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

November 26, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-26 (PDF)

L090 - Tue 26 Nov 2013 / Mar 26 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 November 2013 Mardi 26 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

PAN AM GAMES

MINING INDUSTRY

JOB CREATION

MINING INDUSTRY

CHILD POVERTY

CLIMATE CHANGE

CHRIS MAZZA

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LEGAL AID

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

CHILD POVERTY

DR. NORMAN BETHUNE

COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

MINING INDUSTRY

WORTLEY VILLAGE

ROTARY CLUBS AUCTION

HOME CARE

FROMAGERIE ST-ALBERT

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROMOTING EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

FAVORISANT LA RÉUSSITE SCOLAIRE

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR JOBS

AND PROSPERITY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’INFRASTRUCTURE

AU SERVICE DE L’EMPLOI

ET DE LA PROSPÉRITÉ

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

NATIONAL HOUSING DAY

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

NATIONAL HOUSING DAY

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

NATIONAL HOUSING DAY

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MINIMUM WAGE

SMALL BUSINESS

HYDRO RATES

WASTE REDUCTION

LYME DISEASE

MINIMUM WAGE

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

AIR QUALITY

WASTE REDUCTION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

WASTE REDUCTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

FIREFIGHTING

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 25, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act respecting collective bargaining in Ontario’s school system / Projet de loi 122, Loi concernant la négociation collective dans le système scolaire de l’Ontario.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m honoured to rise this morning, on behalf of the residents of Dufferin–Caledon, to discuss the bill before us. This morning we’ll be debating Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

This bill was introduced last month by the Minister of Education and deals with the collective bargaining process in the education sector. In essence, what Bill 122 sets out to do is formalize the collective bargaining process in a way that gives the provincial government a direct role in collective bargaining rounds.

What we’re not doing this morning, which I wish we were, is discussing jobs and the economy, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

After all, the provincial government does foot the cost of the education sector, an investment which exceeds $20 billion, so, certainly, it would make sense for the provincial government to have a formal say in the collective bargaining process.

For the sake of perspective, however, I think it is helpful to consider how the current government has been approaching the collective bargaining process thus far. Previously, during the 2005 and 2008 rounds of collective bargaining in the education sector, the provincial government established a voluntary framework, in discussions with school boards and teacher federations. Under this model, you basically had the provincial government set the tone, set the goals, for negotiating, and then individual boards negotiated with their local union chapters.

This, of course, changed in the latest round of bargaining, and in that case, we saw the provincial government attempt to negotiate a memorandum of understanding directly with the unions. Ultimately, we know how that process ended up, and it wasn’t great.

So from a process perspective, Bill 122 may be onto something. I say this because Bill 122 is rooted in the concept that the provincial government ought to have a recognized role in the negotiation of collective agreements in the education sector. That being said, I do have some concerns with the new structure being proposed under Bill 122.

What Bill 122 proposes to do is to create a two-tier collective bargaining process in the education sector, with legally defined roles for the province, trustees, associations and unions. The collective bargaining process will effectively be divided into central and local issues, with negotiation over central issues happening with the provincial government involved, and negotiation over local issues happening at the local level with local school boards.

Central issues are defined as issues with a province-wide impact or those that could result in a significant impact on the implementation of government policy. A final qualifier for a central issue is if it could result in a significant cost for one or more school boards. Issues of this nature would be discussed at the central negotiating table, where the provincial government and school board representatives would be on one side and teacher federations or unions on the other.

All other issues would continue to be bargained by local school boards with local employee representatives. Any local issues could be negotiated concurrently with the central bargaining process.

Finally, when both tiers were finished negotiating, the provisions of a central agreement combined with the locally negotiated provisions would make up the final collective agreement. Also, a central settlement would only be finalized if all three parties—the provincial government, the trustee associations and the unions—all agree to the centrally negotiated terms.

That is the

summary of a process Bill 122 aims to implement if it’s enacted.

Now, I can’t help but comment, Speaker, that while Bill 122 may have some merits, as I’ve stated, the bottom line is that it is still a relatively modest process bill. What I mean is that we’ve got some legitimate issues both in the education sector and in other areas across Ontario as well, particularly relating to jobs and the economy, yet this Liberal government seems perpetually stalled in a mundane process-type of initiative. One only needs to consider the fact that this government has struck 37 panels to study any number of topics before the government. Talk about undue process.

It really is quite shocking: 37 panels, 26 ministers, one Premier, and not even a glimmer of a credible jobs plan between all of them.

Regarding the education sector specifically, though, I want to touch on a topic that I am particularly interested in. I think this is a particularly unique topic, because it demonstrates how legislation like Bill 122, while fine enough, really does miss the mark on some of the more important and pressing issues. The issue I’m referring to is the standard practice of retired teachers being able to come back and serve as occasional teachers in their area. This practice in general is problematic, I believe.

If a teacher, who may have been teaching for 25 or 30 years, decides to retire, why then are they allowed to both collect their retirement benefits and at the same time teach occasionally? The reason this is so problematic is because the occasional-teacher pool, if I may call it that, is really the primary route for a full-time job for all of our young teaching professionals. I am not by any means saying we should be forcing teachers to retire. But what I am saying is that when a teacher has made the decision to retire, I think they should retire and not go back to occasional teaching.

This is because when they do, they, of course, take an occasional-teaching opportunity away from a new teacher.

With relation to Bill 122, this is perhaps an issue that could be negotiated at the central bargaining table under the new system; I’m not entirely sure. But the point is, with thousands of young, aspirational professionals who are graduating every year and eager to get in the classroom and teach our students, they need that experience and they need to do their time and learn their trade, so to speak.

But when you have really just one avenue for them to take and it is also open to teachers who have their entire careers behind them, I think there is an equity problem here, particularly, as I mentioned earlier, when you consider that there always seems to be this focus on seniority-based systems like regulation 274, as opposed to merit-based systems in this field. We could very well have an incredible young person who is an amazing teacher, and yet they aren’t getting their chance because you have retired teachers filling the occasional-teaching opportunities in their communities.

There we have an example of a potential initiative that could lead to more job creation in Ontario for our young people, yet would I ever expect to see such an initiative from this Liberal government? The answer is no, not really.

This government has fumbled the ball so many times, has missed the mark so badly on the economy, that I honestly don’t know if expectations could be any lower for the Liberal government, and that is quite sad.

You see, the reason the answer is no, Speaker, is because our leader, Tim Hudak, met with the Premier and proposed a compromise on a number of bills before the Legislature so that we could address the job crisis in Ontario and the Premier agreed. Our leader said, “Let’s clear the decks, let’s agree on what we agree on, pass the bills and focus on the economy,” and the Premier agreed. Yet here we are two months later: Nothing; no jobs plan, no credible progress on the economy. If anything, things have gotten worse.

You would think, considering the Premier’s agreement with my leader, Tim Hudak, that jobs must be the priority, that you’d see a focus on job-creating legislation. You would think that in any area of government, the number one question that the Premier and her ministers would be asking is, “Will this help job creation or hurt job creation?” That’s what it’s all about, or at least that’s what it should be all about. In fact, the only thing the Liberal government points out as their jobs plan is a bill that actually raises taxes for the very types of companies that are closing their doors across Ontario. The lack of awareness is shocking.

So here we are today, debating Bill 122, yet another process-related piece of legislation, in which the Liberals have decided to basically focus on how they can influence future labour agreements. A worthy goal? Sure. But a government’s number one priority at a time when thousands of manufacturing jobs are being lost across the province? I think not.

When we are faced with a job crisis of the magnitude that is currently before Ontario, how can the government possibly justify putting job creation on the back burner and focusing on legislation like Bill 122? Bill 122 sets out to tweak the collective bargaining process in the education sector, while what the government could have focused on is the issues of retirees using precious occasional-teaching slots, that I mentioned earlier as an example. Maybe then we could help job creation by helping our young graduates and future teachers get the experience they need so that they can get full-time positions and begin to build a life for themselves.

Ultimately, Bill 122 does seem like a fair initiative, if only to ensure that future governments actually interested in doing something other than having conversations can influence future agreements.

That being said, there are many more pressing issues this government should be focused on, and the first one among them is creating jobs in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to comment on the member from Dufferin–Caledon’s 10-minute hit on Bill 122, although I just can’t help but reflect on what happened in this place yesterday, when the PC caucus called for unanimous consent to adjourn the debate on 122, and the Liberals, all afternoon, said, “We’ve had enough debate on 122.” Yet, after a half-hour of bells, the Liberals and the PCs came into this place and voted down their own motion and then voted to extend the debate, and so here we are.

It is a process bill; the member from Dufferin–Caledon is absolutely right. But there’s definitely a whole new level of games going on in this House, which actually adds to the cynicism of politics in the province of Ontario, which we all must accept responsibility for.

Bill 122 will provide some clarity around negotiations and collective bargaining going forward. I mean, that’s the goal of this piece of legislation. It’s needed because there was a huge breach of trust when 115 was imposed on the entire education sector in the fall of 2012. The peace-and-stability piece that I think we’re not talking about, which lends itself to the kinds of conversations or initiatives that the member from Dufferin–Caledon wants to put on the front burner, which is an education system which meets the 21st-century needs of students in Ontario—peace and stability matters.

Because we lost trust in the collective bargaining process in the fall of 2012, under Bill 115—which both parties participated in—we need 122.

We want to get this to committee. We want to make it better. We want to make it stronger, and we want to bring some clarity to it. So we look forward to that happening.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me get this straight: The Tories are in favour of this bill; the NDP is in favour of the bill; the government obviously is, because we introduced the bill. Everybody thinks it’s a good idea. So why have 50 members spoken on a bill that we all agree to? Why are the opposition filibustering this? Let’s get the bill to committee.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have not; I want an opportunity.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes, you want an opportunity. Sure, I’m all in favour of free and open democratic debate. But, you know, enough is enough. We all agree on this bill. Let’s get it to committee. Let’s get the work done. We all agree with this. Stop your filibustering. Let’s get down to work for the people of Ontario, which you’re not doing right now with your filibustering.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m surprised by the feigned outrage by the Attorney General. A man of his experience should know that democracy is the right to speak. That’s what he’s trying to deny the members of the Conservative Party: the right to stand up for their constituents.

More importantly, the real issue here this morning should be about the jobs plan. That’s what we’re so upset about. This government is literally getting away with murder in terms of the lack of attention to the economy and jobs in Ontario, and the member from Dufferin–Caledon said it very, very well.

Everyone here believes education is the greatest gift that our children should have access to, and we certainly would say that for sure.

My wife is a retired teacher, and now she’s a school trustee. The reason she’s a school trustee is because she couldn’t justify supply teaching. We had two daughters-in-law, both of whom had teaching degrees—a master’s degree, I think—with no job. So my wife went on and became a school trustee. She’s probably chair of special ed because that’s what she was very involved in.

My daughter was a high school teacher as well. She was so frustrated with the system that she’s now a teacher in London, England. In fact, she’s a department head, I think in science or humanities or something like that.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You should be proud of it.

Mr. John O’Toole: I am, but this system that exists today disappointed her.

Even more importantly, it comes down to, this is still part of the jobs and the economy plan. It’s people without jobs and jobs without people. It means the educational system isn’t producing the right people with the right skills for the economy we currently have.

Bill 122 is really a governance bill that centralizes negotiation and eliminates the real function of the school boards. I think there’s a lot of agreement with that.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Then your wife would be out of a job.

Mr. John O’Toole: My wife would be happy to be out of a job, I’m sure.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I want to maybe provide some more clarity to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo’s last comments.

We have the Liberal government saying, “Let’s get on with this.” We’ve had about 12 or 13 hours of debate on this issue. We’ve got the Tories saying, “This is democracy, and we have the right to debate the issue.” All the while, they’re adjourning debate and ringing bells. Then they get up and vote against their own motion to adjourn debate, and you guys actually vote with them, when you actually could have adjourned debate and ended it yesterday—and all about this process bill that—I don’t even know why this bill is here, to tell you the truth.

Democracy is great. We all have the opportunity to stand up here and talk, but if we really want to talk about the issues, I don’t know why we continue to adjourn the debate or try to adjourn the House. It certainly isn’t in the best interests of any of us to do that.

I have to tell you, last week when they were having that reception here for, I think, the fallen firefighters, it was quite disturbing to have their reception interrupted for the first 30 minutes because we had the people on our right here ringing the bells. I think you need to think about that and what’s going on here in the House when you actually move into that process.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Dufferin–Caledon has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: To the Attorney General: It is my job to represent the views of my constituents in Dufferin–Caledon. I’m proud to stand up and debate this legislation. I’d like to have been talking about jobs and the economy, but this is what has been brought before us; this is what the Liberal House leader has chosen for us to debate this morning, and I will do that proudly.

To the NDP: I don’t need any lectures from the NDP about loss of trust. The one and only time they have ever been in government, they ripped up thousands of agreements. It was called the social contract. So please don’t tell me about loss of trust. When you guys were in government—you remember the social contract? You were the ones who ripped up thousands and thousands of contracts. You lost the faith of your members; you lost the faith of Ontarians. Don’t lecture me about loss of trust, please. You don’t have any credibility on the issue.

You want to talk about jobs and economy? Bring forward some legislation that will actually improve the lives of young people in Ontario, instead of these minor-process pieces of legislation that, quite frankly, the only reason we’re doing is because you messed it up the last time when you brought forward the education bill. You could have helped that. You could have solved that at the committee level. You didn’t do it. You missed it and now we have to go through an entire legislative process. I’m sorry that you messed up, but I’m not going to give you a free ride on it. You want to talk about jobs and the economy? We’d be happy to discuss those pieces of important legislation. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to join the debate here today. We should have healthy debate on these topics—not like the Liberals, who don’t seem to want to have to debate, and I guess the third party is not going to join in the debate on Bill 122 today either, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

This bill will provide clarity, greater clarity anyway, for the different parties that are involved in collective bargaining in the education sector. It’s a good thing that there is an intention to establish this clear framework for collective bargaining in the education sector. We certainly all remember what’s gone on in the past year and a half.

But by having a two-tier collective bargaining process with legally defined roles for the province, the trustee association—the member from Durham mentioned that his wife is on the trustee association—and unions, students will hopefully not have to suffer through that great debacle like the one that took place in the last rounds of negotiations under Dalton McGuinty.

I want what is best for our children in Ontario. I want to have kids who go to elementary and high schools every day in the province—I want them to feel comfortable that they’re getting the best possible education and environment that is conducive to their needs. I want parents across this province to not have to worry about what might happen to the school year when another round of bargaining is under way between the school boards and unions. I don’t want parents to have to worry about whether or not they’ll be able to participate in their favourite sport in the fall.

You know, in Coboconk, at Ridgewood Public School in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, the parents went out and did a Burma Shave on the side of the road, they were so frustrated that the teachers would not bring extracurricular activities back into that school and their children were suffering. I don’t blame them for being at the end of their rope in frustration. Good for them for taking that on.

Ontario universities do have the ability to give out some athletic scholarship money, so it would not be fair to limit the athletic abilities of those who have a chance to receive financial assistance due to athletic merit, which starts in public school and goes into high school. I also don’t want those who have worked hard in any other extracurricular activity to have to worry about whether or not they will be able to fulfill their wishes of doing so.

Just as important, some students who may require a letter of certification or a signature from a teacher to assist in obtaining that scholarship money might not receive them, as happened in 2012—very devastating for lots of families in that area. There are stories of students who needed to have these types of letters in order to receive financial compensation to ease the burden of the increasing tuition fees across Ontario universities. At that point in 2012, teachers wouldn’t produce the letters, once the unions had advised for there to be no extracurricular activities supervised by teachers. It was a tragedy that parents still tell me about every day back in the riding.

This is the road that I don’t want our students to go down again. It’s not fair to our children. I’m hoping that this legislation will prevent such actions from ever occurring again.

But while this bill does address the importance of establishing the two-tiered system for collective bargaining, it fails to address some of the more important issues that the education system is dealing with currently. I know that it has been spoken about many times in the Legislature. My colleague from Cambridge brought in a motion to amend regulation 274. This regulation must be amended so we can hire the best and brightest that our province has to offer with respect to teachers. Your Liberal government snuck in this regulation back when they introduced Bill 115.

Why anyone would think that only hiring based on seniority instead of merit is a good thing is beyond me and beyond many people across Ontario. The parents are talking about that in my riding—and also the young teachers that can’t get jobs even though they are incredibly qualified, talented and fit in to the certain schools that they need to be in.

This is a government that has a commitment to restore their relationship with their partners in education and has recently claimed to have taken steps to help 1,500 young people in Ontario find jobs. That’s a very interesting number, Madam Speaker, because I have some alarming numbers that prove that this government is not helping our young people get jobs in this province. It also means that our children are missing out on some of the brightest and most innovative minds that Canada has to offer. The unemployment rate for new teachers was recently pegged at 37%.

That’s over a third of our recent teachers’ college grads that can’t find any work in Ontario. Not surprisingly, I think it’s about 200 applicants for every position that opens up in my area.

Recent promises have potentially hurt young teachers in some of our biggest school boards. If retiring teachers do not decide to leave after November 30, they are to receive a $5,000 incentive. Why would this government allow a date so far into the school year? This hurts young teachers in Ontario. Instead of knowing by the time the first term starts in September, young teachers in Ontario have been left wondering if there is a chance they can get hired. This is odd timing, especially since many young teachers need to have the time to develop relationships with students right from the start of the semester.

Having a new teacher start midway through a school year disrupts the classroom, and a different teaching style may not be the best for some students.

Recent numbers also indicate that while it’s hard for young people to find teaching jobs now, many are being discouraged to apply even to become a teacher. The University of Windsor, for example, over the past decade has seen a 75% decrease in teachers’ college applications. It’s a significant drop of applications for that university. Our young people are hearing too much about the doom and gloom of trying to find a position in Ontario. So we’re educating them and—I don’t blame them—they go to other countries.

Part of the Liberal jobs plan is we’re educating our young people for the US or Korea; there are lots of young teachers I know that go to Korea to teach. You only have a one-in-eight chance of getting a job in Ontario if you’re a graduating teacher right now. So of course there’s going to be an influx of teachers heading out of the province to either other provinces or other countries. We’re failing our students that way.

What has been in the newspapers recently is never getting enough attention, I don’t think: math, which is an important subject for our students to excel in and develop interest in. The year 2013 marked the fifth year in a row that our students have showed a decline in math skills. Just 57% of students in 2013 met the provincial standards of the EQAO math testing, down from 63% in 2009. It’s an amazingly low number; I don’t know how we plan on growing our province if our students are not up to par in math.

The education minister is quoted as saying, “I think that the academic background of a lot of our elementary teachers is more in the arts.” She goes on to say, “They don’t necessarily have an extensive background themselves in math and science.” Well, that’s probably true, but we need to deal with math so that teachers have the same comfort level with teaching math as they do reading and writing. It’s critical for our children and their futures, especially in this technology-advanced world, and for our economy to grow. We’re failing our students in math also.

So why is this government focused on a bill for collective bargaining when our children are struggling so much in the classroom? We have the young people that are technically inclined; we have the young people that could effectively teach math to our children and help develop their minds in a technically inclined way, but again, this government wants to hire teachers based on their seniority, not based on how they might be able to teach math. It’s a serious problem. It can’t be ignored. We’ve been fighting for it over here to try and get the best teachers to give the best education to our students in the province of Ontario.

Minister Sandals, the Minister of Education, claims that the proposed bill here is “groundbreaking legislation.” Who exactly is this groundbreaking legislation for? Is it the union, the negotiator? What about the actual students and teachers, who do not have much of a say in the bargaining process itself but are the ones who are most affected?

We have had a lot of problems that could be addressed in this Legislature. We want the best for our children, but at what cost? The Liberals are trying to put a collective bargaining process bill quickly through the Legislature, instead of focusing on getting the best teachers possible for our kids. So, frankly, I’m shocked that one of the 37 panels that the government has constructed has been unable to put forward a recommendation to help our students get ahead. It’s a government of panels, there’s no question. Anyway, I am digressing.

What we need to do, what is best for the students of Ontario in order to benefit all of us—we can’t afford to put students in such a position that their academic futures may be in jeopardy. The last time the boards went to negotiate, the government ignored their previous two methods of collective bargaining and instead attempted to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the unions. Unions were quite upset about Bill 115. They certainly expressed their displeasure with how the government handled the negotiation and inserted themselves into the process.

So we do not want a repeat of what happened back in 2012 under Dalton McGuinty, undermining the trust of teachers across Ontario. We will look forward to continuing—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: In response to some of the comments that were made around Bill 122, I think we all acknowledge that clarity is needed around collective bargaining going forward. There was a breach of trust with regard to Bill 115, that the PCs also participated in.

For the Liberal government to bring forward this piece of legislation with this particular timing indicates that they understand that there’s a lack of trust in the education sector—unions, non-unionized, whatever. But they are also putting forward a piece of legislation that ties their hands to some degree.

There is one component that the member has not addressed that is contained within the legislation. There is a provision in 122 as it stands right now that allows the employer bargaining agency to be substituted if, in the minister’s opinion, the employer bargaining agency is unable or unwilling to perform its duties. For us, this leaves a little bit too much room and leniency for the minister. We have some trust issues with regard to the minister going forward. This is exactly what happened with 115 in September 2012: The minister didn’t like the way things were going, even though zero and zero was on the table.

For political reasons, they pushed and pushed and imposed a contract on the education sector, really negating both rounds of bargaining in the previous sessions and rewriting the negotiations process on a day-by-day basis. We have some serious concerns around this. We will be addressing the leniency as it relates to 122 when it gets to committee, because we think this leaves an open door to a piece of legislation, and quite honestly, that’s unacceptable.

If we all care about students in the province of Ontario, peace and stability and an open, transparent process are needed.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s always a delight to hear my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Just to provide a little technical clarification, I guess, at 6.5 hours we can adjourn the debate. It is adjourning the debate for the afternoon; it doesn’t enable us to call a vote. When the official opposition moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday and did so, we voted for it because we wanted to stay here and not go home early. In other words, there’s no mechanism to end the debate unilaterally. Of course, we’ve had 12 hours of debate, 52 members, and it will continue.

Madam Speaker, I happen to be the husband of a principal. And by the way, Karan and I had our 19th wedding anniversary yesterday. She was very busy, as a principal at St. Patrick school in Peterborough. When you visit St. Patrick school—it’s a great, great school. She has a combination of young, wonderful teachers and veteran teachers, because that’s the kind of cohesive team—like the Montreal Canadiens—to move forward. You need to have that kind of team spirit.

Just last Friday, I was at the official opening of the new addition to St. Paul elementary school in beautiful Norwood, Ontario. The diocese bishop, Bishop De Angelis, was there; my federal colleague was there. What a great celebration, to see what’s happening in the education system in the province of Ontario: bright-eyed students getting the best learning in the world and getting to where they’ll take their jobs on in the future and be a great success story. All sides of the House here should be celebrating the success of education in the province of Ontario. Last Friday, I got to see it first-hand—a wonderful experience.

Collectively, we’ll get this bill moved forward. It’ll provide the framework for future negotiations. Let’s get it moving forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened attentively to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. She brought, I think, some very salient points to the discussion, and representing her riding as well as she does, I think she really should have mentioned more frequently the relationship between education and the economy.

We know that it’s a knowledge-based economy. We know that skills and all those things that are occurring—to remind our children how important the educational system is. But this bill does absolutely nothing. This bill, in my view, is a “kiss and make up” for the mess they’ve made out of the system.

Now, it’s not all their fault. This has always been a very sort of fraught-with-conflict system. I can recall that when the NDP were in power, they commissioned the Royal Commission on Learning report called For the Love of Learning. I think there were about 135 recommendations from that, many of which had been followed through by the Mike Harris government. In fact, it extended funding to the Catholic boards—equal funding for every student. In fact, he changed the student-focused funding model totally. In fact, who did we put in charge of that? It was their Minister of Education, Dave Cooke.

Now, what they have done here is completely dissolve any legitimacy and authority for the boards. In fact, they’re going straight to the union that basically runs it. They’re a professional union but, nonetheless, they’ve got to realize that the economy is related to how many resources are going to be at their disposal. I think that’s the unwillingness that I sense. They beat the NDP in that, even though they had the royal commission. They also had more commissions. They were the government that brought in the Sweeney commission, which reduced and cut in half the number of school boards.

This board is now going to go in creating “educational LHINs”—that’s what I call them. They’re going to be called educational LHINs. There will be four or five panels. Where’s the role of the parents and the students in this?

This bill does nothing about improving education; it’s about improving relations.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I want to build on the points laid out by my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo, that not only did the Liberal government breach trust, which causes us to be in a position to have some apprehension about the ministerial discretion which is included in this bill and which gives the minister too broad of a scope—of a power and of a mandate to act his or her whim, to substitute a bargaining unit in terms of the negotiating.

The other problem with this bill that raises some concern is the fact that, while I’m supportive of the idea of formalizing the process and making sure that all the parties involved are recognized as individuals that are a part of this process, the crown or the province, while a formal participant, isn’t actually defined as a formal party. The problem with that is that the crown or the province, therefore, is not actually bound by the Ontario Labour Relations Act and doesn’t have that requirement to bargain in good faith.

Now, one of the fundamental aspects of having a strong education system is peace and stability. If we’re serious about ensuring that our children have a bright future, we need to make sure that our schools are stable, they’re peaceful, and that we respect all the players involved. Without that respect, we can’t move forward with a stable school system.

The fact that the crown or the province isn’t actually bound by the OLRA to bargain in good faith raises some serious concerns when we already have a situation which is tenuous, and in which we’ve already seen a breach of trust. Moving forward, we need to eradicate any potential for abuse, and this is one other hole that we need to address. We need to make sure it doesn’t exist so that we can really move forward with securing a bright future for the students in our society.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I appreciate the comments from my colleagues in the third party, Kitchener–Waterloo and Bramalea–Gore–Malton, in respect to the trust and the debacle that occurred in 2012. I don’t think that what went on in 2012 did anything for the relationships with the teachers, the students, the parents and, of course, the unions, who were kind of the big club in the whole situation.

The problem with this bill is rightly pointed out by my colleague from Durham. It’s a “kiss and make up” bill. I agree; I like that line: It is a “kiss and make up” bill.

They missed the fact about jobs. I spoke a lot about the fact of our math scores going down and how the young teachers who have the high skills are not being hired because of seniority rules that exist. I talked about the amendment that my colleague from Cambridge has brought in for 274, to have that changed—because we are not preparing our children for the future and for the jobs.

The member from Peterborough: We have an area in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and Peterborough that has higher-than-average unemployment and huge youth unemployment. I say in good conscience that this bill, for what it is—it’s a process bill; it’s tweaking a few things—is not really addressing what we on the Progressive Conservative side have been calling for, and that’s a real jobs plan out there for our young people. We, as politicians, have to be responsible in setting the stage to create an environment for jobs that helps our young people move forward.

I don’t think this government really does put children as the focal point of educational discussions in this Legislature. I think they are too busy keeping their union friends happy and at bay, and that is wrong.

Madam Speaker, we’re going to support 122; we’re going to talk about it a little bit more, though.

I want to just say, happy—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

I had an opportunity last week to visit a couple of high schools in my area, as well. They launched the ACT Foundation program at Centennial Secondary School in Belleville on Friday morning. I had the chance to work with some students on CPR and to make sure that they knew how to work those wonderful defibrillator machines that are now located in all of the high schools, thanks to some injection of cash from the private sector and, of course, our Ontario Trillium Foundation, which is a big supporter of that program as well.

I was at Quinte Secondary School later in the day, talking to Mr. Tetlock’s grade 10 civics class about what life is like here at Queen’s Park and what a joy it is to represent Prince Edwards–Hastings every day in this Legislature.

On Saturday afternoon, I was over at Mary Ann Sills Park, the beautiful turf park in Belleville, where the Moira senior Trojans—and I brought this up last week during debate—won back-to-back National Capital Bowl championships, with a 26-8 win—with all apologies to my friend from Leeds–Grenville—over the Gananoque Trojans. We knew the Trojans were going to win, going into that game. The Moira Trojans were playing the Gananoque Trojans, but it was Moira that came out on top.

Back to the bill, after that brief update on life at schools in the Quinte region: I can tell you that my wife is a very proud Moira Trojans supporter, because she’s a high school teacher at Moira. That’s the high school in east-end Belleville that just won its second straight National Capital Bowl championship on Saturday. She’s a very good teacher. She worked right through the system. She was the head of the special education department at Moira Secondary School, and then she was the head of guidance for a year. Now she’s the current head of the co-op program at Moira Secondary School.

There are a lot of great teachers out there, and I know a lot of them give a lot of their time to coach football and run the student council and make sure the yearbook is out every year. There are great teachers teaching music lessons during lunch hours. There are so many out there. This bill that we’re debating here does absolutely nothing to make the school experience any better for our students as they go to school.

We’ve talked about it before, Madam Speaker: In the last 10 years that this government has been in power, we’re spending $8.5 billion more in education for 225,000 fewer students who are in the system. The bulk of the money that they’re injecting into the schools isn’t to build better schools; the bulk of it isn’t to make sure that these sports programs are available or the after-school programs are available. The money that they’re injecting into the system is going into the pockets of the union membership. That’s just a simple fact.

It’s not going to buy new textbooks; it’s not going to buy new school supplies; it’s not going to buy the latest and greatest technology to put into schools; it’s going into salaries.

Why wouldn’t it, really? After all, Madam Speaker, when these guys needed to get into power in 2003, they went to the teachers’ unions and they said, “Look, help us and we’ll help you.” That’s what happened in the election in 2007 and the election in 2011 as well. But something happened last year, a cataclysmic event in the world of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the teachers’ unions. They would like us to forget about that fact because, as our member from Durham just indicated, this is the “kiss and make up” bill. This government brought in Bill 115.

That was their bill, and they turned their backs on their friends. I’m telling you, they’re trying to kiss and make up right now, but the teachers who I talk to remember exactly whose bill that was. That belonged to the government across the way. They would like everybody to forget that that happened, but they’re not forgetting, and with good reason.

You know, the NDP made much ado in October about Bill 74. They called that political favour-trading. But there’s no greater example of political favour-trading than what we’ve seen over the last 10 years between the teachers’ unions and the Liberal Party of Ontario. The single largest third-party spender in the last election wasn’t EllisDon, not even close. It wasn’t a major retailer or a developer or a brewery. Do you know who the biggest third-party spender was in the last election campaign?

Interjection: Who was it?

Mr. Todd Smith: It was the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Most of that money went to members on that side of the House and to that party. And what did they do? They stabbed them in the back for political purposes—we’re not exactly sure—or maybe, finally, a light bulb went off with Premier McGuinty and the finance minister, Dwight Duncan at the time, and they realized that they actually were digging a humongous hole that this province wasn’t going to be able to get out of unless they started to get some of their costs under control.

So they brought in Bill 115, and that was the first glimmer of recognition that the government had any inclination at all that they were spending far too much: “We can’t afford it any longer. We have to start to get our costs under control in the province.” They poured millions of dollars into making sure that their old buddies across the way got re-elected and then, at the first opportunity last September, they brought in Bill 115.

We’ve been saying for quite some time now that the government needs to bring in some bills that are going to start to invigorate our economy, bring some confidence back into the economy in Ontario. What we’ve seen over the last four weeks is hundreds and thousands of jobs leaving the province on a weekly basis. The Leamington closure of the Heinz facility after 104 years in operation—and my good friend here from the Leamington area knows exactly the impact that that kind of a closure is having on his community.

I hate to say tumbleweeds will be blowing through Leamington, but that’s the kind of effect this can have. The government was way too late in helping them out, and it’s the policies of this government that are largely responsible for Heinz closing that facility after 104 years. The red tape that exists in Ontario—and they keep bringing in bills that are increasing red tape even further, like Bill 91, which is going to have a very detrimental effect on food producers and beverage producers in the province of Ontario.

I’ve met with many of them, and they’re considering moving out of the province because it’s just too inefficient to do business here in Ontario. But let’s move on.

Sensing that there’s a possible election in the wind, this government has done the following: It has taken money from the taxpayers and it has given it to ETFO to make up for a mix-up that that union made during the last round of negotiations. Now it’s establishing a new negotiating regime. We don’t know what the effect of this new regime will be just yet. We know that it could lead to as much acrimony as the last one, and certainly the unions seem to be preparing for that. It does nothing to address the quality of our education in our classrooms.

It does nothing to ensure an increase in the four-year graduation rate—and I stress the four-year graduation rate because it’s important to state how many kids are graduating on time, not just eventually. The one thing that we hear all the time from university professors is that 19-year-old young men who are in university are now behaving more like 17-year-old men because they are not ready when they leave high school. They’re not ready for university. We hear that all the time from our university professors. This bill is not dealing with that problem, Madam Speaker.

It’s not dealing with the problem that we’ve heard from Dr. Rick Miner, who is the former president of Seneca College. I’ve had meetings with Rick Miner where he has the great presentation called People Without Jobs, Jobs Without People. We’re not preparing students in the classroom in high school to fill the holes that we’re going to have in our employment sector. We need to do a better job of making sure that our high school curriculums are in line with the jobs that are going to be available in Ontario, if there are any jobs left at the end of the day in Ontario.

They’re not dealing with one of the biggest complaints that I hear at my constituency office in Belleville and in Picton and up in Bancroft, Madam Speaker, and that is the issue of retired teachers taking jobs on the occasional teaching roll, or the supply list, as it’s called, from new graduates from university who are just looking for a foot in the door.

I know teachers in my riding, or at least graduates from teachers’ college in my riding, who are working bagging groceries at the Metro grocery store, or they’re working at the Starbucks, or they’re working at Tim Hortons, because they can’t get their foot in the door even on the supply list because it’s jam-packed full of teachers who have supposedly retired and moved on in their lives. They have a great pension plan; we know that. I look forward to my wife cashing in on her pension plan some day, which she’s paying into.

But they need to step out of the way, because one of the biggest issues that I hear from young university graduates is that they can’t even get on this list. This bill does nothing to deal with that situation.

There is so much more that this bill could have contained, but at the end of the day, it’s exactly what the member from Durham called it. It’s the “kiss and make up” bill. And you know what? The teachers who I talk to aren’t going to fall for that this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s interesting to hear the member from PrinceEdward–Hastings say that Bill 122 will have no impact whatsoever on public education, because, fundamentally, I suspect that this is the party that’s not interested in being respectful or transparent or accountable to the people who are the front-line workers in the public education system. They made that very clear when they joined the Liberal government with Bill 115.

It’s interesting that they call it the “kiss and make up” bill, and perhaps there’s some truth to that. There are some trust issues; they’re trying to mend some fences. It’s an uncomfortable place to be, on that fence. But the PCs are not even interested in forming those positive relationships.

For them to say that negotiations don’t matter when part of that negotiations process, if those school boards are actually at the table—if school boards that are on the front line, that know their communities best, have a valid place at that table, they can bring those issues of the skilled trades to the negotiations and they can talk about the high needs on special education, because those are huge issues in school boards. School boards are dealing with a whole myriad of issues that don’t have anything to do with the neo-liberal centralized agenda that has been imposed on them for the last 10 years.

I know it makes the Liberals uncomfortable when I talk about this, but you can actually see local democracy being undermined with every year that this government has held power. The voices of those trustees who are truly accountable at those school board tables have been ignored for way too long, and they’re not going to be ignored anymore. If we get Bill 122 fixed at committee, if we plug those holes that clearly leave a lack of accountability, then it will be a good piece of legislation, and we look forward to making that happen.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. John Milloy: We’ve had 12 hours of debate. It’s time to send this bill to committee.

There have been some mischievous comments made about this. For the record, I just want to say that the only way, particularly in a minority Parliament, this can go to committee is if the Conservatives stop their filibustering and stop the debate. We have no power to end this debate, except listening. All of them make the speeches over and over again. It’s an important bill. Let’s send it to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I look forward to the opportunity to chat for two minutes about the comments made by our various members.

I was reading the Toronto Star this morning—yes, I do actually read the Toronto Star—and I was quite pleased, actually, to see that they finally understand the grim reality that we are in, in the city of Toronto.

The headline is “Economic Report Paints Grim Picture of Ontario,” and it was written by the very talented Martin Regg Cohn. It talks about Roger Martin’s Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress, and sadly, what we realize is there is no progress. In fact, he calls it a “regress” here. Ontario is “in a stall,” not only in our outputs, our exports, but also in our imports. The fact that there is no economic progress in an economic progress report is quite startling. When you see the take-away message that is here, it is: “No point worrying about Ontario’s economic stall.

Better to be afraid, very afraid.” Those are the words of the Toronto Star. We’re beyond the point of worrying about what’s happening to Ontario; it’s now the time to be frightened about what’s happening.

We see, according to the Bank of Canada, that our revenue is going to be going down in the next year and the following year, and now that the Liberals have announced their spending spree, a pre-election spending spree, we see the spending going up. Revenue down, spending going up: There is absolutely no opportunity for them to balance the budget. That’s the message we need to be sending to the voters.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I just want to talk briefly. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings talked about cashing in on his wife’s pension somewhere down the road. Now, this is a party who is against public sector workers and who is against public sector pensions.

Now they’re against teachers coming back to work after they retire. But just a couple of months ago, I heard the Tories standing here in the House saying, “We need to increase the retirement age for teachers.” You can’t have it all ways. You can’t say, “Well, I want the teachers to work until they’re 60—”

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’ll raise the retirement age so they won’t have to come back.

Ms. Cindy Forster: “I don’t want them to have a public sector pension. I want jobs for young teachers.”

Well, you won’t have jobs for young teachers if you increase the retirement age from 55 to 60 for teachers. The young teachers will be 30 by the time they actually get into the workforce.

You know what? As far as having teachers work after they retire, with their good pensions that they actually get, they’re going to still be able to drive the economy, because they’re going to have some money to spend, and that’s what drives the economy in our communities.

With respect to the Liberals saying that we’ve had enough debate on this issue, we agree; we’d like to get this on to committee. But on the other hand, you voted yesterday to continue the debate, and you voted against the adjournment. We could have adjourned yesterday and had 10 or 15 minutes less of debate on this issue.

I think that’s all I really want to say on this issue at the moment.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Todd Smith: I appreciate the comments from my NDP colleagues from Kitchener–Waterloo and Welland. They’re a little grumpy this morning. You can understand why, after the results in the federal election last night, they’d all be a little down and out. It was not a good night for their federal NDP cousins, that’s for sure.

I’d like to thank the government House leader as well for his comments—and the fact that he’s heckling as well, which is also nice—and my colleague from Nipissing, who enlightened us again.

It’s nice to know that the Toronto Star is finally catching on that we are not doing well when it comes to the financial ledger here in Ontario. It’s because of back-to-back-to-back-to-back multi-billion dollar deficits that this government continues to run, and this is a big part of it—and this bill is actually a big part of it, Bill 122, because, as we’ve dubbed it, the “kiss and make up” bill, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, comes on the heels of Bill 115, which occurred last summer, and that was a bill that was put forward by the government.

This is just a process bill, as we’ve heard a number of times here today. It’s a way for the government to try and establish a negotiating framework. It’s something that probably could have been done behind the scenes, but they brought it out here because they don’t have a plan to get our economy on a roll so that we can create jobs.

If I was more of a cynical man—and I know, like the Minister of the Environment, I’m not really a cynical man—I’d say that this was drafted because the government needed a little leverage over one of its biggest fundraisers because those fundraisers are starting to play footsie with the NDP as a result of Bill 115 last summer. That’s why we have Bill 122. Let’s call a spade a spade. Bill 122 is on the table because they were worried about losing one of their biggest supporters financially to the NDP. It does absolutely nothing to make our education system better.

It does nothing to improve the experience for our pages and my two daughters so that they can get a job at the end of the day here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Harris: I’m pleased to rise for the first time and speak to Bill 122 on behalf of the constituents I represent in Kitchener–Conestoga. I was actually just scanning a letter that my colleague the new critic for education, Rob Leone, sent to the minister, I believe just last week. He goes on to say that, since has been critic, the government has tabled two bills that really don’t address the true issues that need to be addressed in our education system. I think that’s unfortunate. However, we will carry on with regard to Bill 122.

During the Bill 115 process, the government ignored their previous two methods for collective bargaining and instead attempted to negotiate MOUs with the unions. The unions obviously were very upset that the government inserted itself in the negotiations, which resulted in labour unrest in the form of strikes and the suspension of extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year.

In fact, I recall meeting with our chair of the local school board, Linda Fabi, who has now gone on to retirement and to bigger and better things. We wish her well in her later years, I suppose, enjoying herself. But I cannot forget the students that I spoke with during the course of that time last year. The calls started pouring into my constituency office, from not only students but their parents, who just couldn’t believe that the unions had ordered their members to stop offering extracurricular activities.

Actually, last Friday I watched CTV News, and it showed those teachers who were publicly shamed in one of the publications for going against their union and basically siding with the students. I recall a basketball team that had paid up, in the region of Waterloo, to go to Phoenix in Arizona to play over the Christmas holidays. There was a lot of debate on whether that team would go, forfeiting a lot of the fees and money that those parents had invested in their students. I know that the students by far wanted to get to Phoenix to play in that game.

Those two teachers, thankfully, did say that they would support the team and they would go, and we thank them for that. In fact, I did place a call to both of them thanking them, on behalf of the parents and students in my communities for doing what’s right, and that’s to provide those extracurriculars to those deserving students.

The students, though, just couldn’t understand how the unions could order their members to use extracurricular activities as a bargaining chip in a labour dispute without considering the effect that this action would have on the future development of our young people throughout Ontario.

In fact, a lot of those students talked about it not just being sports or recreational extracurricular activities; I remember running into a student attending Huron Heights in my riding of Kitchener who said that she attended early-morning prep and after-school prep to bump her marks up to be able to get into college or university the following year. Again, it’s not just the recreational or extracurricular activities that were important; it was the prep before and after school that would allow her to get a good post-secondary education and eventually a good job down the road.

However, though, facing the full power of the unions—I have to commend two students, Erica Boer and Taylor Cloutier, both students at Huron Heights, also in Kitchener. They did everything they could to bring back those extracurricular activities. Erica started by sending me a letter outlining her concerns and disappointments with the teachers’ job action. She wrote that “extracurricular activities open doors to college and university and without these activities many kids will lose opportunities for their futures.” I totally agree with her.

She continued, saying, “We are the future of this province and deserve to have a voice. I personally don’t want to stand by and lose the things I love to do. It only takes one person to make a difference.” I have to say, I was immensely moved by Erica’s letter. She demonstrated leadership and understanding of the political situation and knew the importance of restoring extracurriculars for not only herself, but her classmates and the rest of the students across the province.

In fact, I had the opportunity to meet Erica and Taylor to talk about their letter, the effects that the union’s job action was having on their high school experience—because down the road at the Catholic school, they weren’t going through that difficulty. We talked about Erica, who had just started volleyball. Already, in that limited time, she had developed some strong friendships with her teammates, but in one fell swoop, the unions took that away from Erica, without a moment’s notice.

Instead of giving up, though, Erica and Taylor organized their classmates. They had more than 350 students sign a petition calling on the government to restore their extracurricular activities. To assist their efforts, I also sent a letter along with this petition to the Minister of Education. Unfortunately, it didn’t get a proper response from the government, but they did manage to raise enough awareness about the issue to make major media in the region, the Waterloo Record, pick up the story. So although it wasn’t Erica’s responsibility, she continued to be an advocate for students across Ontario, dedicating countless hours to restore those activities.

Madam Speaker, it’s time to implement real measures that will ensure that students like Erica and Taylor will never have to endure disruptions like this again. Unfortunately, though, Bill 122 specifically doesn’t address some of the major problems in our education system, as we have seen with Bill 115. In fact, it doesn’t make a plan that will improve test scores and the quality of education to our students, as I outlined in my colleague Rob Leone’s letter just recently. It doesn’t help build confidence with parents in our education system.

It doesn’t define the role of a teacher and which duties they are responsible for, even in times of labour unrest—we have to put an end to using extracurricular activities as a bargaining chip—nor does it encourage teachers to be more involved in their schools in the form of extracurricular activities and after-school programs. It doesn’t make these types of activities voluntary so that they won’t be barred by teachers’ unions.

My good friend the member from Cambridge wrote to the Minister of Education last week and in his letter addressed seniority rules for teachers as being a major problem in our education system. Young, enthusiastic teachers and new college graduates often go without teaching simply because of the seniority rules that are in place. This is despite the fact that they are highly qualified, dedicated and have enough experience to provide a good-quality education to our students here in Ontario.

However, Bill 122 does define central and local bargaining. One section, in fact, talks about the role the teachers’ federations have at the central negotiating table with corresponding trustee associations. It also includes the role of government in the central bargaining process. Secondly, there is a local bargaining component that will still be maintained between the school board and their federation locals. It’s important that this kind of local bargaining remains in place, and obviously, Bill 122 formally institutionalizes that.

However, during the whole Bill 115 debacle, I also heard from many support workers who didn’t have a voice during the strike. They were left to obey authorities without any input. Speaker, we must ensure that when we are formally institutionalizing a bargaining process, all the seats at the table are properly filled, of course, with those stakeholders. This is another concern I have with Bill 122.

As a member of the official opposition, I’ve seen the government create legislation that gives, obviously, great power to the ministries without much review or scrutiny afterwards, an important part of the legislative process. The same goes for Bill 122, which is why we are calling for there to be a sunset clause added within it. When my colleague the member from Cambridge consulted teachers, school boards and trustees about this bill, they were fairly pleased at first glance but had a concern over the power the ministry had.

Including a sunset clause would give the opportunity for the partners of education to come before a legislative committee, to consult with the ministry officials about the sections that work in the bill and what should be modified, based on the bargaining process at the time. I think that we can all agree this should be implemented within Bill 122 to protect the bargaining process in the future.

Finally, I want to reiterate the negotiation the PC Party is asking for, which was sent to the minister herself in a letter dated November 21. It asked them to commit to modifying regulation 274 so that we can have merit-based hiring back in our schools, so that students are receiving the best-quality education and that the principal is the one who determines who will fill that job best for his or her own school. Hiring practices must be based on who is the best person to fill the job, to improve test scores and engage our youth in extracurricular activities.

At a time when math scores are down, we must make sure we are hiring the best people to bring our young Ontarians back on track and get them job-ready, shall I say? It should not be based on seniority, leaving our young graduates jobless or working at the same place they did before completing higher education. As many of the members on this side of the House have said, if the government is willing to meet that request, then we will meet them with theirs and move this bill to committee as fast as possible.

However, if they will not make this compromise, then we will continue to have these discussions and speak on behalf of our communities and our constituencies.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We’re very pleased to welcome a delegation from the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association and the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce. They’re here for their lobby day, and we’re glad to have them here. There’s a reception, may I say, right after question period, in room 228, and we invite all the members to join us.

Let me do the introductions quickly—I’ve got a good list here. We’ve got Dave Canfield, who is the president of NOMA and, of course, the mayor of Kenora. We’ve got Phil Vinet, the hard-working mayor of Red Lake; Mayor Keith Hobbs, the city of Thunder Bay.

We’ve got Councillor Iain Angus, from the city of Thunder Bay; Councillor Larry Hebert, from the city of Thunder Bay; Gary Gamsby, reeve of the township of Morley; Roy Hoffman, mayor of the town of Pickle Lake; Rebecca Johnson, a councillor from the city of Thunder Bay, representing NOACC; Andy Scribilo, the president of the Kenora Chamber of Commerce, with NOACC; George Macey, from the Marathon Chamber of Commerce, with NOACC; and Kristen Oliver, the hard-working executive director of NOMA.

We welcome you all. We’ll look forward to seeing you at the reception and the lunch today.

M. Grant Crack: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à Jean-Marc Lalonde et aussi à mon ami Rheal Filion de Rockland, à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Todd Smith: We could have used Jean-Marc’s coaching skills last night, as the Ontario Legiskaters fell 7-3 to the Ontario Midwives.

However, I would like to introduce some guests. Melissa Bhagat is the newest employee with the official opposition. She’s in the west members’ gallery, and she’s joined by Mitch “Ron Burgundy” Heimpel as well this morning.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Marc Xuereb, who is the president of the Waterloo Regional Labour Council, to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s a great pleasure of mine to welcome Mr. George Weber, who is the president and CEO of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, which is located in the great riding of Ottawa Centre. George, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my privilege to welcome the grade 5 class from Cathy Wever Elementary Public School in my riding. They haven’t arrived yet—I guess they had some problems on the highway—but they will be here shortly.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome the Ontario Pork association—I don’t know if they’re here yet—Amy Cronin, the chair, and Ken Ovington, executive director, who are in our gallery. The Ontario Pork reception tonight is in room 228 at 4:30, and everyone’s welcome.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is a pleasure—actually, my colleague from Ottawa Centre already introduced Mr. George Weber.

I’d also like to recognize Jean-Marc Lalonde too, as the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell has. I would like him to come back and coach this hockey team that we have here. The Legiskaters lost very badly last night and last week, and I’d really like Jean-Marc to come back and coach them.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to introduce Karim Mamdani, the president and CEO of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences; Dr. Catherine Zahn, president and CEO of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; George Weber, who I know has been introduced, president and CEO of the Royal Ottawa; and Carol Lambie, president and CEO of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. Welcome, all.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure to introduce Mr. Hugh Moran from the Ontario Petroleum Institute, representing Ontario’s 1,200 producers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Etobicoke Centre, to visit with page Niam Vora: mother, Arpana Vora; father, Adesh Vora; sisters, Sera, Naiya and Aahna; grandfather Nitin Amin; grandmother Pramila Amin; aunt Priya Amin; aunt Leena Amin; and aunt Monica Vora. Welcome to Queen’s Park, on behalf of the member from Etobicoke Centre.

It is the tradition of the Speaker to introduce someone who’s been introduced twice, and once to come back as a coach: Jean-Marc Lalonde from Prescott and Russell in the 36th Parliament and Glengarry–Prescott–Russell in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments. Bonjour, monsieur Lalonde.

I’m also told that he’s working feverishly on getting a hockey game with the Legiskaters and Quebec, as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry; I got that wrong. It’s with Quebec’s midwives.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, when I grew up in the north end of Fort Erie, most of my friends’ parents—their moms or dads usually worked at the factory, they worked at the plant. Manufacturing helped to build our middle class; it’s the backbone of communities like those that I grew up in.

There is a long, sorry list of manufacturing that has left our province. Navistar has left Chatham to go to Indiana. Xstrata has left Timmins to go to Quebec. John Deere left our area in Niagara for Wisconsin. Siemens left Hamilton to go to Charlotte, North Carolina. Caterpillar left London to go to Indiana—I could spend my entire time, sadly, reciting this list.

Premier, there have been 300,000 manufacturing job losses in our province. These products are still being made. They’re being made in North America, but they’re being made everywhere but the province of Ontario. Why is that happening, and where is your plan to actually bring those jobs back to our great province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Leader of the Opposition will want to hear the list of businesses that have come to Ontario and jobs that have been created in Ontario, but before I go through that, I want to acknowledge that there has been a shift in manufacturing in Ontario. There is no doubt about that.

The fact that we decided as a government to support the auto industry, the fact that we have put in place regional development funds to work with businesses so that they can make the shift to advanced manufacturing—initiatives all of which the opposition voted against and did not support. We have recognized that there is a change—there’s a change in the global economy, there’s a change in Ontario’s economy, and we believe that the best thing that we can do—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We believe that the best thing that we can do is to work with businesses to create an environment so that business will come here. We have over 400,000 net new jobs in Ontario since 2009. We need to—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m moving right to identifying ridings.

Supplementary, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the problem is that Ontario used to be at the top of the list for investment and job creation. Under an Ontario PC government, we’ll be at the top of the list again.

I don’t think that the Liberal government understands the importance of manufacturing and resource development to our economy. You can do all the research and development in the world, but unless you make something at the end of the day, it’s about as useful as a two-legged stool.

We have a plan to bring in 300,000 advanced manufacturing jobs to strengthen the middle class, and not the Liberal jobs that are part-time, temp job to temp job, with no wages or benefit increases. We actually see good, strong middle-class jobs you can count on. We’ve got a plan to do so.

Last week, the hemorrhaging continued with the loss of jobs in Leamington, Ontario. There have been 38,000 job losses, under your leadership as Premier in manufacturing alone.

Premier, I’ll ask you again: In the global economy, why are they growing manufacturing everywhere else but the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just assure the Leader of the Opposition that in my conversation on Friday with the community leaders and the business folks from the Leamington area—your member attended that meeting. It was a very important meeting.

Of course we are disappointed with the decision that Heinz made around the Leamington plant, but we will work with that community. I believe that there are many, many possibilities for that community.

But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The Leader of the Opposition and his party would cut and slash across the board. They would fire civil servants. They would take workers out of education, out of health care, and they would engage in a race to the bottom in terms of working conditions and wages and benefits, because—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are not going to engage in that race to the bottom. It is not responsible. The gains that organized labour have made in this province over the previous decades will not be lost by this government.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: If you had worked at Heinz, if you had worked at Caterpillar, if you had worked at Volvo in Goderich that went to Pennsylvania, Gracious Living opening their plant in New York, if you lost your job at Xstrata—Premier, we have hit rock bottom. The Liberals are winning the race to rock bottom.

My plan is to put Ontario back on top, to bring in 300,000 advanced manufacturing jobs—forestry, mining, manufacturing.

Here’s the other thing: You blew the Cliffs deal. This chance—it could have been what the oils sands are to Alberta. You fumbled the ball. We lost those jobs. That investment will go elsewhere.

The very same day that Cliffs walked away from the table—they said high energy rates are part of that equation; Heinz, high energy rates—you spent your time hugging it up with Al Gore, the very policies that drove hydro rates through the roof in the first place. Don’t you think, considering the impact of hydro on jobs, that was a poke in the eye? Wasn’t that salt in the wounds? Wasn’t it an extraordinary misjudgment to embrace the high-energy policies that are driving jobs out of our province?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Both sides are not helpful.

Interjection.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is extremely important that the people of Ontario listen to what the Leader of the Opposition just said, because underlying what the Leader of the Opposition just said is this: He believes, by what he just said, that we cannot have clean air in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. He believes that we have to sacrifice the environment to—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, I care deeply about people losing their jobs. I care deeply about bringing jobs to Ontario. I care deeply about working with businesses, but not to sacrifice our children’s health. There is no place for policies in this province that would sacrifice children to the economy.

Interjections.

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

New question.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question this morning is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

I have repeatedly asked the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games for the real numbers on the Pan Am Games after painstakingly uncovering multiple budgets. Finally, last week, we got somewhere. The minister admitted to ballooning costs and upped the $1.4-billion budget to $2.56 billion, but we know the spending doesn’t stop there.

What scares me is that the Liberals are cutting deals with their enablers over here to cancel an investigation into the minister’s lacklustre management of the Pan Am Games.

Speaker, when will the Premier tell us exactly what she’s hiding? Will she tell it to us now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite has demonstrated that we have provided information; we’ve provided the information he has asked for. The government doesn’t set salaries for the TO2015 employees. It’s not an agency of the government, but we have absolutely provided the information that the member opposite has asked for.

What is really important is that we understand that the investments in the Pan Am Games are investments that are going to pay off over the long term. There will be legacies of these games in terms of affordable housing, in terms of venues.

Of course, we have to be accountable for the expenditures, but it would be great if the party opposite had some enthusiasm about these fantastic games and legacy that are going to be in place.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: Our kids are going to be paying for this. Premier, we’re very excited about the games; we’re just not excited about your mismanagement of them.

This government is saving themselves from scrutiny by cancelling the Pan Am investigation in the general government committee. Ironically, the very vocal third party Pan Am critic has sold out to make this possible. He traded Pan Am accountability for support for his union-friendly bill, which effectively cancelled this investigation.

As the government continues to point out, we are having the people’s games, but, just so we all know, it’s also the people’s money.

Will the Premier stop hiding and commit today to continuing the Pan Am investigation into the accountability of the Pan Am secretariat? Yes or no?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the government House leader is going to want to speak to the discussions that are going on at the committee in the final supplementary, but what I want to say is that it is extremely important that the questions be asked, that we be accountable for the money that’s being invested. To this point, the projects are all on time and under budget.

As the minister has said many times, it’s often the capital projects that cause the problem in games like this. That is not the case. We are seeing a very good trajectory for those projects, and we expect that, as the other costs and the other investments are made, the same will hold true.

Forty-one countries and their athletes are going to be here in 2015. This is the biggest event we have held on Ontario soil. We are enthusiastic about it. We hope that the party opposite will get on board.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: This government has not been accurate with the numbers since the beginning. They have not been forthcoming with any of the proper numbers for the Pan Am Games and have admitted that they’re going to balloon in the coming years.

Clearly, the Liberals do not want the Pan Am Games investigated. Clearly, the NDP doesn’t want it either. Their committee manoeuvring proves that they will go to any length to avoid accountability for their compulsive spending habits. This includes the manipulation of the vocal third party Pan Am critic, who has bought support for his union-loving bill in exchange for cancelling the Pan Am investigation.

We want successful games and respect for the hard-working families of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m very concerned about that last statement. I’d ask you to withdraw.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Withdrawn.

Premier, allow the investigation into the Pan Am management, or ask the minister to step down. You choose.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make this Legislature work. The fact of the matter is, the estimates committee and the general government committee are both looking into the Pan Am Games. There were literally thousands of documents that were delivered to the estimates committee, the first tranche that went forward. We at general government are looking at a way that we can look at Pan Am and also look at some very important legislation: Bill 105, which will reduce taxes for businesses in this province. But the Progressive Conservative Party is playing games. They are filibustering in committee—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Simcoe–Grey will come to order. Thank you.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it is a pattern. They are filibustering in committee so that taxes cannot be cut for small businesses.

The other night, the bravery awards given out by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario were delayed by 20 minutes because of the bell-ringing antics of the opposition.

We are trying to make this work—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The leader of the third party.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Acting Premier if the Liberal government signed an initial agreement or term sheet with Cliffs Natural Resources. The Acting Premier wouldn’t even tell us whether one existed.

Today I’ll ask the Premier: Did the government have an agreement with Cliffs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader of the third party asked this question yesterday. I know that she knows that what she’s referring to is commercially sensitive and some personal information. I know that she’s aware of that. We’re going to continue to work diligently to make sure that we’re ready to support development in the Ring of Fire. That is our commitment. That is where our commitment has been all along. But I think that asking for information that is rightly confidential does not advance the cause of the relationship and the development of the Ring of Fire in any way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We would love to see the cause be advanced in some way; the Liberals don’t seem to be able to advance it at all.

In May 2012, the finance minister confirmed the government had reached an agreement with Cliffs regarding plans to process chromite in Capreol. Either the minister was mistaken or this agreement exists. If it does, what commitments did the Liberals make in that term sheet?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that there were discussions and there were terms of reference for those discussions. But there was a lot of commercially sensitive information that was part of that discussion, and that commercially sensitive information is not available.

We’re going to continue to work to develop the Ring of Fire. We are setting up the development corporation, as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has spoken about. We are not backing away from our commitment to develop this very rich deposit. I know that there are mayors from communities in the north who are here today and who are going to be meeting with various of us, who are very, very interested in that commitment because it has to do with infrastructure, it has to do with economic development and it has to do with the capacity of the north to create the jobs that we know are necessary. That’s why we’re not stepping away.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A KWG Resources press release indicates that the term sheet the government signed with Cliffs included commitments to an “attractive” electricity rate, as well as commitments to build a road to move people, equipment and ore in and out of the Ring of Fire. We know that none of these things have happened. Did the government make those commitments?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, there were arrangements that were made. There was a discussion that happened with a business. We were very clear that we were pleased about that. It’s unfortunate that, for their own business model and their own reasons, Cliffs has stepped away. But there are other companies who are interested in working with the government, and we look forward to working with them.

I also hope that the federal government will be a partner in the development of the Ring of Fire. This has been the situation all along: We need the federal government, which, in fact, has sung the praises of the Ring of Fire and talked about what a huge opportunity it is and how involved they are. In fact, they are not as involved as they need to be. We need them at the table with us as we work with First Nations, municipalities and commercial interests. We look forward to those partnerships allowing us to continue to work to develop the Ring of Fire.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Blaming Ottawa is this Liberal government’s “the dog ate my homework” excuse, and we hear it far too often in this Legislature.

My next question is for the Premier. As a cabinet minister, the Premier herself went to Capreol and announced “thousands of jobs.” Those were the government’s words: “thousands of jobs.” People want to know what happened to those jobs.

The government said they signed an agreement on behalf of the people of Ontario. Why won’t the Premier release the agreement with Cliffs so Ontarians can see whether the Liberals actually lived up to their end of that agreement?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the leader of the third party is disappointed. We are disappointed as well; that goes without saying. But the Ring of Fire is not about one company; it’s not about one level of government. The leader of the third party can chastise me for calling on the federal government. I think it’s eminently responsible of us to call on the federal government to work with us.

I’m not blaming the federal government, I say to the leader of the third party. What I’m saying is that if this extraordinary opportunity is going to be realized, we need all levels of government working together. We need to be working with First Nations, we need to be working with commercial interests because it is a massive development—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that kind of partnership. In fact, in their letter of November 20, 2013, the press release, Cliffs says that they will continue to work with the Ontario government, First Nations communities and other interested parties to explore potential solutions related to the critical issue of infrastructure. We look forward to continuing—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, as Liberal dithering and inaction has pushed Cliffs away from the Ring of Fire, people are beginning to ask about the challenges that other companies are facing in the Ring of Fire. How many other term sheets has the government signed? How many of these other companies are facing the same problems that pushed Cliffs away?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I can remember saying in this House and in other venues that the development of the Ring of Fire was a very complex issue, and it was going to require that we understand the many moving parts. One of those parts, Mr. Speaker, is the relationship with First Nations. I said very clearly to my colleagues—and they will attest to this—that if we did not move in a responsible and coordinated way, if we did not make sure that we had environmental issues dealt with and that we worked with First Nations, we would not be able to develop the Ring of Fire—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite from Renfrew talks about delays, but Mr. Speaker, the reality is, there are many complex issues that need to be dealt with in the development of the Ring of Fire. We are working on those, and we look forward to working with commercial interests, including Cliffs, as we go forward. We’re going to develop the Ring of Fire, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told reporters that when it comes to the government’s jobs plan, the net result is that it’s working. For people in Capreol who received an empty promise of thousands of jobs or, frankly, the families in Leamington watching the cornerstone of their economy pack up and leave, the net result is that people aren’t working.

I know the Premier likes to run, but she can’t run away from the fact that these jobs are her responsibility. When will the government stop passing the buck, stop playing politics and admit that the status quo just isn’t working when it comes to creating and protecting jobs in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I understand the rhetoric of the leader of the third party. In fact, it is the combined responsibility of the private sector and the public sector to work together. It is our responsibility as government to create the conditions so that the private sector can create jobs.

I’m just going to talk about some of the places where that is happening—because I understand. I’m concerned about what happened in Leamington, and I know that the leader of the third party knows I am. But I’m also pleased that in Ottawa at Ericsson Canada, there are new jobs: 35 new jobs, retaining 105. In Cambridge, Ontario, at Toyota, our investment of $16.8 million created approximately 400 jobs; at GM in Ingersoll, over 2,500 jobs as a result of the $250-million investment that the government made; Green Arc Tire Manufacturing in St. Marys, Ontario: 340 jobs.

There is a long list of job creation, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to foster those conditions for job creation.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier.

Premier, I can’t believe you’re trying to blame the federal government for your failure in the Ring of Fire. I, like many of my colleagues, was dismayed at your comments over the weekend suggesting this. Yesterday in the House, your finance minister also tried to shift blame and refused to take any responsibility for the deal with Cliffs falling through.

Premier, your government was quick to take credit when you made the deal with Cliffs. Your May 9, 2012, press release stated, “Thousands of jobs coming to northern Ontario.” By taking credit for the Ring of Fire before delivering, you and your government deserve the lion’s share of the blame for your failure. Premier, now that the dust has settled, who have you held accountable for the failure of your government on this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m not blaming the federal government. Let me be really clear about that: I’m not blaming the federal government. What I am saying, which is what we have said all along, is that there are many partners who are needed in order to be able to explore and exploit the resources and the possibility of the Ring of Fire. It is impossible for one company or one order of government to do this.

It’s a huge project, and from the beginning we have said that we need the private sector, we need First Nations and we need the federal government and municipalities to work with us so that we can develop that resource. That is not inconsistent; in fact, it is consistent with what we have said from the beginning. And I will be calling on Prime Minister Harper, as I have already done, to work with us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Have you called them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Have I called him? Absolutely. I’ve written to him, and we’re trying to set up a meeting. I look forward to that meeting, and I look forward to the opportunity to have a discussion with the Prime Minister about his role and about our combined partnership.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: With your 2012 press release, you would have sworn the mine was about to open. Premier, with all the bureaucracy that your government has set up around this project, it’s no wonder you’re having difficulty finding accountability. With overlapping ministries, the Ring of Fire Secretariat, panels and a negotiator that you appointed, there’s a lot of talk and very little action. In your 2012 press release, five different ministers and you yourself were quoted.

Premier, had you taken the advice of our northern white paper, we wouldn’t be in this place today. Why don’t you do it now? Implement the PC plan and put a single minister in charge of the Ring of Fire.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We won’t implement the outline that the opposition has laid out, Mr. Speaker, because it’s simplistic. It does not recognize the complexity of the development opportunity. It doesn’t recognize that there are, as I said, many moving parts. I have said from the beginning of this opportunity that we have to work with all players in order for us to be successful.

I travelled to Webequie when I was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and I met with the community there, and we talked about the training opportunities—training opportunities that are being made available right now. Those training opportunities are being set up, and there are young people at Webequie who are going to be able to be trained and will be ready to work in the Ring of Fire as we explore, as we develop that resource. That’s the kind of process that’s necessary. It takes time—I recognize that—and it will be successful.

CHILD POVERTY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. In a report released today, Campaign 2000 strongly condemns this government’s 2012 decision to delay scheduled increases in the Ontario Child Benefit and to freeze the minimum wage. They blame these Liberal government decisions for the slow progress in reducing the child poverty in this province.

In 2008 the government made grand statements to reduce child poverty by 25% over five years, and in 2013 it is absolutely nowhere near achieving what is a very modest goal. How does this government justify its lack of action in reducing child poverty by 25%?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services, who has responsibility for the Poverty Reduction Strategy, will want to speak to the supplementary, but I want to just say to the member of the third party that she knows full well that it’s our government that introduced a Poverty Reduction Strategy in this province. We are the first government to have a Poverty Reduction Strategy. We have an Ontario Child Benefit because we introduced it and we implemented it. In fact, the child poverty rate in Ontario fell by over 9% during the height of the recession.

I believe that the member of the third party is talking about doing more and doing it more quickly. I understand that that would be her request, and I thank Campaign 2000 for their report. But make no mistake: We are committed to poverty reduction, we continue to be committed to poverty reduction, and we will move on future actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Premier: The Campaign 2000 document cites a number of other devastating cuts to supports for low-income people made by this government. For example, the 2012 Ontario budget saw the cancellation of benefits for people on social assistance, including health benefits and, tragically, the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit. The government talked about reducing child poverty by 25% in 2008—but this report makes it crystal clear that part of the blame for its failure lies in policy decisions made by this very government.

How does the government finally explain those decisions to the hundreds of thousands of Ontario children who go to bed hungry every night?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you for the question.

I, too, would like to thank Campaign 2000 for the report that they’ve released today. I, in fact, have met with Campaign 2000 on a number of occasions, and I share their concern with respect to our children and the future of this province.

I’d like to reiterate that it was this government that brought in the Ontario children’s benefit, which is paid out to 950,000 children. That has been directly related to the fall of 9.2% of our child poverty rate, and the report says that we were successful in that during the height of the greatest recession that we’ve had.

Ontario has the second-lowest low-income rate in the entire country, Speaker. We’ve lifted 47,000 children out of poverty, and we prevented 61,000 children from getting into poverty. We have done a lot of work with respect to minimum wage, with respect to social assistance reforms and with respect to our housing benefits.

Is there more work to do? Absolutely, and that’s why we’re creating a new poverty reduction strategy and why we’re all working together to that end. I am absolutely committed to this.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, last Thursday, the government announced it would be introducing the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act. This important piece of legislation, if passed, would ensure that Ontario never returns to the days of using dirty coal-fired plants to generate electricity for the province. This policy is one that I have had strong support for from the people of Ottawa–Orléans for the last 10 years.

The closure of the last coal plants in the province is, in my opinion, as an engineer and as a former business owner, a momentous achievement that will help protect the health and environment of Ontarians for generations to come. We must think of our children and our grandchildren. It is a significant landmark in the global fight against climate change.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Energy please inform the House about the importance of the bill that will be introduced by the Minister of the Environment later today?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for his support.

Last week, I had the pleasure of standing with the Premier, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health, our host, Environmental Defence, and a special guest, former Vice-President Al Gore, to announce our vision of a coal-free future for Ontario.

With Nanticoke generating station slated to close at the end of this year and the Thunder Bay generating station set for conversion to advanced biomass, Ontario will have a coal-free electricity system.

To ensure that we never go back to the days of burning dirty coal, our government introduced a bill that, if passed, will make it illegal for the province to burn coal for power.

Mr. Speaker, our government is a global leader on this issue. We are the first jurisdiction in North America to accomplish this goal, and it’s a cause for celebration for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. Now that we’ve reached this significant milestone, it is important to ensure that we don’t go backwards. Climate change is an issue that is not going to disappear, and Ontario needs to remain a global leader going forward, because if nobody takes action, it will be impossible to avoid its catastrophic consequences.

As Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said, “Ontario has shown the world that bold action on climate change can be done. Ontarians should feel proud to live in the first jurisdiction in North America that is kicking the coal habit, a place that today took immediate meaningful action on climate change.”

Mr. Speaker, getting off coal is not only a major triumph in the fight against climate change, but will also provide significant health benefits to the people of Ontario. Can the minister please tell us about the health and environmental benefits of eliminating dirty coal-fired generation in the province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Getting off coal is the single largest climate change initiative in North America. It will save $4.4 billion in avoided environmental and health care costs. It’s going to mean a better quality of life for people with asthma, and less children and seniors suffering from air-quality-related illness. It will mean fewer smog days and lower carbon emissions, equivalent to taking seven million cars off the road.

Finally, I would like to quote Mr. Gore when he was here last week. He said that future generations will ask, “How did you find the moral courage to act” against climate change? And part of the answer will be: “Ontario, Canada, led the way.”

CHRIS MAZZA

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Dr. Chris Mazza is under criminal investigation for his role in the Ornge air ambulance scandal. He is under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons for his unethical conduct as a physician. He pleaded mental incapacity when called to testify at the public accounts committee and had to be brought here under a special Speaker’s warrant. Front-line staff and patients were put at risk as a direct result of his gross mismanagement and fraudulent schemes and self-aggrandizement.

Now we learn that he’s back on the Ministry of Health payroll, working in the emergency ward at the Thunder Bay regional health centre.

Speaker, how can the minister justify this offensive disrespect for the front-line staff at Ornge, for the patients whose lives were put at risk and for the taxpayers of this province who were ripped off for millions as a result of this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite knows full well that hiring decisions are made by hospitals. They are made independently. Hospitals have the responsibility for the doctors that they hire. To suggest that I run the human resources departments in hospitals across this province is kind of ridiculous.

I will say, Speaker, that in order for a doctor to be hired, they must be certified by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I’ll look forward to the supplementary, where I can speak more to this.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, based on that response, I call into question the competency of whoever was doing the hiring at that hospital and I call into question the competency of this minister who allows it to happen. Once again, she is pleading ignorance and that she has no authority. We’ve heard that throughout this entire file: She can do nothing; she has no authority.

Apart from the obvious irreparable damage that was done to our emergency ambulance service and the harm that was done to the men and women who were forced to work under this man’s tyranny, he travelled the world in the lap of luxury at taxpayers’ expense. He saddled taxpayers with multi-millions of dollars of debt, thanks to his mismanagement. He should not be in an emergency ward; he should be in a jail.

This minister stands by and tells us she has nothing to do with this. She has a responsibility—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I do find it strange that the member opposite is suggesting that we investigate, convict and jail someone. That’s not how we do business on this side of the House.

Let me reiterate: Hiring decisions are local decisions, made by the local hospitals. The College of Physicians and Surgeons—

Interjections.

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

It is very difficult for me to seize control at all when I’ve got members on the government side, while the minister is answering, provoking and the other people accepting the provocation and responding. Not while the minister is answering or when the question is being put; I think it’s less than polite.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. Just to reiterate, physician accreditation is the sole and independent responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre has been in crisis for almost a month. This crisis means there are no beds available for patients who need to be admitted. It means cancelled surgeries. It means that patients are being cared for in hallways. The hospital is 54 beds over capacity, and there are 64 people waiting for placement.

The minister can talk a good game about investing in long-term care, but clearly this talk hasn’t resulted in action on the ground. Can the minister explain what she is doing to address the crisis faced by Thunder Bay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for this question. This is a question that has been raised by my colleagues the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan and the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North. There is very much an issue in Thunder Bay. I can tell you that the LHIN, the hospital and the other providers in the area are very much focusing on resolving the issues that have been raised.

We have come a long way when it comes to providing more supports at home to free up hospital beds, but I must say that in Thunder Bay I acknowledge there is a problem that we are very focused on resolving.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Well, the hospital in Thunder Bay is struggling, and it’s doing its best to cope, but they can only do so much when dozens of patients are stuck in hallways because they have nowhere to go. In the hospital, hallway nursing is not quality care.

This government promised to address wait times for home care, but clearly something is not working. We are just on the cusp of flu season, and Thunder Bay residents need to know that their hospital will be there for them in their time of need.

I ask the Minister of Health again: What is her plan to address the health crisis in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, thank you to the member opposite. This is an issue, as I have said, that has been brought to my attention by our members, the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan and the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North.

Our LHIN is very focused on resolving these issues. These are complex problems. We are opening new long-term-care beds in Thunder Bay. There is good progress being made, but clearly there is more to do, and we’re committed to doing that work.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour la ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement, l’honorable Linda Jeffrey. Recently, Friday, November 22 was National Housing Day—an important topic and a fundamental right for Ontarians because, of course, everybody deserves to have safe and secure housing.

In my own riding of Etobicoke North, our government has made significant investments, such as the recently finished renovations on affordable housing units at 2667 and 2677 Kipling Avenue, but, Speaker, as you’ll appreciate, there is still more work to be done. This is especially important and part of a just society; when people live in safe and affordable housing, our communities thrive.

Good housing promotes health, safety, and physical and emotional well-being, and we know that children even do better in school. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could she explain to my constituents in Etobicoke North what investments our government is making to ensure that Ontarians have access to affordable housing?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I really want to thank the member for the question.

Tackling homelessness is a very important issue to our government, because there is nothing more distressing than the thought of a child, a senior or a family being unsure of where they’re going to sleep at night. That’s why we’ve invested over $3 billion in affordable housing since 2003.

That investment is the largest in our province’s history. It’s meant that we’ve been able to create more than 17,000 affordable housing units and repaired more than a quarter of a million social and affordable housing units.

By investing in Ontarians, we make sure that they have access to affordable housing, and we can ensure that they are better prepared to enter the workforce, because having a place to call home is the first step out of poverty. It is the first step to realizing new opportunities. It is the first step to a better quality of life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I appreciate, Madam Minister, your response about our government’s investments. Ontario’s most vulnerable, of course, deserve this, but I raise a genuine concern in this chamber for all parties to consider: Despite the significant investment that Ontario has made, the federal Conservative government has largely failed to tackle this pressing issue. Canada remains the only G8 nation that does not have a national housing strategy, which, of course, undermines the progress that we have made in Ontario, leading to a piecemeal, band-aid solution approach.

The feds also ignore calls from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as well as the city of Toronto, to have a stable and long-term funding source so that we can make the necessary long-term investments in affordable housing.

Speaker, I would invite the minister to share with this chamber about her recent excursion to Ottawa and the meetings that she had with her counterparts at the federal level.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: While I was in Ottawa last week, I reiterated our government’s call to the federal government to come up with a stable long-term solution to homelessness in Ontario. But despite my invitation for a conversation, the minister failed to meet with me—a failure that has occurred since December 2009, which was the last time the federal Conservatives sat down with the provinces and territories to talk about homelessness. This, despite the fact that last month, Minister Candice Bergen told the National Conference on Ending Homelessness that the federal government is looking for even more ways to support communities in developing solutions to homelessness.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion for Minister Bergen: Talk to the provinces. Pick up the phone and talk to us. For too long, Ontarians have failed to receive the attention and the investments that we need and deserve from the federal government.

Our government will continue to stand up for Ontario’s most vulnerable.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier, with respect to a new regional hospital in south Niagara. Yesterday was, as I termed it, put-up-or-shut-up day when it comes to the new hospital in south Niagara. You ask me why I say, “Put up or shut up”? Because you guys have been kind of on the fence on this issue. Witness the February

article in the Niagara Falls Review: “Wynne Off to Rocky Start on Hospital File

“Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, in her first week on the job, threw cold water on the proposed south Niagara hospital and set back hospital reform in Niagara two years.”

We’re trying to get a positive answer, get you off that fence a little bit. Conveniently, yesterday, when we had the put-up-or-shut-up motion in the House, the minister announced that she was finally looking at a programming grant for that hospital.

Let me ask you this: How much exactly will that planning grant be worth, when will you actually make that announcement, and is it actually budgeted in the Ministry of Health budget?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to hear the Leader of the Opposition advocating for hospital capital projects. I have to say this is just fantastic news. It is interesting that he’s focusing on one particular hospital in a riding that happens to be in a by-election situation, but I’m sure his passion will be just as strong for the other hospital projects that are out there as well. I know the member from Grey-Bruce would love to hear a question from you on the Markdale hospital, for example.

I am happy to say that we are going to be looking forward to taking the next step when it comes to the new hospital in Niagara. That’s an exciting initiative, and I’m really pleased that we’re moving to one more new hospital in a long, long line of new hospitals that were built under this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think I actually got a straight answer there, Speaker, so let me try again—and in answer to your question, yes, I’m confident that a PC government will get our economy growing, set priorities and build other projects around the province.

The problem is that the only way to get you guys to do something is when a seat is at risk. The only way to actually get you to do something, like a subway to Scarborough, is when you’re worried about losing a seat. Witness in Windsor: When you had a seat at risk in Windsor, you suddenly moved with great speed to announce a mega hospital for Windsor. You announced the planning grant there and the millions of dollars in a matter of months.

Dr. Smith’s report has been out for over a year now, and you still won’t answer the basic questions. Now, I caution you: Don’t do what the NDP is doing. They’re trying to be all things to all people, everything under the sun. Their main motive? Protecting the seat of the member from Welland, as opposed to what’s in the best interests of health care for the people in Niagara region. I know the game they’re playing; I just want to know what you’re playing.

You did for Windsor during a by-election. Whatever the cause, by-election or not, it’s the right thing to do. Will you green-light that plan—

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

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m just going to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition talk to some of his colleagues who actually have been proud to be at the opening of hospitals in their communities.

Maybe you could speak to the member from Barrie. He was there and happy to be at the opening of that hospital.

The member from Cambridge, I think, will be very pleased with the redevelopment moving ahead in Cambridge.

Just yesterday, I was in Burlington with the member from Burlington—a Conservative member—where we talked about re-scoping the project at Burlington so they will have a brand new emergency department, a seven-storey tower. This is all good news.

I’ve been in Milton with the member from Halton, who has been very pleased to be there for the ground-breaking or the ribbon-cutting, whatever it is.

We are building hospitals across this province. Welcome to the party—a little bit late, but welcome.

LONG-TERM CARE

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Recent reports from Hamilton tell us that our area is among the worst in Ontario when it comes to seniors finding a space in a long-term-care home.

In the Hamilton area, seniors can expect to wait up to three and a half years to get placed. They’re being subjected to terrible stress and crisis before being forced to jump through never-ending hoops in order to get the care they need. The local CCAC has said that their hands are tied by government legislation. Is the minister going to address the problems that are forcing seniors into homelessness and other terrible situations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I would be very interested if there were cases of seniors being forced into homelessness. I would hope that the member opposite would bring that to my attention.

I think it’s important to note that yes, there is a wait for long-term care. But thankfully, as a result of the superb work that is being done by our LHINs, our CCACs and the organ