is in fact affecting milk production. It’s killing the cattle itself. The fact is that they cannot put any dollars on lost milk production right now, and dairy farmers are going under. That is not right, and I stand in support of those dairy farmers. I believe that this particular act needs to support those dairy farmers. We need to get the ground current problem under control before it’s way too late, because it not only affects cattle, it affects humans.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I have to applaud the member’s passion, particularly for dairy farmers. I think it goes without saying how much we all appreciate, and should appreciate, our farmers and how much they’ve done for us and how much they do for us every day.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: We can’t survive without them.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: We literally couldn’t survive without our farmers. It’s a robust part of our economy; it’s an essential part of our lives. Food is something that we all use to celebrate; it’s something that brings us together. And the people who are responsible for putting that food on our tables that helps us come together, that helps us celebrate, that helps us have those moments we all cherish and remember, are farmers. They are the ones who make that possible.

This bill, hopefully, if it’s implemented in the right way, will protect them and will benefit them. It’s something that speaks to our priorities. As a Legislature, we should ensure that the laws we pass speak to what we think is important. What’s really important is that we protect the people who are fundamental to our society. Farmers are absolutely fundamental to our society, and we should implement laws that protect them.

One of the realities is that the climate change we are seeing and the unpredictability of weather are putting farmers in a more and more difficult position. There is less ability to predict what is going to happen, and for farmers it’s crucial that they have some anticipation, some ability to know: “Okay, the weather patterns are going to be a certain way, so we can anticipate what our crop is going to be like this year,” or if it’s livestock, they’re able to predict the conditions so they can prepare for them. The growing uncertainty with weather is impacting farmers in a very difficult way.

It’s important for us to make sure we do whatever we can to assist, given the unpredictable nature of weather and climate now.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Surprise, surprise. The Liberals didn’t even want to comment, I guess.

I’m here this morning to speak to this bill. I only have two minutes in the questions and comments. You know the standing orders here, Speaker, as do the folks on the other side. I’m hoping to get a chance before the 10:15 recess before question period to speak to this bill, to speak to the importance of agriculture in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

As of this moment, we still have 16 members of our 28-person caucus who have yet to speak to this bill, a crucially important bill to folks in rural Ontario, which many of us represent. Only 12 of our members have had a chance to speak to this in debate.

We’re hoping that the government is not going to bring in or call for closure. If they do, I make an impassioned plea to you, Speaker, to not recognize it at this time, because we understand what has been happening here in this House.

I want to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I know that Mr. Hardeman, Ms. Munro, Mr. Hudak, Mr. Arnott, Ms. Jones, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Elliott, Mr. Hillier, Mr. MacLaren, Ms. MacLeod, Mr. McNaughton, Mr. Miller, Mr. Pettapiece and Ms. Thompson want to speak to this bill as well. So I hope that the government will allow us to do that and not try and shut this debate down here this morning.

I’m anxious to have that opportunity to speak about the wonderful people who are employed in and make their living by and make our lives better by the work they do in agriculture, not only in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke but all across this great province. I hope this debate does not get shut down before we have the opportunity to do so.

I want to speak about the bill as well, Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act—changes that I’m very supportive of. I want to have that opportunity to offer my views on the legislation in a more complete way.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Good morning.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s a pleasure to rise from my seat here today on behalf of the constituents in Windsor and Tecumseh, and talk about this very important bill dealing with farmers and agriculture.

Before I begin, I just want to mention that this is Sarnia–Lambton Day at the Legislature today. I know Mr. Bailey has invited us all to meet with the people from his community, most of them—a large portion of Sarnia–Lambton being rural—from the agricultural area. I know we would learn a great deal if we did take Mr. Bailey up on his generous offer to spend time with the chamber of commerce and others from Sarnia–Lambton today.

I listened very intently to what the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex had to say about the importance of this bill to his community. It’s important to all of us in this House, because as I’ve said before, and as you’ve all heard, farmers feed cities. We can’t take that for granted anymore. No matter where we go, no matter what we eat, the food on our table comes from the farming community.

So whatever we can do to expand insurance for farmers—to give them some kind of a rainy-day fund, if you will, if something goes wrong—we should be doing. And we should be listening to every voice in this House.

We all come here, 107 voices strong, 107 equal voices, and if we wish to be heard on a certain bill, we should be afforded that opportunity. When the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke spoke about the possibility of closure on this bill, I think he hit it right on. There are people who still wish to be heard, and if that’s the case, we should all listen intently, because farmers feed cities.

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

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise once again to speak to this bill. But I think it’s important to recognize that we’ve already had 78 members—78 members—of the Legislature who have spoken to this bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments.

This bill has now been debated for 12 hours. We’ve heard from the opposition the importance of the farmers and the farming community in their ridings. I think it’s important to understand that they’re needlessly extending debate on Bill 40 by continuing to put up speakers. As I mentioned, 12 hours—12 hours—have already been debated on this bill and the government has extended debate by 6.5 hours, the threshold, so more members would have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Listening to the debate, it’s been clear that the majority of the members are in support of this bill, so that signals that there is no true desire to have further meaningful debate on this bill and their only goal is to delay it.

I’m calling on the opposition parties to stop stalling and to help us move forward this important piece of legislation so that we can continue to debate other important bills, bills like Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act; Bill 37, the Invasive Species Act; Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act; Bill 49—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I believe that if the member wants to have a one-on-one he might want to go outside with the member from Sudbury.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It will be a problem. I don’t want to hear it.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just ending, we have Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act. Those would be great bills that we could also start debating.

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

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry; the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: First of all, I’d like to thank the members from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and Windsor–Tecumseh, which used to be the home of—ho ho ho—the Green Giant. I recall that, especially as a young gaffer.

Of course, the comments issued by the member from Sudbury—I will challenge him on the fact that this is an important bill. This bill does need further consultation. We can get it into committee, I agree, but it needs to be heard because there are members, especially on this side, who in fact represent more of the rural community.

I do have a concern. This bill will, in fact, protect farmers, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. It needs more—no pun intended—beef in this particular bill, because it needs to protect farmers: not only those who grow cash crops, but what about our beef farmers? What about our dairy farmers? What about the beekeepers? And the list goes on.

I’ve had discussions with a member of my riding who, in fact, claims that ground current caused not only the death of his prize cattle, but also the death of his wife, because of the fact of what ground current does. We need to get that problem solved. We need to get that problem straightened out.

I visited a dairy farmer about a month and a half ago, and there were about 30 of us there. The OSPCA was there. Of course, cruelty to animals—do you want to bring that into this bill? It should be there as well. Because I’m very, very concerned about the livelihood of dairy farmers. And this particular farmer, who I know very well, back in my riding, has a prize Holstein. I saw that Holstein; it was healthy. He called me last week in tears. He said his prize Holstein, which he has $10,000 invested in, is dying and is unable to produce milk simply because of the ground current. That, sir, needs to be taken care of. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order.

Mr. Ted Arnott: It is my hope to speak to Bill 40 this morning. I represent Wellington—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That’s not a point of order. Thank you.

Minister without Portfolio.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 40 this morning. I know that the government House leader spoke to this bill yesterday as well. I want to reiterate some of what he said yesterday.

We’re committed to helping our agricultural partners manage risk. That is why it’s so important that we move forward on this bill as soon as possible and refer it to committee for further study. We know that business risk management programs like production insurance help producers deal with situations that are outside their control, such as weather, disease and extreme market fluctuation. Production insurance makes timely payments to producers and eliminates the need for costly ad hoc responses to adverse conditions.

Our province’s inability to offer production insurance plans for commodities beyond crops and perennial plants represents a significant gap, as most members have agreed. When producers suffer losses and don’t have production insurance coverage, they may come to us for direct or ad hoc assistance. We’ve seen ad hoc programs cost the province millions of dollars in a single year. Further, production insurance is also premium-based. This means the costs are shared by farmers and government, which encourages best practices and appropriate sharing of risk.

This bill, if passed, will help our farmers better manage risk and encourage greater innovation, job creation and growth in the agri-food sector.

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced this important piece of legislation way back in November 2014. We’ve been debating the bill over nine different days, and our government allowed the debate to continue when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on this bill so that more members would have the opportunity to present their views of this bill that all members have indicated they support.

Further, speakers from the government side shared their 20-minute speaking segments among three or four members. Moreover, members from this side of the aisle stood down their speeches, following almost nine hours of debate, in order to allow the opposition members to have more opportunity to share their views on this bill that all three parties are on record as saying they are supporting.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has seen approximately 12 hours of debate and, according to my count, I think about 80 of the members have either spoken to this bill or participated in the debate during questions and comments. I believe there has been extensive debate on this bill. We have heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives, and I have enjoyed listening to all of them at that time. It is—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order: the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I hope there are not going to be too many points of order while the member is speaking, but go ahead.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I can’t determine that, Speaker, but I’m just raising my point of order. I’m only speaking for myself. Thank you very much.

Speaker, it’s clear where the member is going with this. We see what’s coming down the road very shortly—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That’s not a point of order. Thank you. Sit down.

Go ahead.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been extensive debate on this bill, and we have heard a wide range of views, opinions and perspectives. It is time that this bill is put to a vote for second reading and referred to committee, where some of the real and genuine work takes place.

As members know, in committee—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me, Minister.

Does the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke have a problem with my decision to tell him to sit down?

Mr. John Yakabuski: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Oh.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The decision? No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Oh. Good.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not your decision—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not your decision, no.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It is my decision.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I said no, I know that. I don’t have a problem with your decision.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Good.

Continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As members know, in committee, members from all parties will hear from presenters who will have their invaluable opinion and perspective presented.

Also in committee, members from all three parties will have an opportunity to move amendments to change or strengthen the bill.

At the same time, this House can move on to debate substantive matters. There are a number of pieces of important legislation already introduced which the government would like to debate and move through the legislative process: Bill 6, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act; Bill 9, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act; Bill 37—I know a lot of members are interested in the Invasive Species Act; Bill 45, the Making Healthier Choices Act; Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act; Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act; and Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act.

We’d like to spend time debating some of the other important bills currently before the House, but we cannot until Bill 40 is dealt with. As a result, I move that this question be now put.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister without Portfolio has moved that we end debate on this particular item.

After listening to the pleas from certain individuals from the Conservatives about their lack of membership being allowed to speak to this, at this time, I believe the debate will continue.

The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, I appreciate your ruling, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide a couple of questions and comments.

We do have a number of members here today who are prepared and will be speaking to this motion. I know that the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke mentioned the same point earlier.

I want to take the opportunity to again talk about some unfinished business when it comes to our agricultural community and Bill 40.

I was at the Grenville Federation of Agriculture meeting in my riding on Friday. It’s one of the most successful and well-attended agricultural meetings in the riding. I did have some discussion about this bill, and I know that farmers are very interested in the legislative process that brings this bill through the House and into a committee for public hearings and then back to this House for third reading debate.

But still, it’s been one year since the University of Guelph made their decision to shut our Kemptville campus, and regardless of the decision by this government to only fund the Alfred campus and not move forward with funding to help a new cohort of students for 2015-16, I still think it’s a priority. I still think it should be a priority of this government, and I believe we should be able to use that opportunity to talk about the importance of agriculture education.

This bill is very important to our farmers, and I know that previous speakers this morning outlined—Mr. Nicholls, from our caucus, outlined some of issues in his riding. Agriculture education is crucial. We’ve got an issue in this province right now where the demand of students at the diploma and degree levels is three times the supply. It’s high time that this government stopped hiding behind funding one college and not the other. They need to make a commitment to the community, they need to put some dollars on the table, and we need new, young farmers in college at that campus this fall.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? Questions and comments? Are we organized? The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I was standing, Speaker. Thank you very much.

First of all, I just want to say that one of the things a number of us have been saying about this bill, and it was commented on in the member’s speech, is that the bill itself is a step in the right direction. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House who is saying otherwise.

But one of the questions that has to be asked is—normally, if the government is going to make the type of announcement where they’re going to announce a shift in policy, when it comes to crop insurance in this particular case, you’d think that the government would have made an allocation for the dollars in the budget, so that when the bill was introduced in the House, the money was already appropriated and the government was able to say, “Here’s the bill that gives us the mechanism to expand crops and others as far as risk management, and by the way, here’s the money.

We’ve appropriated it in the budget.” In this particular case, I’m not aware that the government actually appropriated any of the dollars we need within the budget to deal with the additional dollars that will be needed, essentially in the risk management program that they’ve now expanded.

So the problem that we’ve got is: You’ve got a risk management program with a budget this big, you have a number of various types of farming activities that are covered under the current program, we’re going to expand those things to other types of farming activities, but we have the same amount of money. As a result, it means to say that we could end up in a situation where we actually have less money to compensate farmers under the risk management program because the government hasn’t appropriated the dollars.

Neither the parliamentary assistant nor the minister nor anybody on the government side has ever responded to: Has the government appropriated the dollars necessary to make sure the uptake to this program when it goes into effect?

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

Mr. Mike Colle: On Bill 40 here, I guess the question is: What is the purpose at this point? I think the purpose at this point is to get this bill to committee so the work can be done to help farmers. It has to go through committee. I think there’s agreement on all sides that this is urgent and that this work to give crop insurance and risk management insurance to farmers across the board in Ontario is urgent.

So the government is saying, “Yes, we agree with you, the opposition. We need to act to get out there to help farmers go through the committee process so we get input from farmers who come in and make representations.” Yet the opposition is saying, “No, we don’t want it to go ahead. We want to keep talking.”

Let’s stop the talk and walk the walk by bringing this to committee so that we can respond to the urgency of helping our agricultural communities all across Ontario. That’s all that really should be discussed: Do we want to stall this, delay this? I think the opposition parties are basically saying, “Yes, we want to help farmers, but not right now. We want to talk some more.” Let’s bring it to committee, get the work done to iron it out, make amendments, make some changes and get out there and help farmers.

Why they want to delay and stall is something they’re going to have to explain. I just want to hear the explanation of why they think they should stall this urgent bill to help farmers.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to rise to add some question and comments to the member from St. Catharines, although to be frank, it’s really hard to talk about Bill 40 when in his six minutes, he didn’t actually speak to the bill. He spoke to why it needed to be moved forward. He gave examples of other bills that he would rather bring forward and debate. I think it’s important for the viewers to understand that it is in fact the deputy House leader who chose which bill we were debating this morning.

If he felt it was critically important for us to debate other pieces of legislation which are also on the order paper, he had every right and ability to bring those forward for debate instead of Bill 40. We are speaking about Bill 40 because the government put it on the order for speaking this morning.

There are issues that need to be dealt with. It is not a perfect bill. I know that’s hard for the Liberals to understand, but they actually didn’t draft a perfect bill. Part of our responsibility as legislators—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Newmarket–Aurora, I see you.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker. As we—my train of thought there was dropped for a minute.

As difficult as it is for the Liberals to understand, they often don’t draft perfect bills. Part of our responsibility in the opposition is to highlight those inequities, to highlight those items in the bill that are missing. I believe we are doing that in an effective way. Many of our members have talked about specific issues in their riding that would not be covered under Bill 40. I trust that that debate will continue.

As I say, it’s not a perfect bill, so we have every right to debate it and add our voices to the debate.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: It is highly unusual, may I say, that this debate was not concluded on this occasion. Yesterday and today, normally following the practices of this House, debate would have ended on this bill. To see this bill continuing at the present time is really, really surprising to me because all of us in this House agree on this bill. This isn’t one that’s contentious. I can understand when there’s disagreement taking place. But here we have a bill to which members have spoken, and all of us agree. Yet we have the debate continuing in this House after 12 hours and after 80 members have participated in one way or another, with other important legislation being there.

I could understand if it were contentious. I really do understand that. Having seen contentious bills over the years, it’s good to have more views canvassed. But I am extremely surprised that this debate has not concluded second reading and is not now going to committee.

To the member, Ms. Jones, who mentioned that I had not dealt with the bill: In fact, in the early part of my speech I dealt exactly with the major provisions of this piece of legislation, which we all agree with.

I can only come to the conclusion that the purpose of this is now simply to thwart the agenda of the government. I understand that; I’ve been in opposition. But to pretend that there’s a compelling reason for further debate at second reading on this bill is certainly surprising to me.

What it does as well is, it starts to compel governments to begin with time allocation as opposed to allowing the free flow of debate. If that’s what the opposition wants, that’s a consequence of the kind of unnecessary delay that I see today.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I have a very high personal regard for the member for St. Catharines, the Chair of Cabinet and the deputy House leader. He has served here with distinction since 1977. He’s a long-serving member. But I have to say that I disagree with him on this.

I remember, in the early days of the Harris government in 1995, the introduction of Bill 26. The opposition of the day was the Liberal Party and the New Democrats, and the Liberal Party in opposition was so incensed with Bill 26 and so violently opposed to it that they actually found a way, through the standing orders, to stop a vote in the middle of the vote. There was a member of the Legislature who sat right along here somewhere, who sat in the House for more than 24 hours to prevent the vote from continuing on a bill that the Liberal Party was violently opposed to.

In retrospect, that bill did need public hearings; that was what the Liberal Party and the opposition wanted. There were weeks of public hearings that followed what happened in the House that day, and there were a significant number of amendments to the bill.

Again, I would concur with the member for St. Catharines that this bill does need to go to committee, but, at the same time, for them to suggest that the bill doesn’t need debate—I would totally disagree.

We see with this bill, I think, a division in the House—even though we support the principle of the bill, and I think all three parties are going to support it—but the way that this bill is being handled, we see a division in the House.

Why is that? Again, I think, more and more in my riding, we hear people talking about the rural-urban divide. On this side of the House, the vast majority of MPPs in our caucus represent small-town and rural ridings. We have agriculture as a huge, important, economic industry in our ridings.

The government members, by and large, represent urban and suburban ridings. I think most of them should understand the importance of agriculture to their ridings in terms of the food that we produce in rural Ontario, that they consume in their ridings. They should understand that. The old saying, “If you ate today, thank a farmer,” maybe needs to be brought up again.

The fact is that we have not had any agriculture debates on bills since the election—the election being last June. Here we are now in March, not quite a year later, and I believe this is the very first piece of legislation that the government has introduced that is related to agriculture. When we have debate on agriculture and agri-business, we have a chance to talk about not just the bill, but of course the issue as it affects our riding and some of the general issues affecting agriculture in the province.

We have other ways of bringing those issues up, whether it’s opposition day motions, perhaps, or whether it’s through petitions, or whether it’s letters that we send to the minister or—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There are a few discussions going on. I’d like to remind the minister, when he crosses the floor, to acknowledge the Chair. Is the minister listening? The minister can hear the Speaker? Hello? Thank you. It’s a little loud—he’s right beside me and I’m having trouble. There are a few sidebars going on. Take it outside, please.

Go ahead.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The fact is that we have lots of issues pertaining to agriculture in our ridings that those of us on the opposition benches would like to raise, and I only have 10 minutes to talk about them.

In my riding, in fact, in the county of Wellington, we are the third-largest milk producer in the province. We are the third-largest beef producer in the province in terms of number of cattle. We are the fourth-largest hog producer in the province. We are a significant producer of grain corn in comparison to other counties across the province. We are the second-largest producer of mixed grain, county by county, across the province. We are the second-largest sheep producer in the province of Ontario, in Wellington county.

I’m privileged to share the representation of Wellington county with the member for Perth–Wellington, and I know that he’s looking forward and hopeful to have the chance to debate this bill as well. He’s in committee today—there’s a committee that’s meeting concurrently with the House—but I’m sure that he would hope to have a chance to speak to this bill as well to talk about the importance of agriculture in his community.

I know that the farmers in our ridings would expect us to bring forward their ideas, their concerns, their aspirations, their hopes and their challenges when there is a debate on agriculture. I also know that they would hope that this bill would pass in some form—hopefully, getting it right in due course.

I think most farmers in my riding, and certainly the representatives from the commodity groups as well as the general farm organizations, recognize that there is a legislative process, that we debate issues and we discuss issues here; that there’s a committee process whereby public hearings are possible and people can come in and talk about the bill and offer suggestions for improvements; and that we all will have that opportunity in due course.

In my riding, during the last provincial election, I talked about agriculture as an important responsibility of government. I recognize the hugely positive impact of agriculture and agribusiness in the Ontario economy. We see, in terms of primary agriculture on the farm, $13.7 billion in terms of an agricultural contribution to Ontario’s annual GDP. We see 158,000 jobs generated by the farm sector across the province; $8.1 billion in wages and salaries supported by Ontario’s farm families; $12 billion spent on farm inputs, with 58% of those jobs actually being in rural areas; and $1.4 billion in provincial tax revenue.

This is a very, very important segment of Ontario’s economy, and I think we need to repeat those numbers, to continue to remind everybody in this place of how important the agriculture sector is in terms of the overall economy of the province of Ontario.

More than 70% of Ontario farm products remain within the province. Some $21.3 billion is the annual contribution of the food-and-beverage processor part of the industry to Ontario’s GDP in 2012. We need to know, I think, and be reminded that food processing directly employs more than 91,000 workers across Ontario—and more than 193,000 secondary jobs in other areas of the economy. It’s vastly important to the overall economy of the province of the Ontario.

I also want to again reiterate my support for supply management. I know that that has been brought up a couple of times during the course of this debate, and questions have been raised about the support that some people might have for supply management. I have never once wavered, in 25 years in the Legislature, in my support of supply management, and I will support it as long as I breathe.

From time to time, the Liberal Party has tried to make suggestions and cast aspersions on the support of supply management on the Conservative side of the House. I wish they would stop doing that, because they’re playing a silly political game that is beneath them.

I think that we need to continue to find ways to reduce red tape in the province of Ontario, in terms of agriculture, and I talked about that during the election. I think we need to continue to find ways to enhance business risk management programs. I know that we’ve got some good programs in that respect, but we need to strengthen them and improve them. From time to time, we hear from farmers that the programs are not working for them, and we’ve got to work on that.

These are things that should be added, in my opinion, to agriculture legislation in the province of Ontario.

I strongly support research into agriculture and will continue to do so, because that’s the future of agriculture for our province and for our young farmers coming forward. I think we need to continue to review ways to ensure that we have fair assessment of farm values, and that’s an issue that has been a concern in my riding. Also, we need to take steps to preserve good-quality farmland, because that is the future of agriculture.

I also believe that if we preserve the future of agriculture, and we give young people a sense of hope that the agriculture industry is going to be a great opportunity going forward in the next decade—in the next millennium, Mr. Speaker—that will encourage young people. If we preserve the family farm, they will, in turn, preserve our best-quality farmland.

Again, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 40, we say that Ontario is currently the only province without the legislative authority to offer plans for a broad range of agriculture products, and Bill 40 is intended to address that issue.

In Ontario, we know that production insurance is delivered by Agricorp, a crown agent, and of course, Agricorp is based in Guelph, which is a community very close to my riding. In fact, my riding surrounds it on all sides, and I have a significant number of constituents who actually work there. They’re good people, and they do a great job on behalf of our farmers in the province of Ontario.

Our farmers have long requested production insurance plans that move beyond just crops to include insurance for additional agricultural products. Bill 40, I gather, is an effort to address that concern, and we’re pleased that it has been brought forward. Currently, we know that Ontario has available production insurance for almost 90 commercially grown crops, including grains and oilseeds, corn, soy, wheat, tree fruits, grapes, vegetables, specialty crops and forage.

Mr. Speaker, again, I conclude—I only had 10 minutes to talk. Unfortunately, I spent about the first five minutes of my speech talking about the way the government is managing this bill in the House and my concerns about that. But I would again express support on second reading for the principle of this bill, and my hope that the bill, in due course, after the members have had an opportunity to debate the bill and discuss the issues—especially with respect to their ridings—that in fact this bill will move forward in the legislative process.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always a pleasure to speak in this House, particularly on an agriculture issue, and to follow the member from Wellington–Halton Hills. I always enjoy listening to his comments because he’s thoughtful, talks about his riding and talks about what’s important to the issue at hand.

What’s most important to the issue at hand here is—we hear from the other side that this bill is being delayed. But actually, this bill should have been proposed in 2003. This government has been delaying it. A majority government for most of that time, a Liberal government, has been sitting on its hands while the other provinces moved ahead. They’ve been sitting on their hands for a decade, and now they’re worried if it takes another half-hour or an hour. Really, it’s the decade that’s the problem.

What is a big issue with this bill—and we’ve brought it up several times, and it’s the crucial part of this bill: There is no money attached. To increase the coverage to more products: great idea. But the way it works, the farmer pays 40%; the province, 26%; and the feds, 34%. Unless it’s identified where that 26% is going to come from, and since we don’t see any new money coming down the pipe, if more products are covered, that means that the government is going to take money out of some other pot. And if it’s the agricultural-risk-management pot, then that’s a direct loss to farmers.

That’s not beyond the pale, because when the risk management program was developed—it’s a very good program, but it needed about $200 million to work financially, to balance, and what this government did is, they capped it at $100 million. Farmers know very well that this government can and will actually take money from one pot and put it in another pot, and make it look like it’s a net gain when actually it’s a net loss. That’s why it’s so important we discuss this bill and home in on where the money is coming from.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: If members of this House want to know why governments bring in time allocation motions, it’s because of what we have witnessed in this House for the last two sessions. When normally the time for the legislation passing on second reading would have passed, normally it would have been approved, and it is not. So don’t be surprised when you get time allocation motions when this happens.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Carleton–Mississippi Mills; sorry.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill. It’s unfortunate that there are those who would choose to thwart the democratic opportunity to debate this bill to its full potential, as many of us would like to do.

Beyond that, I would say that this bill is a very good bill; great idea. It’s going to do something that needs to have been done for a considerable length of time. That was pointed out by the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

The year 2003 created an incident where there was a great need to provide the kind of coverage, protection, endorsement and support of farmers in Ontario that was provided by all the other provinces of Canada. So we have a great lack over the last 10 years or even 12 years of addressing a problem that is 12 years old. That was mad cow disease, when government chose—because of one cow—to close the American border—to tell the world about the one cow, which resulted in the closing of the American border, which was 50% of the exports of beef cattle from Canada.

Overnight, cows went from being worth 60 cents a pound to as little as two cents a pound, which covered less than the trucking and the auctioning costs of the cow. It literally became more economical for the farmer to take the cow out behind the barn and shoot it and bury it in the manure pile than ship it to market. That was good food that had no value because of a government decision to so-called protect people from a problem that didn’t exist, because never has anybody in Canada ever gotten sick from or died from eating Canadian beef that had mad cow disease. So it was a problem that didn’t exist that cost billions of dollars. This legislation will help fix that.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think the point has been made by my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane about the dollars part.

I just want to say that for the member from St. Catharines to get up in this House and say, “Oh, my God, we’ve talked about this too long and we should move things along”—first of all, New Democrats have pretty well finished debating this bill, so let’s put that on the record.

The bigger thing is, I remember that the member for St. Catharines, when we had rules in this House that you could speak without limit, would take the floor for two or three days on a regular occasion. I sat exactly in the seat you sit in now, and I remember the member—because the opposition of the day had a strategy that they were trying to hold the government to account on either a budget or on a particular matter that they were rightfully worried about. I remember the member for St. Catharines grabbing the floor for more than a day at a time on more than one occasion. And you know what?

That was perfectly within his rights, because the rules of the day allowed members to speak and there was no limit to how long they could speak.

In the opposition at that day, which was a Liberal opposition under Lyn McLeod—or it might have been Bob Nixon; I can’t remember what particular time it was—the member used the floor in order to hold the government to account and put points on the record in regard to what was important to him and to others in this province, not only his own caucus, when it came to the issue at hand. You know what? That’s democracy. I didn’t like it as a government member. I know that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills would have been here at the same time, and he would remember the same thing, where the member did that.

I also remember at times some of your caucus doing the same. I remember—I don’t remember the riding—Mr. Stockwell doing the same thing. I forget what budget bill it was. I remember the leader of the third party, Mr. Harris, reading into the record the names of every lake and river in the province of Ontario. They used the rules in order to hold the government to account. That’s what it was all about, so we shouldn’t take it personally.

Democracy is about checks and balances. At the end, the government always gets its way, and that’s the way the system works, but the opposition has the right to be able to express concern.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Wellington–Halton Hills has two minutes.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the members for Timiskaming–Cochrane, St. Catharines, Carleton–Mississippi Mills and Timmins–James Bay.

The member for St. Catharines, in his brief response, alluded to the responsibility of government to get its legislation through the House, but I would again suggest to him that the opposition has a responsibility to draw attention to the flaws and drawbacks of government policy, generally speaking, and to ensure that there is thorough and adequate debate.

There is another mechanism, and the member for St. Catharines definitely alluded to it, to terminate debate in the House, and that is through time allocation motions, for some reason more recently. In fact, the government has used that mechanism on a number of occasions, especially in the minority Parliament prior to the election, and now has chosen strategically to move to this other way of terminating debate, shutting down the opposition through motions to close off debate.

I think back to 1957, when the majority Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent in Ottawa was bringing in the pipeline bill.

When they brought in a closure motion to shut off the debate from the CCF members as well as the Conservative members in opposition at that time, it caused such a sensation across the country that parliamentary democracy was being usurped by an overly arrogant Liberal government, in this case, shutting down debate, shutting down the voice of the people, in many cases, through the parliamentary process, that it actually led to an election and then in turn to the defeat of the Liberal government. Of course, not too many people study history anymore in Canada, but it’s something to think about.

If government goes too far and it shuts down the will of the people through opposition debate, it can sow the seeds, certainly, of significant political change when an election comes. Again, I bring that up.

Thank you very much for listening to my comments on Bill 40 this morning.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: It occurs to me that I too have not had my say on Bill 40, so I’d like to do that. I’d like to just talk about how this province, and certainly this government, is committed to helping our agri-food partners manage risk. These are some of the things that I know, in the times that I was out in Perth county visiting our dairy farmers, our hog farmers and our chicken farmers—they told me at the time.

It’s very important that we move forward with this bill. We’ve got to get it to committee because this bill has to get working for our farmers.

I understand the reason that people want to talk about it in here. We all know that we’re going to support it once it gets through committee, and we’re going to support it when it gets back in here at third reading.

This is a bill that talks about how we help farmers cope with weather, disease, extreme market fluctuations such as what we’re seeing now in the up and down of the Canadian dollar. This product insurance makes timely payments to producers and, most importantly for producers, it eliminates the need for ad hoc, costly band-aid responses to adverse conditions in the climate or in markets.

At the moment, Ontario’s current inability to offer production insurance plans for commodities beyond crops and perennial plants represents, particularly for farmers, a very significant gap. When producers suffer losses and they don’t have production insurance coverage, they may actually have to come to the province for either direct or ad hoc assistance. They don’t want to do that, and we don’t want to do that.

This is the kind of bill that, if passed, will help our farmers better manage risk and encourage greater innovation, job creation and growth in the agri-food sector.

Speaker, as you know, this very important piece of legislation was introduced in November 2014. The bill has continued past the point of six and a half hours of debate, so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views. The bill has now seen well more than 10 hours of debate, and I understand that more than 80 members have either spoken—

Mr. Steve Clark: Bill 31 had 13 hours.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: I got carried away.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Again, the member from Leeds–Grenville will cut it back quite a bit.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m just trying to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t know what you were trying to do. Regardless—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m talking; you’re listening. Thank you. So cut it back. Thank you.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m really surprised at my colleague from Leeds–Grenville. He knows that as a goaltender I’m just impervious to this kind of heckling. I don’t understand what would motivate him to try, but if he wishes, he’s welcome to do it.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order: He can stick to the bill rather than talking about me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Listen, I know this is almost like school and I may have to call people out to the principal’s office if they continue with this bantering. So, please, cut it back and no more comments about hockey and other things. Let’s stick to the bill. Thanks.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Oh, another voice is heard from. Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Well, Speaker, then let’s just get right to the point. Given the number of members who have spoken to the bill, given the hours that it’s debated, I move that the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Mississauga–Streetsville moves that the question now be put.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Listen, there’s a lot of pressure on the little old Speaker here, so I’m going to take a five-minute recess and discuss with the Clerks’ table and the powers that be where we’re going to go with this.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Who’s the powers that be?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The powers that be? You’ll find out.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1009.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): After in-depth debate, and advice that I have taken through past procedures—for example, Bill 31, which has been mentioned by the opposition, was debated for 14 hours, and Speaker Nicholls moved closure on that. I personally have ordered closure at 10 hours and 10 minutes on the government’s anti-SLAPP legislation. These are just some of many, many other examples of varying hours of debate that I’ve had to kind of have a mean position on, in the middle of the road.

Mr. Delaney has moved that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I hear noes.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

I believe the ayes have it.

This will be voted on after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day.

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour des choix plus sains

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 3, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to enhance public health by enacting the Healthy Menu Choices Act, 2015 and the Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2015 and by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à améliorer la santé publique par l’édiction de la Loi de 2015 pour des choix santé dans les menus et de la Loi de 2015 sur les cigarettes électroniques et la modification de la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The last position on this was from the NDP. Further debate, please. The member from Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. I recognize that my time may be limited.

This bill was addressed at length by my colleague the Ontario NDP’s health critic, France Gélinas, a few days ago. I want to refer back to her comments because I think they’re quite substantive and speak to the history and the prospects for this bill.

She was very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to this because this bill contains many bills that she, in the past, has put forward. The bill addresses three areas.

The first addresses the question of healthy menu choices. In effect, this will require those who are selling prepared food—food to go, fast food, nice restaurants—to inform people through menu labels as to what they’re getting. This is an issue that Madame Gélinas had been bringing forward since 2009. As much as it would have been a good thing to have passed her bill in its previous iterations, it’s probably a good idea that it’s incorporated into this one.

The second

schedule in this bill deals with amendments to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to ban flavoured tobacco. Again, this is an issue that she’s been working on since 2008. It’s 2015. There are a number of years there where this bill could have been enforced, Madame Gélinas’s earlier private member’s bill, and it would have had a positive impact on reducing the risk of cancer for people in Ontario. The government should have let that bill go forward years ago; unfortunately, it didn’t. It’s incorporating it into this bill. I guess once again one can say, “Better late than never,” but frankly, Speaker, it should have been much earlier.

The third

schedule talks about what are known as e-cigarettes, vaporizers or vapers—whichever one you want to call them—but basically brings regulation to e-cigarettes. Those are the three main sections of this bill.

Let’s start looking at it in greater detail through menu labelling. The statistics to encourage menu labelling are rather stark. We face a different world than we did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, when more people cooked at home. People would go to grocery stores; they would buy food; they would be able to read nutrition labelling on the food that they purchased. People were able to make choices based on their interest and the nutritional information that was provided with the food.

When you look at food labelling in grocery stores, you’ll see labelling that tries to appeal to people’s health consciousness. A lot of brands will talk about having zero cholesterol, zero calories. I don’t know whether you actually get zero calories; maybe with club soda. Who knows? But the simple packaging of food, the attractive label on the cover, is also matched with information on the package about exactly how many calories you’re taking in when you consume that food and what other nutritional factors are to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I sense from subtle indications on your part that I may be running short on time. I appreciate the opportunity to start my address, and I thank you. I know that you’ll recess, and I’ll have an opportunity to continue at a later point.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to thank the member from Toronto–Danforth. Obviously, with time restraints, we will continue where we left off with him.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): As it’s now 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I just want to introduce a fine upcoming business in my riding in the beautiful town of Gananoque. In the gallery is Bruce Davis, the owner of the Gananoque Brewing Co. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s my pleasure to introduce, in the gallery today, three members from the University of Windsor Faculty Association: Debbie Noble, Pierre Boulos and my buddy Brian Brown. Also joining us today, from King’s University College Faculty Association, is Claude Olivier. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Verle Thompson, Motion, and none other than Mr. Kardinal Offishall, the great Canadian international artist, here joining us today.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I have a couple of different groups: first of all, my good friends Edward and Carol Vitunski and their son Ed Vitunski, who are here from North Bay—welcome; and also Todd Horton, who is here from the Nipissing University Faculty Association.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I, too, want to welcome Carol and Ed Vitunski to the Legislature this morning. Not only are they from North Bay, but they are the parents of my senior communications adviser, Aly Vitunski, who is with them here at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today and introduce some members of the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce, this being Sarnia–Lambton Day: Rob Taylor, Rory Ring, Monica Shepley, Debbie Harksen, Dave Ferguson, Dave Moody, Dean Edwardson, Don Wood, Jim Bradshaw, Jim Janssens, Jonathan Holmes, Keith Stevens, Ken Faulkner, Leo Stathakis, Lianne Birkbeck, Mark Lumley, Marty Raaymakers, Murray McLaughlin, Peter Hungerford, Rick Perdeaux, Shauna Carr, Spencer Dickson. Also, Don McGugan, the mayor of Brooke-Alvinston, is here with us, and Cindy Scholten, Sarnia city councillor.

Everyone is welcome to Sarnia–Lambton Day today.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I hope everyone will join me in welcoming three guests from the universities in Waterloo who are here today as part of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations lobby day. From the University of Waterloo Faculty Association, Jasmin Habib and David Porreca, and from Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association, Robert Kristofferson.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to welcome page captain Niko Hoogeveen’s family: mother Dr. Kelly Emerson Hoogeveen, father Dr. Paul Hoogeveen, sister Hanna Hoogeveen, grandmother Ann Hoogeveen and grandfather Harry Hoogeveen.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to introduce Larry Savage, my good friend from Niagara. He’s a professor at Brock University. Welcome.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to welcome members from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations visiting the House today. Actually, they have a lobby day today, and I invite all members of this House to visit them in rooms 228 and 230 this afternoon.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like members of the assembly to join me in welcoming Laura Parker from the McMaster University Faculty Association. She’s here today to watch question period as part of the group that’s here.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’d like to welcome Diane Beauchemin from the Queen’s University Faculty Association. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to introduce Alison Hearn and Kristin Hoffmann. They’re from the Western faculty association in the great riding of London North Centre, and they’re here with OCUFA.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce three individuals from the Ontario Hospital Association’s northern leadership council. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We have Ray Hunt, who’s the CEO of Espanola Regional Hospital and Health Centre; Allan Katz, CEO of Riverside Health Care Facilities; and Derek Graham, CEO of Manitoulin Health Centre and a board member of the Ontario Hospital Association.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also point out Bruce Davis, who wears many hats, among which is his involvement with the Ontario Film Review Board, the president of Gananoque Brewing Co. and my former campaign manager.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to welcome somebody who I think will be arriving shortly, a visitor from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Mike Radan. Mike has been very actively involved in the community there for many years but he’s also the father of my staff member Mackenzie Radan. Welcome to both for question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With us in the Speaker’s gallery today is a friend and a professional firefighter, Gavin Jacklyn, along with his daughter, Grace Jacklyn, to learn about democracy in action. We’re glad you’re here with us.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Since we don’t seem to be getting any answers from you in this House regarding the Sudbury bribery scandal, and you apparently are having scheduling problems trying to meet with the OPP, may we suggest that the best use of your time in the next hour would be to leave question period and go meet with the OPP? Will you do that, Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the member opposite is now going to take a facetious tack. I actually take this very seriously.

The fact is that that meeting is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please—stop the clock. A quick announcement: I’ll be jumping quite quickly on all of the interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is that that meeting is being set up. I’ve said all along that I will co-operate with the authorities; we are co-operating with authorities. That meeting is being arranged.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: Premier, you met with the Chief Electoral Officer sometime between January 26 and February 3 in relation to the investigation he started in mid-December into the Sudbury by-election. On February 9, you told reporters that you would be meeting with the OPP in relation to the investigation they restarted on January 16, and you just reiterated that right now. Yet, here we are nine weeks later, and your so-called scheduling issues are holding up the meeting.

Premier, wouldn’t you agree that delaying a meeting with the OPP for over two months is tantamount to interfering in the Sudbury investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not delaying anything. We are in the process of setting up that meeting. The member opposite can twist this any way he chooses, but the fact is the meeting is being set up. We’re in the process of organizing that—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s not just about my calendar; there are other factors. I will have that meeting when it’s arranged.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier. Premier, when you were chosen as Liberal leader, you loved to talk about how different you were going to be from your predecessor Dalton McGuinty.

Premier, the OPP investigation into the gas plant scandal started in June 2013, yet Dalton McGuinty didn’t meet with the OPP investigators until April of the following year. So I ask you, Premier, will it take 10 months for you to meet with the OPP just like it took 10 months for Dalton McGuinty to meet with the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was chosen as the leader, and then we went to an election and we won a general election. Then we won a by-election in Sudbury. I have a feeling that that’s actually what this is about.

It’s actually about the fact that we are implementing an agenda that we took to the people of Ontario. It’s a positive agenda. It’s building the province up. It’s investing in the infrastructure and in the talent and skills of people that we know are necessary for the 21st century. That’s not the platform that the party opposite ran on, and I think it’s sticking in their craw.

Interjections.

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

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. On February 9, the media reported that you and your deputy chief of staff were going to meet with OPP investigators regarding the alleged bribery allegations.

Premier, on exactly what date were you, your office or your lawyers contacted by the OPP to

schedule that meeting?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I go again to the answer that I have been giving in this House and will continue to give. There is an investigation going on. Part of that investigation is the arrangement of meetings with a number of people. I don’t have access to all that information. The authorities are doing that. They are talking to people; they’re talking to the people to whom they choose to speak. They’re setting up meetings as they choose to. We are working with them to set up one specific meeting between me and the authorities. We’ll continue to make those arrangements.

But in the interim, there are other things happening, but we don’t have access to those, because as I have said many times, this is an investigation that’s happening outside the Legislature, not inside the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Again, it has been over five weeks since we learned that you were asked to meet with the OPP.

But, Speaker, tonight is the annual Liberal Party Heritage Dinner. Before anybody goes out to rush to buy a ticket, it’s $1,550 a ticket. My question is, Premier, why is a $1,500-a-plate Liberal fundraiser more important to you than having a meeting with the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I know that this is the frame that the party opposite wants to put on the public discussion.

The party opposite is trying to construe the situation so that, somehow, I am avoiding meeting with the OPP. Mr. Speaker, that is tantamountly not true. It is not true. The meeting is being set up. I am working with the authorities. As soon as that arrangement can be made, I will have that meeting. That is the truth.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Premier, the maximum punishment for bribery under the Election Act is two years less a day. The Criminal Code offence attracts a far stiffer penalty: A bribery conviction could mean up to 14 years in prison.

The Chief Electoral Officer can’t lay charges. He can only pass his findings on to the Attorney General. Premier, is the reason you were so quick to meet with Elections Ontario but not with the OPP the fact that, if criminally convicted, your deputy chief of staff could be facing a lengthy prison term?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just be clear that in the same way that Elections Ontario organized a meeting with me—we worked with them, and we had that meeting—that’s how we’re working with the other authorities.

Let’s just be clear on what the Chief Electoral Officer said. He clearly stated, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order and not discuss issues while the questions and answers are being put. The deputy House leader will not engage in the same conversation—and I don’t need any coaching. That’s the second time for both.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I had the meeting with Elections Ontario.

The Chief Electoral Officer said, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

Mr. Speaker, that investigation is ongoing, and I will meet with the OPP when that meeting is arranged.

Interjections.

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

Hon. David Orazietti: It’s the member from Miami Beach.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The tendency is to try to bring the temperature down. If that member wishes to identify anyone, they know that it’s by their riding or their title only.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier says she’s working with the OPP, but she hasn’t met with them. The Premier says there were no bribes offered to Andrew Olivier, but there are calls and warrants and independent reports that show evidence of bribes. The Premier insists she’s answering questions. Sure, she stands up and talks, but she hasn’t answered anything, Speaker.

Will the Premier start answering questions about her role in the Sudbury bribery scandal both in this House and with the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I will absolutely—first of all, I do answer the questions that the opposition asks of me and I will answer substantially when the question is appropriate to the place.

The fact is, there’s an investigation going on. Members of the opposition and the third party want to direct that investigation themselves. The fact is that they are not the authorities to undertake that investigation. The authorities are outside of this Legislature and we will work with those authorities, as it should be, outside of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s been five weeks since the Sudbury bribery scandal and four weeks of questions, but the Premier seems to believe that she’s above answering questions either in this House or with the OPP. She doesn’t seem to think that Ontarians deserve the respect of having the Premier give an honest answer to an honest question.

If the Premier won’t meet with the OPP to answer their questions, then surely she must see the responsibility that she has to answer questions in this House, so I’m going to ask yet another one: Who gave the orders to Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is absolutely inaccurate when she says that I will not meet with the OPP. That is just not the truth. I am going to meet with the OPP. That meeting is being set up. It hasn’t happened yet, that’s true, but it will happen and I will co-operate fully, as I have said I will do, with the investigation which is taking place outside of this Legislature.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal government is under the cloud of a bribery scandal, but there is something deeper than that. There is a question of transparency and integrity that’s part of every action of this government. If the government refuses to answer questions about a criminal investigation, one that goes to the very heart of the Premier’s very own inner circle of advisers, how can they be trusted with anything?

Is the Premier avoiding meeting the OPP in an effort to influence the timing of the charges being laid?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I am avoiding nothing. There is a meeting being set up. I will take

part in that meeting. I have said that consistently. The fact is, the meeting hasn’t been set up yet. There are many, many aspects to an investigation, but the fact is I don’t know all of those. I don’t know what else is going on in terms of the investigation, for a good reason, and that is that the investigation is taking place outside of this Legislature, not inside the Legislature. I will work with the authorities as part of that investigation.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Political corruption, bribery, protecting insiders, refusing to answer basic questions, dirty deals and dodging the OPP investigators: Will the Premier commit to doing better and start by answering questions about her role in the Sudbury bribery scandal either in this House or in the OPP investigation room?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said repeatedly that I will work with the authorities, I will answer the questions that I am asked. But for the leader of the third party to try to again construe this situation as somehow me avoiding having those conversations is just inaccurate. She’s just not speaking the truth. The truth is, the meeting is being set up. I have committed to having that meeting and as soon as it’s arranged, I will take part.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is something truly ridiculous when the Premier won’t even tell Ontarians whether Pat Sorbara is attending cabinet meetings, claiming that she can’t because there’s an investigation ongoing by police—an investigation she is stalling and hampering by refusing to be interviewed by investigators. The Premier must realize that this is absurd. Few, if any, citizens in this province would be able to dodge being questioned about a criminal offence for this long.

Will the Premier stop dodging the OPP investigators, stop stalling this investigation and agree to meet with the OPP immediately?

Interjections.

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

While it is my task to listen carefully to the questions and answers—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While it is my task to listen carefully to the questions and answers, I believe I did hear something said previously that should not have been said, so I’m going to ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I withdraw.

Hon. James J. Bradley: After what she said over there?

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At any time, anyone wishes to challenge the Chair, the option is there.

Premier: answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat that I have every intention to meet with the authorities. That meeting is being set up. I would never want to stall or hinder the investigation. I have been clear that I will work with the authorities.

In terms of answering the questions that in this House are questions being asked by people who, I think, want the investigation to happen in here—I just want to refer back to the comments of the member for Timmins–James Bay. He was talking about me, but his principle applies to everyone. He said, on February 27, “You do have a larger responsibility to make sure you’re careful in the use of your words so you don’t interfere in any ... way.” I think that he’s right, and we need to pay attention to that on all sides of the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, after five weeks, the Premier can’t seem to find a single hour to sit down with the OPP anti-rackets branch investigators. Though she—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Tell the truth. Tell the truth. Be honest.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Though she seems to have lots of time for the Liberal Heritage Dinner tonight, I have to wonder if Gerry Lougheed is going to be there, Speaker. Might I suggest to the Premier that she actually skip question period tomorrow and instead

schedule a meeting with OPP investigators? It’s not as though she’s answering any questions here.

Would the Premier agree to stop stalling the investigation, skip question period tomorrow morning and allow the OPP investigators to do their job, sit down with them and start answering their questions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have been very clear in this House, and with the people of Ontario in statements that I’ve made publicly, that I have every intention of meeting with the OPP when that meeting is set up. The meeting is being set up.

I actually think it does the people of Ontario a real disservice to characterize behaviour in such a way that suggests that we only do one thing at a time, that, in fact, I can’t co-operate with the authorities and still govern the province. That’s just not the case.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done, whether it is legislation that is going to make sure we invest in infrastructure, whether it’s legislation that puts in place an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, whether it is making sure that on all fronts we are responding to emergencies, like the emergency in Gogama. There is a lot of work to be done, and, as government, we have to do a lot of things at the same time.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. I noticed that you have been smiling and grinning through much of question period this morning, but I’m very concerned about the attitude demonstrated by you and your government.

You’re the first government that has been accused of breaching the Election Act, and you’re under four separate OPP investigations. But there’s more: We are seeing a disturbing level of abuse across all of your government, a complete disregard for ethics not just by you but by individuals across the public service who are following your example.

Premier, if you don’t demonstrate leadership, it will only get worse. Will you take a step in the right direction and meet with the OPP immediately?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I remind the member opposite again that there is an ongoing investigation, and it would be highly inappropriate for anybody to engage in any conjecture or presumptions here, as the case may be. The Premier has been very clear: She will co-operate with the authorities, and then we will do so.

I think what we need to really focus on are issues that are at hand. We know the agenda of the party opposite, which is to cut 100,000 hard-working Ontarians’ jobs. We know that they want to cut about 22,000 jobs just from teachers.

We need to make sure that we let the independent authorities do their work and focus on issues that are important to Ontarians. I ask all members to respect how our system works when it comes to independent police investigations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I see the House leader is grinning as well.

Back to the Premier. How about these for issues: our Ontario Provincial Police union, Ornge and a Ministry of Labour bureaucrat? When you fail to lead by example, others take note. Whether it’s a failure of ministerial oversight or a bureaucrat under investigation for extortion and shakedowns, the buck stops with you. When you won’t meet with the police over an ongoing investigation, you send a very clear message to everyone that you think you’re above the law.

This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. I can’t imagine it getting worse, but it probably will. Premier, will you do your job? Will you lead by example, set a tone that your government is not above the law and meet with the OPP now?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I would argue that the Premier is leading by example because she is focusing on issues that are important to Ontarians and because she is investing and making sure that we are growing our economy all across the province. She is taking actions to ensure that we have good-paying jobs for hard-working Ontarians. She is investing in building our infrastructure, both public transit and other critical infrastructure.

That is how the Premier is leading, and we ask the members opposite to really focus on issues that are important to Ontarians on the mandate that was given to us by the people of Ontario in the election that happened just recently, almost a year ago.

Any investigation that is taking place outside this House, we should respect that process and let the police and other authorities do their work.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, when were you first briefed about the plan to offer Andrew Olivier a job so he could get out of the way of Ms. Wynne appointing Mr. Thibeault as a candidate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can tell you that I was delighted to learn that the Premier had met with Mr. Thibeault and that he was indeed interested in leaving in the New Democratic Party and joining the Liberal Party, leaving the House of Commons to join the Ontario Legislature. I was thrilled, and the more I learned about that man, the happier I was and the more I knew he was making the right decision.

He is a man of enormous integrity. He has contributed to his community. Glenn Thibeault is already making a contribution. He was up in Gogama. He visited the site and was there representing the government at that disaster. He’s a fine MPP, and he’s going to get even better the more time he spends here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Back to the Deputy Premier: Seeing as the Deputy Premier seems to know the intimate details of the Premier’s discussion with her soul, has she spoken with the OPP anti-racket investigation to share her version of the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have not been invited to participate in such a conversation. If I were, I would be more than delighted to participate.

But I do want to really underline—because you asked the question about the decision of Glenn Thibeault to leave the New Democratic Party and join the Liberal Party. It must have been a difficult decision to make. I know it’s difficult to tell your campaign team, tell your staff, tell your friends that you’ve made a decision, but he made that decision for all the right reasons. He made that decision because he knew that the Premier and this government were in tune with his values, his priorities. He knew that sitting on this side of the House and in this House he would make a contribution that would make the lives of people in Sudbury better.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is one of interest and concern to all Ontarians, and it is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. We know that one in three women will experience some form of sexual assault in her lifetime. We also know that 28% of women say they’ve been on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours or sexually charged talk in the workplace. This is not okay; in fact, it’s never okay.

Last Friday, when our government released It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment, I was incredibly proud of the work of our Premier and our government on this issue. In fact, it took me back to 1992 when, while at the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, I had the incredible privilege of working with women across Canada on the development of the rape shield legislation.

I’ve heard very positive comments on our plan from my constituents in Burlington and our local women’s shelter in particular. Speaker, through you, can the minister share some background on our plan for the benefit of this House?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m just so excited, and I want to thank the member from Burlington for the very important question, for her work on this important cause and for being appointed to the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment.

Our action plan is something that we’re very proud of and deepens our commitment to ending sexual violence and harassment. We’ve committed $41 million over the next three years to support the plan’s implementation. It includes a public education campaign, a curriculum that develops a deeper learning about healthy relationships and consent. It includes a focus on stronger workplace safety legislation, an enhanced prosecution model and a focus on post-secondary education. There’s so much more. These are not our first steps, Speaker, and won’t be our last either.

Hearing the Premier say—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —that the problem of sexual violence and harassment is rooted in deeply held beliefs in women and men, power and equality, was very powerful—

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I think this is about active—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I say “Thank you,” you sit.

Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to thank the minister for her leadership on this issue.

As the Premier has referenced, recent incidents have brought this discussion from the sidelines into the spotlight once again. A lot of time has passed since the rape shield law, but clearly we have much more work to do.

Every day across this province in cities and towns, in boardrooms, on shop floors and university campuses, women are experiencing violence and harassment. Our commitment to eliminating harassment and violence is clear. We’ve increased funding to organizations and programs targeting violence by 63% since 2002. We grew those investments last year to $145 million. Now the new investments to support the action plan will allow us to do even more.

Can the minister outline what concrete steps these new investments will achieve in helping to change attitudes, provide support to survivors and make workplaces and campuses safer and more responsive to complaints about sexual violence and harassment?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thanks to the member for the supplementary question.

Speaker, the plan is very comprehensive.

I’ll just highlight a few of the key elements here: strengthening provisions on sexual violence and harassment in legislation; enhancing laws to strengthen enforcement; access to quality and timely care in hospital-based assault and domestic violence treatment centres; a public awareness campaign; a creative fund to provoke conversation and dialogue on consent, rape culture and gender equality; updated training for front-line workers; an enhanced prosecution model; legislation requiring universities and colleges to have sexual violence and harassment policies, including prevention and response protocols; stabilizing and increasing funding for assault centres; a pilot program to provide free, independent legal advice to survivors where cases are proceeding to a criminal trial; and establishing, of course, a permanent round table on sexual violence and harassment.

We’re very excited about these initiatives, Speaker—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, it’s become apparent to everyone that despite your assertions otherwise, you have no intention of aiding the Ontario Provincial Police in their investigation into this Sudbury bribery scandal.

It has been more than five long weeks since the OPP made it known that they would like to speak with you regarding your involvement in this sordid affair. If you had nothing to do with this scandal, you would have been eager to speak with the police. You would have done it over five weeks ago.

Premier, are you stonewalling because you are the central player in this investigation and all the orders can be traced back to you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll be meeting with the OPP when that meeting is arranged. I’ve been very clear that I will work with the authorities. As I’ve said over and over again in this House, that meeting is being set up, and I will take

part in it when it’s arranged.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by your reluctance to speak to the OPP or to answer questions, because we all know that dodging and ducking has become your MO.

I remember very well your questionable testimony to the gas plants committee.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Where did you get your information?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The difference here is that you’d be answering questions directly—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock. Right through my request for you to come to order, you continued speaking. Minister of Education, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, the difference here is that you would be answering questions directly in front of the Ontario Provincial Police. You can’t get your MPPs to shut them down.

Criminal investigations into breaches of the Election Act and bribery allegations will eventually hold everyone involved responsible. The OPP are not going away. We, the opposition, are not going away. Will you finally do the right thing, co-operate, meet with the police and, in the meantime, suspend Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, on this side of the House, we don’t want the opposition to go away either. We want them to stay where they are. It suits them well.

Let me tell you, Speaker, what the Premier’s strategy is. The Premier’s strategy is simple: It’s to serve the people of Ontario. She is doing so by working on issues that are important to Ontarians. That’s what she ran on in the last election and that’s what we received a majority mandate on: to focus on building Ontario up, making sure that we are investing in our infrastructure across the province, making sure that we have retirement income security for hard-working Ontarians.

There is a process that is going on outside of this Legislature. The Premier has been absolutely clear that she will co-operate and that all of those details are being worked out. But what we need to focus on in this House is issues that are important to Ontarians. We should not interfere in an independent investigation, and I urge the members to please focus on issues.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Attorney General. When did the Attorney General learn about the plan to offer Andrew Olivier a job in order to get out of the Premier’s way?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Monsieur Speaker, as you know, the process is very clear. I am not involved in all of this. Also, the election commissioner was very clear. He informed both parties—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The commissioner informed both parties. So I’ll say to the member that he should ask his House leader, because his House leader received a letter from the commissioner explaining the process and how my position is left out of this exercise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Again to the Attorney General: The Attorney General was scheduled to speak at a Liberal campaign event in Sudbury, but she cancelled at the last minute. I can only imagine it’s because she realized the optics were quite terrible.

For weeks, New Democrats have called on the Attorney General for assurances that the bribery investigation would be independent. It took weeks to get results. Has the Attorney General spoken to the OPP anti-racket investigators about her knowledge of the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As I explained in the House previously, the Attorney General is left out of this process and this was explained very clearly by the election commissioner. I wanted to make sure that I protected the integrity of the position, so that’s why I stayed out of the exercise. And yes, I didn’t go to Sudbury because I wanted to make sure that I respected my position. I respect the integrity of the position.

Government assets

Minister, the government has asked Ed Clark to conduct a review of government assets in order to increase investments in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Put your question, please.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were reports yesterday that the government is considering issuing an initial public offering for Hydro One. Minister, could you please inform this House on the validity of these reports and what the government is planning on doing in regard to asset review and, more specifically, Hydro One?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for this relevant question regarding government policy. This is a very important and very topical issue, and I’m glad the member is taking the opportunity to ask it.

The Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets has yet to provide its final recommendations to the government, and at this time it would be premature to suggest any decisions have been made. Let me be clear: none have.

Despite what the NDP says, we asked the council to retain the government’s long-term ownership of OPG, Hydro One and the LCBO. We need to find ways to generate revenue so that Ontario can invest in its long-term energy needs, build badly needed highways, schools, hospitals and transit, and invest in important projects like the Ring of Fire. We look forward to receiving the council’s recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: Thank you, Minister, for that very detailed response. Investing in infrastructure is very important to the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore and all residents of Ontario. They rely on our roads, our public transit and our hydro system in order to be able to go about their daily lives. I’m happy to hear that the government will await the final recommendation of Ed Clark’s panel before making any decisions.

When it comes to Hydro One, it’s important that the government maintain ownership of the asset. It’s also important that whatever decision is made respecting Hydro One doesn’t negatively impact the ratepayers.

Minister, could you please inform this House on how the government—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: —is ensuring that the needs are met of both of these very important objectives when it comes to the review of our energy assets?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member again. The member is correct when he says that investing in infrastructure is important to people, not only in his riding but across the province. This is about improving people’s quality of life, improving opportunities for the people of Ontario and building our economy. Whether it’s a new highway that lets you get home faster from work or a new project that will bring jobs to a community, this is about making Ontarians’ lives better, and that’s our priority.

The people of Ontario can also be sure of two things: First, Ontario would always retain an important ownership stake in an asset as vital and strategic as Hydro One; and second, rates in Ontario are and will continue to be set by the Ontario Energy Board.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning. My question is for the Premier. It’s been over five weeks since the OPP wanted to sit down with you. That’s five weeks where Pat Sorbara has had full access to your office.

Let’s put this in comparison to your gas plants scandal.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: From the time your transition team leader—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I did ask for order and some people just talked right through it. I find that personally insulting.

Carry on, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: From the time your transition team leader met with the secretary of cabinet to the time the deputy chief of staff’s partner wiped hard drives in the Premier’s office—well, that was just 16 days. That was plenty of time to tie up loose ends, wasn’t it?

Premier, what assurance can you give us that this Deputy Premier isn’t tying up loose ends that may form part of the OPP investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, clearly we see that the members opposite are engaging in conjecture and speculative hypotheses here. I think we really should do the right thing and let the authorities do their work. There’s a reason that we have a system in place, that these types of investigations are separate and apart from the government, and I think we should respect that process in order to make sure that they are done appropriately and in a valid fashion.

We even received the same advice, actually, from both the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Timmins–James Bay. They keep telling the Premier, “Don’t interfere in this police investigation.” I think they’re giving good advice. We should respect that and really focus on issues that are important to Ontarians, which really is making sure that we’re building Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again to the Premier: I’m sorry, but you don’t get the benefit of the doubt here. Let me remind you, it was your signature on the original gas plant cabinet document that started the whole scandal. Now we see Beckie Codd-Downey, who is shown in the OPP warrant to be deleting her emails, still working in your office. Leon Korbee had his computer added to the list to be wiped, and he’s still advising you. And now Pat Sorbara, under criminal investigation, has had run of your office for five weeks.

Premier, is the reason you haven’t agreed to meet with the OPP simply to give your staffers enough time to bury the bodies from Sudbury?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think the smear campaign that the opposition is engaging in is beneath them. The people they’re naming are hard-working servants of the public. They work day in and day out to serve the people of Ontario and this government. We should respect them and we should thank them.

What we need to ensure is that we continue to focus on what’s important to Ontarians. Clearly what the opposition is doing is scandalmongering and not focusing on the issues because they have nothing to add to that debate, because they have washed their hands of anything meaningful, because their idea of public policy is to fire 100,000 hard-working public servants. We reject that notion, Speaker. Even Ontarians rejected that notion in the last election.

Let’s let the independent authorities do their work, let’s respect the work that they’re doing and let’s focus here on the job that was given to us by the people of Ontario, and that is to grow our economy and ensure that there is retirement income security—

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Ted, Ted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’re offering traffic cop duties that I don’t want you to have.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. When was the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services first briefed about the plan to offer Andrew Olivier a job in order to get out of the Premier’s way?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I very much appreciate the strategy the third party is engaging in because they really have no other strategy to talk about. They’re having a really hard time justifying to themselves and their party members why they cannot win any more elections. They voted against one of the most progressive budgets in the history of this province. They took a gamble, and guess what? They got relegated back to the same spot they belong: in third place in this House.

They can’t get out of their heads that they won the Sudbury seat, they went into a by-election and they lost that seat also to a very credible individual who moved from the NDP to the Liberal caucus.

There’s a reason the people of Ontario have elected a Liberal majority government. It’s because they believe in our values, they believe in things that we’re focusing on: making sure that we’re raising the minimum wage, making sure that we’re raising the wages of personal support works. We ask the NDP to support those important initiatives because that’s what the people of Ontario want.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Has the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services been interviewed by the OPP anti-racket investigators to share his version of the attempt to bribe Andrew Olivier?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to independent police—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I need the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Energy to allow the minister to answer without interrupting.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Isn’t that amazing? They heckle their own members.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew is warned.

Interjections.

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

Minister, put your answer, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I was saying, as the member opposite knows, there is an independent investigation, and we respect that process. Really, Speaker, I think what we should be doing is focusing on issues that are important to them, to all of us.

This is the NDP which has lost any moral foundation to stand on when it comes to issues that are important to Ontarians.

This is what Martin Regg Cohn wrote last February: “Why is NDP leader Andrea Horwath doing the bare minimum on the minimum wage?

“Anti-poverty activists and union leaders are wondering. And seething.

“‘I am profoundly disappointed that the NDP has not taken a public stand on this,’” said Sheila Block, of the non-partisan Wellesley Institute.

Speaker, that is one of the biggest challenges the NDP has got: They have lost their own supporters and they have nothing else to talk about, so they are engaging in scandalmongering.

Access to justice / Accès à la justice

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Attorney General of Ontario. This question is important to me in both a personal as well as a parliamentary capacity, representing, as I do, Etobicoke North, a diverse riding.

It’s unfortunate that the opposition hasn’t been asking questions today that relate to government policies or are focused on priorities that matter. So my direct and earnest question is this: Will we ensure that the justice system remains equally available to every Ontarian from any and all socio-cultural backgrounds?

Madame la Procureure générale, nous devons nous assurer que le système de justice est accessible pour les Ontariens de tout milieu socioculturel.

The justice system can be complicated at times, and it matters to me and to my residents in Etobicoke North that every Ontarian, regardless of background, is respected.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je veux remercier le député d’Etobicoke-Nord pour sa question très intéressante. Pour nous, les Ontariens et Ontariennes s’attendent à ce que leurs valeurs soient respectées dans les initiatives de leur gouvernement. Le député a raison quand il affirme que la justice doit être assurée pour tous les Ontariens, indépendamment de leur origine culturelle.

Mon ministère a travaillé avec le Centre d’assistance juridique en matière de droits de la personne afin d’améliorer le processus de la fonction de juré. Des coordonnateurs de l’information sur l’accessibilité aux palais de justice sont disponibles en cas de besoin, et une formation supplémentaire est offerte pour assurer qu’ils soient prêts à accueillir toute personne ayant besoin d’assistance.

Notre gouvernement travaille avec ardeur pour répondre aux besoins changeants de la société multiculturelle ontarienne en fournissant un service d’interprétation dans toutes les langues. Lorsque requis, nous assurons que des interprètes qualifiés sont disponibles en cour.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci. Question?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I feel grateful and privileged to be part of a government that allows me not only to pose such a question but also furnishes me with that answer, a government led by Premier Kathleen Wynne—especially Kathleen Wynne.

Speaker, I have to say, it is sad, remarkable, anachronistic and startling that in 2015, we still have to remind ourselves that diversity and religious freedoms should be respected everywhere. Ontario is an incredibly diverse province. Nearly 40% of Canada’s immigrants settle here. It’s important for people to know that their cultures and belief systems are honoured.

What are we doing as a government, at least here in the province of Ontario, to uphold this sacred trust?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Le ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration.

Hon. Michael Chan: I’d also like to thank the honourable member from Etobicoke North for asking the question.

As an immigrant myself, I know first-hand how difficult it is to come to a new country, learn a new language and experience a new culture, and how important it is to feel welcomed.

From its earliest days, Ontario was built on immigration. With the exception of our aboriginal populations, we all come from somewhere else.

We know that diversity is one of our greatest assets. This is why in 2012 we introduced our immigration strategy which aims to attract newcomers, leverage diversity and help successfully transition immigrants.

As well, we are reintroducing the Ontario Immigration Act, Bill 49, which will allow us to have more control in our immigration system.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier. On the 11th of December, Gerry Lougheed was recorded as saying to Andrew Olivier, “The Premier may stay with the nomination, she may go with an appointment, you don’t know. I think you and her need to talk about it.”

By all accounts, you spoke with Mr. Olivier that very night. Premier, if you were able to make room in your

schedule so quickly to speak with Andrew Olivier, why has it been over five weeks and you still can’t find time to meet with the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, let me just take another shot at this; I know the minister would like to chime in on the supplementary. Let me just say once again that I am committed to working with the authorities. There is a meeting being set up. I don’t have access to all of the work that’s being done as part of the investigation. I repeat: That’s because the investigation is taking place outside of this House, not in the Legislature. That’s as it should be. As soon as that meeting is arranged I will be there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: Gerry Lougheed goes on to say to Andrew Olivier, “Then you need to say, ‘So, why would Andrew Olivier be motivated to do this? What’s in it for me? Politically, what’s in it for me? In my long term, short term, is there an appointment, are you gonna let me head up a commission ... what are you giving me, for me to step down, that is worthwhile? Otherwise, guess what, I’m gonna go sell memberships and see what my chances are.’”

Premier, this pitch comes on December 11, weeks after you insist having appointed Glenn Thibeault as your candidate. How do you explain this discrepancy in timing in your version of events in the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I remind the members opposite that we have a basic principle of fundamental justice in our system and that is called presumption of innocence. I don’t think anybody should be drawing any conclusion whatsoever.

I would be remiss if I did not remind the members opposite exactly what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his finding. He said, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

I remind members that they are neither prosecutors nor judges in this House. We should let the independent authorities, as always the case is, do their job. They are the most capable and trained to do that.

As the Premier has affirmed again and again, she will co-operate with the authorities.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Good morning, Minister.

When was the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change first briefed about the plan to offer Andrew Olivier a job in order to get out of the Premier’s way?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I can remember two great days in my life: One, when Premier Wynne told us who our candidate in Sudbury was going to be, someone I’ve known and have great regard for. And even better, when I found out that the MPP for Sudbury was going to be the parliamentary assistant with me.

The only person—the biggest rail safety issues of our time; we have terrible concerns in Gogama. The third party has the privilege of representing a lot of those folks. It is shameful that we haven’t even had a question from them on Gogama. It is shameful we can count on one hand the number of questions on climate change. That’s shameful.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s shameful that you’re the government.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has a vested interest in whether his parliamentary assistant is embroiled in a bribery scandal. Did the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change ask his parliamentary assistant about that bribery scandal—what he knew, when he knew it—and did the minister relay any of that information to the investigators at the OPP anti-rackets squad?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I hope the Minister of Transportation will get a question soon, too, because he’s very excited about that.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I owe you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting to me, because the MPP from Sudbury talks to me about climate change. He talks to me about blue-green algae in Sudbury lake—very concerned about those things. The member for Windsor might be concerned about the condition of the Great Lakes, or climate change, or the fact that in 2012 we lost 80% of our apple crop—very important to farmers and people in southwestern Ontario.

The one thing that I’m confident of is, we now have the opposition only a government could love, Mr. Speaker: out of touch with people, off topic, missing every important point of the day and trying to bring what should be in the courts and in investigations inappropriately into this House. I encourage them to keep on this track, because, I can tell you, my aunt in Sudbury, who is 92 years old, who actually had some fondness for that party, ha