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

November 7, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-07 (PDF)

L084 - Thu 7 Nov 2013 / Jeu 7 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 November 2013 Jeudi 7 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

MANUFACTURING JOBS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

CANCER TREATMENT

EDUCATION

PAN AM GAMES

NUCLEAR WASTE

ELDER ABUSE

CANCER TREATMENT

CATARACT SURGERY

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

ENERGY RATES

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

LEGAL AID

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

VETERANS

BRITISH HOME CHILD DAY

HYDRO INFRASTRUCTURE

ANGUS MACKAY WILSON

FARM FAMILY OF THE YEAR

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(EMPLOYEE RIGHTS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(DROITS DES EMPLOYÉ

S) STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

AND FISCAL REVIEW /

PERSPECTIVES ÉCONOMIQUES

ET REVUE FINANCIÈRE

PETITIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

DISTRACTED DRIVING

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

MINIMUM WAGE

WASTE REDUCTION

CANCER TREATMENT

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

AIR-RAIL LINK

AIR QUALITY

VISITORS

REMEMBRANCE DAY

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES /

VÉHICULES TOUT TERRAIN

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT OF

WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

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

MEDICAL RECORDS

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT OF

WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

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

MEDICAL RECORDS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

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 6, 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. Peggy Sattler: I am honoured to stand in this assembly on behalf of my constituents in London West today to deliver my inaugural speech. I think I’m the last of the gang of five, as I’ve heard some people refer to us—affectionately, of course.

I want to begin by thanking the people of London West for the trust they have placed in me and their willingness to empower me as their voice. It’s an enormous responsibility and one that I take very seriously. I also want to thank the hundreds of volunteers who worked so hard on my behalf, who spent countless hours knocking on doors, putting up signs, distributing leaflets and talking to voters on the phone.

Special thanks to my NDP caucus colleagues, who took time out of their incredibly busy schedules—and I’ve come to realize over the last few months just how busy their schedules are—to come to London and help in my campaign. I can tell you that the motivation, the enthusiasm, the dedication of our volunteers was perhaps the single most important factor in my by-election success.

But there are other key factors that made a huge difference and contributed to my being here today. In particular, I want to thank NDP leader Andrea Horwath for her efforts in London West, not just during the by-election but in the many months leading up to the campaign. Her regular questions in the Legislature about London issues, her frequent visits to our community and her commitment to getting results for the people of Ontario were noticed by the voters of London West. And although the people of London West did not have a history of voting NDP, they had a strong desire for change. They liked what they saw in Andrea Horwath and the Ontario NDP.

They also liked what they saw in me, as a working mother and professional policy researcher, a person of integrity who had served for 13 years as a trustee on the Thames Valley District School Board, whose roots in the community were deep and whose motivations for entering public life were clear.

One of the things I heard most often during the campaign was people’s lack of trust in politicians at all levels of government, and I can’t imagine what I would hear now with the auditor’s report on the gas plants, the Senate suspensions and other recent events. But when I decided to put my name forward, I wanted to challenge the cynicism that so many people feel about politics. I wanted to show that principle and integrity can trump political self-interest. This was, in fact, what led me to declare as a candidate for the NDP.

In particular, it was the imposition of Bill 115, the politically motivated attempt to gut collective agreements and flex some muscle against public sector unions, that became the tipping point in my decision to run for provincial office. I know that Bill 115 was an important factor in the election of my friend and former trustee colleague, the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, and it is in many ways the elephant in the room for the bill we are debating this morning, Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Bill 115 was the Liberals’ final offer during the last round of collective bargaining, if what happened last spring could be called bargaining at all. Bargaining is supposed to be a process in which both sides bring issues to the table and negotiate and discuss about the priorities they want to achieve. It is a process of give and take, in which both sides recognize that they may have to give a little here to move forward in other areas. This is not what happened last spring.

Instead, the Liberals placed a series of non-negotiable items on the table and said to both unions and school boards, “Take it or leave it, and if you don’t take it, we’re going to force you to take it by legislating collective agreements.” I know all this because I was there. I was there as a trustee and former chair of a school board, and I was there as a member of the executive of the Ontario Public School Boards Association. I was, quite frankly, appalled by the government’s willingness to risk all the gains that had been made in public education over the years and to throw our system and our students into turmoil.

I don’t mind saying that gains had been made in public education, particularly since the crisis under Mike Harris and the Tories, because I am someone who believes in acknowledging when good ideas come forward, regardless of which party they come from, if those ideas are going to improve the lives of the people of this province. In fact, I was ready to leave partisan politics back in 1995, when I moved to London with my husband, who is a political science professor at Huron University College, after having worked as a political staffer to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations during the NDP government.

My brother, who is now 50 and lives at home with my dad, has an intellectual disability. It was the experience of growing up with him, and seeing the bullying he went through at school and my mother’s efforts to advocate on his behalf, that contributed to my interest in public education and my commitment to ensuring that students have the supports they need to be successful. It was also what drew me to the NDP, the party most committed to the full participation of people with disabilities.

I joined the NDP when I was doing my master’s in political science at McMaster University, and became involved in the 1987 federal by-election in Hamilton Mountain. As a young woman, I was inspired by NDP candidate and former Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar, who became the first of many strong women mentors for me. Marion ran successfully in that by-election and offered me a job on Parliament Hill.

After three years in Ottawa, I came here to Queen’s Park in 1990 to work in the minister’s office with Marilyn Churley, another important mentor for me and someone who later broke new ground for women across Canada as Ontario’s first woman Deputy Speaker.

Following the 1995 election, we moved to London, where I was able to spend some time at home with my family. My son was a toddler at the time, and I had a brand new infant daughter. I also returned to school for a postgraduate certificate at Fanshawe College and embarked on a career as a communications consultant and, later, policy researcher. For the past decade, I have worked at Academica Group, a private sector research firm located in London West.

When my son started JK in 1997, I was excited about taking on a new role as a parent and becoming involved in my school community. But I was shocked and dismayed by the chaos created in education by the Harris government’s radical overhaul of school board governance and education funding.

When the first post-amalgamation election was held in 2000, I decided to run for the Thames Valley District School Board. I was proud to work with trustees across the province to advocate for students, including Premier Wynne and Minister Sandals, who were both trustees at the time, in opposing the Harris cuts and demanding that public education be adequately funded.

But of all the initiatives I’ve worked on over my years at the school board, I’m proudest of the work I did on behalf of LGBT students in 2003, who held a protest on the lawn of the school board because they did not feel safe in our schools. This was before same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada and long before the province legislated gay-straight alliances. To address the student concerns, I led an ad hoc committee that developed a comprehensive action plan, including GSAs, to address discrimination against LGBT students.

At the board, I’ve had a long-standing interest in the needs of marginalized and at-risk youth, and sat for many years on the special education advisory committee and the First Nations advisory committee.

I also had the opportunity to meet regularly with area MPPs, and I have to say how impressed I consistently was by the interest and commitment to public education that was shown by MPPs from all three parties. In particular, I want to acknowledge the member from London–Fanshawe, now my colleague in the NDP caucus; the Minister of Health, who is also the member from London North Centre; the member from Oxford, Uncle Ernie; the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London; and the former member from London West, Chris Bentley—who all took the time to come to meetings with trustees to hear the school board perspective on provincial issues and to take the concerns forward to Queen’s Park.

As the new member for London West, I want to thank former MPP Chris Bentley for his 10 years of dedicated service to our community. During the by-election, I heard lots of concerns about the gas plants and the Liberals’ record in government, but at the same time, people also told me about the respect they had for Chris Bentley as a person and as someone who was active and involved and committed to his community.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues that were top of mind for people during the by-election and the issues on which the voters of London West expect to see their government take action. London West is largely a residential community with higher-than-average income levels and higher-than-average levels of education. It has many unique neighbourhoods that are known for their strong sense of community and civic engagement, with residents who come together to celebrate and collaborate on community projects.

It includes London’s largest urban green space, Springbank Park, the setting for many charitable walks and community picnics that demonstrate the spirit of generosity and volunteerism that is the core of London West.

The riding is also enriched by the many immigrants and new Canadians, primarily from the Latino and Muslim communities, who share their culture and traditions and strengthen intercultural dialogue and exchange.

Many of the residents of my riding are white-collar professionals and knowledge-economy workers employed in MUSH sector jobs in municipal offices, the university, schools and hospitals. London lays claim to several world-class medical research facilities as well as the high-profile post-secondary institutions of Western University and Fanshawe College. I’m proud to say I’m a graduate of both.

Although the riding does not have a large number of manufacturing firms, many manufacturing sector workers live within its boundaries and have been hard hit by manufacturing job losses following the 2008 recession. Just yesterday, I received a phone call from a constituent whose daughter was laid off by Kellogg’s after 30 years in the factory. Now 50 years old, this woman is worried about whether she will be able to find another job at all and how in the world she’s going to manage until retirement.

The riding is also home to many retail and service sector workers, now called the new “precariat,” who are struggling to make ends meet in low-wage, precarious employment.

As with many urban centres, there is also growing income polarization within the riding. There are areas of great affluence side by side with neighbourhoods made up almost entirely of public housing. My colleague John Vanthof knows something about that. The residents in these complexes face deeply rooted challenges of poverty, ill health and unemployment. I want to thank John for the day he spent canvassing with me.

There are clusters of apartment buildings filled with recent newcomers who face all the challenges involved in settlement and immigrant integration, as well as the barriers to employment created by lack of recognition of their professional skills and educational credentials.

But most of the riding is made up of middle-class neighbourhoods with families who are caught in the dual squeeze of caring for aging parents and raising their children. Too many of these families are seeing their kids graduate from post-secondary education without any prospects for work in London or indeed anywhere in southern Ontario.

As MPP for London West, I’m excited about the opportunity to participate in developing solutions to some of these challenges by applying the research I’ve been involved in as director of policy at Academica Group. Working in the private sector, in a firm with less than 20 staff, my experience at Academica Group has given me insights into some of the challenges facing the small business community. With much of my research focused on post-secondary education and the labour market, I bring detailed knowledge of issues related to youth employment and transitions from school to work.

For too long, Ontario’s approach to bridging students from education to the labour market has been haphazard and inconsistent. For the past three years, I’ve been leading a multi-phase project for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, or HEQCO, involving 14 Ontario post-secondary institutions. The project looked at issues around post-secondary work-integrated learning programs, such as co-ops, internships, field placements, practicums and service learning.

Using data gathered from employers, faculty and post-secondary graduates, the study is identifying the kinds of supports needed by employers to offer work-integrated learning opportunities to students, and the supports needed by students to enable them to apply their learning to real-world experiences and to critically reflect on their experiences when they return to the classroom.

I’ve also been working locally with the London Economic Development Corp. and the Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning and Development Board on an innovative local labour market information project that will be launched in the very near future. The project brings together stakeholders from business, education, employment service providers and government and uses best practices identified by the OECD to better utilize skills in the local economy.

I want to mention two other projects I worked on that had great meaning for me and offered policy insights that I will take forward as MPP. One was a study of bridging programs for internationally trained professionals, programs that helped them bridge the gaps in their foreign qualifications and meet the criteria to practise their skills in Ontario. Another was a series of advocacy and awareness initiatives to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities.

In addition to these policy priorities, I am also excited about being able to support some of the incredible things that are happening in London right now that have the potential to transform our local economy, given the right kinds of government and community investments.

Recently, I had the privilege of meeting with people in our community who are truly change agents, along with NDP leader Andrea Horwath and the member from London–Fanshawe. We met with the board of Emerging Leaders, a community-led initiative that is focused on the retention, development and engagement of young people aged 20 to 44, to create a more vibrant, inclusive and dynamic London community.

We also met with representatives from the London Youth Advisory Council, an elected municipal body with the mandate to engage and empower youth and to give young people between the ages of 15 and 25 a voice in building a better city.

Emerging Leaders and the London Youth Advisory Council have launched a campaign urging local employers to hire young people without requiring them to have three to five years of work experience. This recognizes that today’s young people are better educated than all previous generations, but are caught in a Catch-22 of “can’t get a job without experience” and “Can’t get experience without a job.”

We also met with representatives of Pillar Nonprofit Network, which works on behalf of more than 300 London non-profits to support cross-sector collaboration between the private sector, the public sector and civil society groups as a means of addressing poverty, fostering social innovation and increasing the collective impact of non-profit organizations in London.

Pillar is leading an effort to grow the social economy—that is, businesses with a social purpose—which, as we know, is not only a vital component of a dynamic economic development strategy, but is also one of the best ways to create jobs for youth and marginalized workers, while addressing human, environmental and community needs.

I want to thank MPPs on all sides of this House for the warm welcome you have given me since I first arrived in this place, and in particular, my NDP caucus colleagues. I’m looking forward to working with MPPs from all parties, and I’ve seen some of the consensus that has been achieved when we work hard on legislation to identify some common ground and move forward to achieve common goals.

I am committed to putting in place a robust policy framework that will enable the social economy to thrive, ensure that quality health care services are there when people need them, enable seniors to age with dignity in their own homes or in quality long-term-care facilities, and create an inclusive economy which everyone can participate in and benefit from. Thank you very much, Speaker.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: It really is refreshing, and also hopeful, listening to the member from London West. She obviously is a very dedicated, committed representative of her riding. What’s refreshing about what she said is that—too many times in politics, we see people present themselves as candidates, and when I ask them all, “What did do you in your community? What did you do?” “Well, no, I want to be elected.” This member from London West obviously has a proven track record of fighting for what she believes in. She’s passionate and also very knowledgeable.

So I think the people of London West, despite that it’s not our party—I think she’s going to add a lot to this Legislature, and I think she’s going to do a lot of good work for the people of London West, because she has the knowledge, the commitment and the attitude that we’re here in this place to find common ground and to get things done for the people of whether it be London West or all of Ontario.

As you know, for too many days in this Legislature—most of the time, sadly, is being spent on playing political games. That does not benefit the people of London West; it doesn’t benefit the people of Ontario. As she listed, there are so many issues facing the people of London West, as are facing all of our ridings. The work we’ve got to do is to get a handle on those issues to benefit the people. I’ve been here for a number of years, and I can tell you I am still hopeful that we can do a lot of good. There’s amazing power in this Legislature to do good. That’s what we should be concentrating on.

If we can get that kind of attitude demonstrated by the member from London West and her knowledge—I think there’s a lot of beneficial results for the people, whether it be in education, whether it be for people in need. So I want to congratulate the member for her very meaningful speech.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I want to first of all congratulate the member for London West on her maiden speech. One of my favourite times in this Legislature is to sit and listen to folks who are new to this place give their perspective and offer their thanks to the voters who entrusted them. I think we all share one thing here: As 107 men and women, we are entrusted by our constituents to represent them, and to represent them well.

I think this is an opportunity for us to share a little bit of insight into ourselves, when we provide our maiden speeches, and I got a little bit of an insight on the new member from London West, her background, her experience and some of her interests. But most importantly, I think what we all can aspire to do in this Legislature—is that we’re here to represent our constituents. What I heard in the member from London West’s speech today is that she intends to do exactly that.

I think that sometimes in the cut and thrust of debate in this Legislature we actually forget a little bit about why we were sent here and who we are here to represent. Each and every day that I stand in my place as the member for Cambridge, I have to remind myself that this is about not myself and not my political party but about the people that I represent.

I hope that the member for London West—I think she obviously shares that perspective and shares that commitment to her constituents, much like each member of this Legislature, 107 of us, who had to do the same thing: seek election, do the cut and thrust of debate through that process and finally have the opportunity and privilege to serve in this wonderful, wonderful place.

So I want to congratulate the member from London West on her election and on her contributions to this place and to the debate that we’re going to have now and in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I am so thrilled and very proud to stand here today and welcome the member from London West, and congratulate her for a wonderful speech. It was very informative and educational, and I learned a lot of things about the member today, more than I have since I met her.

I also want to say that I’m very honoured that she is here, because I know she is going to represent London West constituents 100%. Her dedication and commitment to her job are very well received, and it’s very evident that that’s what she is here for. She’s here to work for the people, and she’s here to get results. That’s what our party has been doing—since we’ve been elected in 2011. We’re here to make sure that life gets better for the people of Ontario.

I’m also very proud of the fact that the NDP is one of the only parties here in the Legislature—the only one, I should correct myself—that has almost 50% representation of women. We know that it’s very difficult for women to make those decisions to run in politics, because they do have that juggling act of being a mother, a wife, a partner, a career person—and those things are difficult—and it takes a lot of gumption to run for office. I know that women have a difficult time to make that decision, when they’re asked to run, but I think the face of politics is better when women are involved.

So again, I say congratulations and welcome to the Legislature. You’re a wonderful addition to the team. I know that all the colleagues here in the House—and it sounds like all parties—are very enthusiastic to have you here, and we appreciate that you said “yes” and won the by-election. We look forward to you doing a lot of things in the Legislature for the people of London West.

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

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I would like to begin by also congratulating the member from London West on her maiden speech, and again, like the member for London–Fanshawe said, I learned a lot about you. I’m very impressed by your record of service and the experience you bring. Especially, I did not know that you were a school trustee. That certainly brings a new lens to the debate we are having on the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2013. I know that you will be able to bring a wealth of perspective to this, having worked in the trenches in the education sector. So thank you so much and, once again, congratulations. I wish you very well.

I do want to spend a few minutes speaking about Bill 122. At its core, it’s very simple: If I’m paying for something, I want to have a say in how it’s spent. That’s what this is about. This is about giving the province of Ontario, which is the primary funder, in fact the only funder, of public school education, both the Catholic and the public school sectors in Ontario—there is no formal role in bargaining for the province, and that is what this act seeks to do. What it’s seeking to do is say that there are three stakeholders in this: There are the employer groups, there are the employee groups, and then there is the funder, which happens to be the province of Ontario.

This is much-required clarity. I mean, we’ve been at the table in an informal way, and sometimes it has worked and sometimes it hasn’t worked. It’s important to learn from the past and build on it, and that is what this bill does. So I’m very pleased that we have brought this forward. It’s a made-in-Ontario model. It is unique. It is tailored to our special needs, our funding model. It’s much needed, and I believe we need to bring it in place before the next round of bargaining within the school system occurs. I look forward to support from all parties.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, the member from Cambridge, the member from London–Fanshawe and the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for the wonderfully kind comments you made. I feel somewhat at a disadvantage, because you now know all about me and I’m going to have to look through Hansard to find out the same things about you. But many of the comments you made apply equally to everyone in this House.

Collectively working together, finding that common ground, we can do good, as the member from Eglinton–Lawrence said, and we can represent our constituents with integrity, with principle and with a commitment to bringing forward the concerns that matter to the people who live in our communities.

I want to acknowledge the comments that were made by the member from London–Fanshawe about the importance of electing women to public office and the obligation that all of us have, as women legislators, to mentor young women and encourage them to recognize that they have a voice, that they have a role to play in public life—because it is challenging for women to want to enter the cut and thrust of politics. It can be intimidating and it may not be an environment that women feel particularly comfortable in.

As the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville said, we all bring incredibly rich and varied experiences and backgrounds to this place. Together, we are making democracy better when we have that exchange of ideas and opinions across the House and work together to do good things for the people of this province.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Trevor Day): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

An Act respecting the Human Resources Professionals Association / Loi concernant l’Association des professionnels en ressources humaines.

An Act to enact the Local Food Act, 2013 and to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to provide for a tax credit to farmers for donating certain agricultural products that they have produced / Loi édictant la Loi de 2013 sur les aliments locaux et modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour prévoir un crédit d’impôt pour les agriculteurs qui font don de certains produits agricoles qu’ils ont produits.

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device / Loi visant à mieux protéger les consommateurs en ce qui concerne les conventions de consommation portant sur les services sans fil accessibles au moyen d’un téléphone cellulaire, d’un téléphone intelligent ou de tout autre appareil mobile semblable.

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act and the Legislative Assembly Act in relation to accommodation allowances / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif et la

Loi sur l’Assemblée législative en ce qui concerne les allocations de logement.

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, at the start, I’d just like to say that I’ll be sharing my time with the Minister of Labour.

Before I get under way, I want to join with my colleagues in complimenting the member for London West on her excellent maiden speech. We welcome her. She’s been a fine member. Her contributions in the Legislature have always been positive and constructive and well-researched ones, and I think this is the kind of member that gives all elected members a good name.

Applause.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Thank you for that thunderous applause.

Speaker, we’re here to talk about Bill 122. Bill 122 is a continuing step forward in the evolution of a process, a process to do something that is by its definition very, very difficult. If passed, the legislation would create central tables where government trustee associations and unions or teacher federations could resolve monetary and policy issues in collective free bargaining.

There is some urgency to do this. Virtually all collective agreements in the education sector will expire next year—August 31, 2014.

Now, to put some scope on what I said earlier, that this is a large and complex problem, there are some 472 different collective agreements covering 127,000 full-time-equivalent regular teachers, an unspecified number of occasional teachers and 67,000 unionized support staff. This speaks to the need to be able to approach this very large and very important set of collective bargaining with a much better approach than we’ve had in the past.

The intent is to have the boards and their unions be able to resolve local issues in free local collective bargaining. If passed, the legislation would create two strike or lockout windows at the provincial level and at the local level. If passed, the legislation would also provide for three-way ratification at the central level by the government of Ontario, trustee associations and unions.

Again, if passed, the legislation would establish the following central employer bargaining representatives: l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques, l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association and the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

This is important because as Ontario has developed, we’ve also evolved forward in the manner in which we’ve approached that collective bargaining. Since some 15 years ago, local school boards have had little authority to directly levy taxation and, as such, to generate local funding. However, those same boards have retained sole authority to bargain collective agreements. So it speaks to the essential need for both resources and responsibility in this.

The province provides the funding for the sector but, conversely, has no statutory authority to participate in collective bargaining. As a result, this framework, undertaken with the best intentions of two governments, ours and the one that preceded us, has produced some real confusion about the roles and responsibilities between school boards, between trustee associations and the government.

Under the existing framework, flawed as it was, the government offered three voluntary provincial discussion tables, in 2004, 2008 and 2012. Last year, in 2012, some parties chose not to participate in the provincial discussion table, and it resulted, in August 2012, in the government enacting the Putting Students First Act that, in the end, imposed collective agreements on the education sector.

This was an outcome that no one sought, it was an outcome that no one was happy with, and it’s an outcome that, very frankly, this legislation, if enacted, would seek to mitigate by providing a means for the different parties to arrive at reasonable, fair consensus to produce a better-quality collective agreement and, very frankly, one with a better process.

Early in 2013, this year, the government began discussions with the parties to agree to new terms outlined in a series of memoranda of understanding to be appended to the 2012-14 collective agreements.

I’m sure that the Minister of Labour has many more enlightening comments to offer, and I thank you very much for the time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak.

I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for his comments on this very important bill, Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2013.

First of all, Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Education for her commitment and dedication and extremely hard work on drafting this particular bill. I speak at first hand, given the close proximity in which the Ministry of Labour worked with the Ministry of Education in the whole consultation process with our partners in education and also the labour relations expert board within the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Education in crafting this particular bill.

There was quite an unprecedented level of close collaboration that went into the drafting of the bill, because we really wanted to make sure that the bill reflects the very balanced labour relations that are the hallmark of labour relations in Ontario, especially under this government over the last 10 years.

Therefore, quite an effort and due diligence was put into the consultation phase and then the drafting of this bill to ensure that from a labour relations view, all the key elements that are outlined for a balanced labour relations system in the Ontario Labour Relations Act are maintained and reflected in this bill.

I want to thank the Minister of Education. Not only did she bring her own expertise on this file as a former school board trustee, but she really went out of her way to seek the advice of the Ministry of Labour to make sure that we’ve got the right balance in this particular bill.

I also want to thank all our education partners—the teachers’ federations, the school board associations, the trustee associations—for their hard work and good advice as this bill was crafted, because we wanted to make sure that all partners are working together in getting the right balance, in getting the right piece of legislation, a process that really will help advance our cause of a better education system in Ontario. I feel that this bill really does accomplish that.

Full-day kindergarten alone is making a tremendous impact. I’ve had the opportunity to speak to many parents, in my community of Ottawa Centre, whose children are going to full-day kindergarten. It’s interesting to talk to those parents who have one child who went to a half-day program and one child now going to the full-day program. They will tell you themselves the great difference they’re seeing in the development of their children.

The child who is going to full-day kindergarten—his or her skill set, his or her competencies in social behaviour, in the learning of different things as a four- or five-year-old is tremendous. Parents know these differences and they are able to share that with you, and it’s very heartening to see that.

I’ve got about 75% of the schools in my community of Ottawa Centre now offering full-day kindergarten, and there is a lot of excitement around that program. In fact, parents in the remaining 25% of schools which will be offering full-day kindergarten in the next academic year ask me often when that is going to happen, because they want the opportunity for their children to be able to attend full-day kindergarten.

Not to mention the kind of investments we’ve made in making sure that we have good school facilities—in the city of Ottawa alone, since 2003 we have built, renovated or expanded about 40 schools. That is just a tremendous investment, and I thank the Ministry of Education for really having confidence in my community of Ottawa and being able to create a world-class education system, amazing schools and facilities that are giving a whole new, great opportunity for our children to grow.

We want to make sure that those successes continue to grow, and in order for those successes to continue, we need to make sure that we have strong labour relations within our school system, that we remain on the path of strong partnership with our teachers and with our education support workers so that that level of quality of education, that focus on children remains very much part and parcel of our education system. I think that is the real foundation, that is the real glue that makes our education system succeed.

The key element of this particular bill, Bill 122, is to ensure that we have fair and balanced labour relations so that we can continue on that particular path. I’m really proud that our government has worked hard to restore fairness and balance in labour relations over the past 10 years, repairing the relationships that were broken before our government came into office. The result is that 97% of labour contracts in Ontario are now settled without disruptions. That is a remarkable achievement and a record that we need to continue to go on.

This bill in particular is a great example of what can be accomplished when parties work together. We want to ensure that Ontario’s education system remains one of the best in the world, and our goal is to improve student achievement and well-being and take our education system from great to excellent while ensuring long-term financial sustainability.

As I mentioned earlier, our respective ministries, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Education, worked very closely, and we’re really proud at the Ministry of Labour to be able to assist in helping develop a model that is outlined in this particular bill that will work for Ontario’s education system and make sure that our children succeed.

Speaker, this proposed legislation is needed to create central tables for collective bargaining with formal rules for the province, trustee associations, school boards, teacher federations and support staff unions. By creating a formal provincial level of bargaining, recognizing the unique roles of each party, this legislation would ensure a stable framework for labour negotiations that will ensure a fair and binding process that is clear to all parties.

So what is this bill trying to do if it is passed? The proposed legislation would create two tiers of bargaining. At the central tier, the government and the trustee associations form a management team to bargain central agreements with unions. At the local tier, the local school boards and their employees would bargain local agreements.

So one key, fundamental element of this particular piece of legislation is having two tiers of bargaining, one at the central level, where government is very much part and parcel working along with trustee associations and, of course, then the second tier, which is at a local level, where local school board trustees are negotiating with local teacher federations.

The second key element of this bill is to create a formal role for the government at the table. The proposed role will allow the government to formulate mandates in partnership with the trustee association and to participate in central bargaining on the key issues. That’s a very important step, Speaker, because up to now, as you may know, the government’s role was not formalized.

Up to now, the last three rounds of negotiations, if you look at it—when the central bargaining took place, that was totally on a voluntary basis, where the government, as the funder, invited all parties to come around the table and was able to negotiate. That’s how the 2004 negotiations were done; that’s how 2008 was done. They worked in those two instances. We know that in 2011 we tried to do the same thing, and it did not exactly take shape the way that it did in the first two rounds of negotiations.

What we are doing through this bill is formalizing that whole process, central bargaining, and formalizing the role for government as the funder in that negotiating process around the table as well, which is key.

The third thing this bill does is to establish trustee associations as the statutory central employer bargaining agents for each of their respective sectors for the purposes of central bargaining—again, a very important role for trustee associations, making sure that that local voice is present at the central level, working along with the government as a joint management team representing the point of view of the employer.

Lastly, in terms of a key feature of this bill, it’s that it creates a three-way ratification of central agreements between the government, trustee associations and unions. In other words, all three parties—the government, trustee associations and the unions—would have to ratify the agreement in order for it to pass. Again, it’s a difference from how the system has worked in the past, where the only two parties to the agreement were the trustee associations—the local school boards, in essence—and the unions. In this case, we’re sort of formalizing what has happened, essentially, in the last three rounds of negotiations and making sure that all three parties have a role to play.

Speaker, this model really helps us ensure that there’s constructive dialogue and that we’re maintaining positive relationships. It really allows for parties to work together—again, keeping in mind that there are balanced labour relations practices that are very much part and parcel of the whole negotiating process. We know through Supreme Court decisions, like the BC health decision and the Fraser decision that emanated out of Ontario, that good-faith bargaining is very much the essence of collective bargaining as a charter right.

We have worked hard, working along with the Ministry of Education, to ensure that all those elements—the constitutional elements, the charter requirements through the Supreme Court in terms of having a process that allows for good-faith bargaining—are very much part and parcel of this bill.

I very much encourage all members of this House to vote in support of this particular bill.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I listened with intent to the Minister of Labour and to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, I believe, who provided some comments on Bill 122. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone can probably explain the nuances of this bill, being a labour piece of legislation, it would be the Minister of Labour. So I expected him to elaborate on some of the details of this.

He touched upon it, I guess, in the second half of his discussion. But in the first half, I noticed that he didn’t really talk about the piece of legislation at all. He talked about full-day kindergarten; he talked about the school system in Ottawa. He talked about many other things that I’m sure the minister agrees are very important to his constituents and to him as a member. But I think the funny part of that, in doing that, is that in talking about the “gains” that the minister was talking about—I mean, all those gains happened before this piece of legislation was formed.

So if the justification is to see these gains succeed, I’m not really sure how that fits in nicely or squares nicely with this piece of legislation.

What it does point to is the fact that the minister, much like myself, wants to talk about these things. He wants to talk about full-day kindergarten. He wants to talk about the plight of his schools in Ottawa. He wants to talk about how we can make improvements to our system. So do I, Mr. Speaker. Yet we’ve had two pieces of legislation, since I’ve been appointed critic for education, that actually do nothing but talk about process, rather than talk about the kinds of reforms and the kinds of things we can do to improve our education system.

That is, in a nutshell, where I see this is going to go. If I can just see how the comments and questions from the Liberals are going to proceed on this—they’re going to talk about their gains, they’re going to talk a little bit about the bill, but the two never square up. We really want to improve our schools, and this bill isn’t really going to do any of that.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we’ve stood down our lead and you will be hearing that lead from our education critic, the member from Toronto–Danforth, shortly—I’m sure next week at some point.

Just some general comments about Bill 122: Obviously, as a caucus, we’re looking at this, we’re talking to stakeholders, we’re looking at possible amendments, ways of making it stronger in terms of support. But the elephant in the room, Mr. Speaker, is truly the state of education in this province. It’s pretty bleak, quite frankly.

On the post-secondary side, I know we’re 10th out of 10 in terms of our investment per capita in our students. We have the highest post-secondary debt. We have the highest tuition fees in the country. That should be something that should shame us daily.

Certainly Bill 115 was more than an embarrassment; it was a direct attack on collective bargaining. That is, of course, what this attempts to rectify.

Also, the chronic underfunding of our schools: Anybody who walks into any school in their riding will see that our schools are—certainly in mine—chronically underfunded. I’m constantly bearing letters from my parents to this administration, begging and pleading for the very basic money they need to keep their schools afloat, and of course they don’t get it. That’s why parents are raising in excess of $500 million a year in fundraising just for the basics for their students.

That’s the central problem here. That’s the core problem of our educational system. It’s something that this government really has not addressed now going into their 11th year here at Queen’s Park. A government that wanted to see itself as the education government has failed miserably on this file, and Bill 122, whatever its strengths or weaknesses, is absolutely not going to deliver in a way that should be delivered on the educational file.

We’ll have more to say on this and the state of our system in the future.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to respond to the comments from the member from Mississauga–Streetsville and the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour mentioned schools in Ottawa—and the minister of francophone affairs said, “I really want to talk about the francophone schools in Ottawa and throughout the province,” because we notice that there are some of the representatives from the francophone school system. What she wanted to convey was how proud she is of the wonderful job that the francophone schools both in her riding and throughout the province are doing, and their astoundingly good results on the provincial test results which they have achieved over the last several years. That was from the minister of francophone affairs.

I wanted to comment, in a way, on something that the member from London West said in her maiden speech—because, like me, she has a background as a school board trustee. She talked about her experience with negotiations, and she talked about the fact that bargaining is a matter of give and take; that when bargaining is working properly there’s compromise, and the compromise leads to solutions.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Labour and his people for being part of exactly that sort of process which led to the creation of Bill 122—because there was a check-in with the various education partners, both on the management side and the union side, facilitated by the officials from the Ministry of Labour. We worked very closely with different people with different points of view, and I think it’s fair to say the unions don’t see everything they wanted to see; the school boards don’t see everything they wanted to see. Quite frankly, the government has made some compromises too. But it is a compromise.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: It is interesting to listen to some of the feedback here on Bill 122.

I’d like to also welcome and thank the member from London West for her inaugural speech this morning. I know how interesting that can be for a member who is new here. She did a great job. Although she’s not here right now to hear, I’m sure she’ll hear—

Interjection: Send her the Hansard.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Send her the Hansard, yes.

Bill 122, as we know, is a very complicated, technical bill. I happen to come from a labour relations background and understand—I’ve sat at the negotiation table many times talking to and negotiating with unions in many different circumstances, some of them better than others, and the one thing I do know is that it is extremely difficult to legislate good negotiations. It is a flowing concept that takes a different life every time you do it. Depending on who the group is that you’re dealing with, depending on the issues of the day, depending on the people who are being represented by the unions—so many different factors factor in.

My concern with Bill 122 is, trying to do too much and trying to fix too much, and then what are we going to end up with in the future? It might work really well this time. But is it going to work the next time, when we have different problems and different pressures on our economy and we have different pressures on our school systems and we have different pressures on our politics, we have different parties in power? There are so many different factors here that I think could render this bill and this effort kind of moot, so my concerns surround that.

We can’t really imprint into time a bill that’s going to guide us for the rest of our days. We need to have more flexibility. We need to certainly not have a bill as technical as this—having negotiators at the table hamstrung trying to figure out which direction they’re going to go.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Labour, you have two minutes.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the members from Cambridge, Parkdale–High Park, Barrie and the Minister of Education for their comments, and they were all good comments in terms of what I was saying. I just want to make two specific comments, Speaker, in response. Number one is that the education system is very much premised on people. It’s a system that is delivered by people for the benefit of people, i.e. young children.

That is why it is extremely important that we have good labour relations in our whole education system—because if we have good labour relations, if we have good working conditions in our schools, you know we will be able to accomplish the goals we have set out in terms of higher student achievement, in narrowing the gap, in making sure that our children are getting the best education possible. If we don’t have good working conditions, if we don’t have solid labour relations, the aspirations towards those goals become that much more difficult.

That is why this bill is very, very important: to make sure that we’ve got a solid foundation within our school system in terms of labour relations so that we can continue on the path of building one of the best education systems in the world, as we have done over the last 10 years with the incredible investments that we have made in our educational system, in partnership with the education workers.

The second point, to the member from Barrie—I think he raises a very good point: You want to have a system in place that can withstand various other factors that may come over time. We feel very strongly that we have provided for that foundation; that what this bill does is it puts a very rigorous process in place that will allow for good-faith bargaining to take place no matter what the political climate or economic situation may be.

That’s a very important thing: that you want to have strong principles in place for collective bargaining so that external factors become irrelevant and it allows for a place, an avenue, to engage in that good-faith bargaining and be able to then result in settlements, in agreements that will provide for a better education for our children.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I just want to remind members of the Legislature—and it’s a gentle reminder—that we should not be making references to people who are not in their seat.

Secondly, on the questions and comments, we should restrict our comments to the previous speaker, not speakers who have gone by. Thank you very much.

Further debate? The member from Barrie.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Thank you, Speaker. I actually do apologize for making that reference. It was inadvertent and meant in a—

Mr. Rob Leone: It was complimentary.

Mr. Rod Jackson: —in compliments rather than the negative.

I already mentioned briefly, in my last two minutes, my concerns with this bill and the fact that I am worried that it has flexibility when we go forward.

As I said before, I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in many negotiations with large unions and some large companies, seeing these things go many different ways, and it is really interesting. Part of the dynamic of a labour negotiation system is the fact that they have the ability to move in different directions, and, in many cases, with little guidance from anyone else other than people at the table.

My concern is, with a bill as technical as this—and in many cases trying to understand it—it adds more difficulty to a system that needs less. When we add a tier of negotiation here, it really does concern me a little bit that more isn’t going to be better, in this case. I always find, especially when you add a tier into a negotiation, you have more people and more confusion about direction, about who’s going where.

I know that every school board in Ontario, and indeed every school board in Canada, has much different pressures on it than on the others. For example, the Toronto District School Board is going to have a much different scale of capacity and certainly much different interests than, say, a school board in far northern Ontario, and they’re going to need a much different set of standards and ideas and dialogue at the table. Those are often best addressed at the local level. Those local people know what their local needs are.

I’m not saying this can’t work, but I’m also saying that we need to be very careful that we don’t try to steer the ship from this building. That can do more damage than good, in many cases. But at the same time, sometimes there needs to be a little bit of guidance, I think, to make sure that we keep things going.

We’ve found, certainly, that the roles of different parties in collective bargaining in the education sector, and the voluntary framework that we’ve had, have run into some problems, and that’s why we’ve come down this road to this bill and some of the issues over Bill 115 and politicizing, in many ways, the negotiation process. I think we’ve seen how that can really damage relationships between those that are negotiating on both sides. It is something that needs to be clarified.

For me, clarity means keeping it simple. All of us have learned from our high school teachers the KISS rule: Keep it simple, stupid. It’s something that we all need to live by, really. The simpler we keep it, the better it is, in many cases. I worry that this complicates something that doesn’t really need to be as complicated as it is.

We also believe that when you have a piece of legislation like this that is recognizing some of the difficulties that have happened in the past, it is very advantageous, if we have something like a sunset clause involved in this legislation, that we’ll actually be able to look back at it and say, “We were able to put some legislation in this year that helped us with the problems we had this year to address some problems from the past. But do you know what? In the future, we’re going to see this going a different way.”

If a sunset clause was included in this legislation, I think it would highly benefit not only all the people who are at the negotiating table on both sides; I think the kids of this province are going to benefit from that too, because we know that their needs change on a very regular basis.

I know the Minister of Labour was mentioning that this is something that will benefit all the people at the table and that we’ve got to remember what the focus is on here. Something that struck me as interesting is: Right away, I thought, “Of course, he’s going to say ‘the kids.’” It wasn’t the first thing out of his mouth, which I found a little bit disturbing. What we really are doing this for, what we really want to achieve with any bill to do with education, is the welfare of our children, the welfare of their education.

I have two young kids; one is 12 and one is 10. They’re both in our school system. They have fantastic teachers who do a great job. I was able to speak with their teachers, actually, the day before yesterday. They do an amazing job, and they’re very happy with it.

I’ve also become very aware of a local family who have some severe issues with the education system, because their child has some special needs. It’s interesting to me because this young man is actually a friend of my son’s. I had no idea he had any sort of special needs, and he does. I fear for this child, because there’s nothing in place in this integrated system that we have for children with many different special needs—and there are many different types of them—to accommodate him.

He’s at the point now where he has had these special needs—when they were diagnosed for a couple of months last year, after he’d been admitted to Sick Children’s Hospital down here in Toronto to take care of them. When he went back to school, he was given an education assistant to help him throughout his day, to maintain his health, and when he was in that position, he did well in school, he was doing well socially; all these sorts of different things he was doing really well in.

Well, at the end of the year, they told him he wasn’t going to have access to his education assistant when he came back to school in September.

So here we have a child that we know can have the tools to succeed if we actually focus on that, if we focus on giving him the tools he needs to bring his potential out to be the next MPP, to be the next doctor or lawyer or tradesperson in our community. Right now, this child’s parents are worried that he’s going to get lost, slip through the cracks and end up back at SickKids fighting for his life.

This is something that, it seems to me, is very simple, but it’s not being addressed by either the school board or the ministry, and it’s one example of many that I know that are out there. We talk about the victory of integrating our kids into our education system, and there are some success stories, but in many cases we’re failing them. We’re failing them because we don’t have the right resources on the front lines of our education system to be able to give them the results that they need to have, and it’s a shame.

It’s not a reflection on the staff who are there; in fact, I believe the staff who are working with these kids, the EAs and the teachers—and if the government was listening, they might get something out of this—actually need more resources. We need to focus on their training, we need to focus on how many of them there are, and even the money.

The distribution of the money that’s going into the education system is appalling. In fact, in Barrie alone, in the Simcoe county district school system, spending increased year over year for the past several years, with a decreased enrolment. So we’re spending more money, less kids going to the school, and yet science programs are being cut at local high schools, schools shut down and a Taj Mahal—if you’ve ever visited the Simcoe County District School Board and been to that building, it’s nicer than this one. It is absolutely beautiful. It’s a Taj Mahal school board office.

Instead of putting a new HVAC system into a school in the heart of downtown Barrie, they replaced the one in the almost brand new school board building. It is quite amazing that the priorities there didn’t match up—and at the same time we’re cutting science classes, cutting music classes. Schools are being shut down in Barrie, in the heart of our downtown, which is the heartbeat and the lifeblood of any city, and then we focus on the backend stuff.

This whole bill is focusing on labour relations with teachers, which I think needs to be focused on—we need to talk about this stuff—but not to the detriment of dealing with the front-line issues that our kids deal with.

In fact, my wife is president of the parent-teacher council of our school, and the amount of work that parents do to keep those schools open, the amount of money they raise for athletic equipment and for landscaping and for signs is amazing. The amount of effort that the parents put into this is great, and thank God we have parents who are willing to put forth their effort and time, away from their jobs in many cases, and sacrifice what they do to get the job done.

It would be really great if this government would focus on those sorts of front-line things too and keep those science classes open and keep some of those great schools in the cores of our cities open so that we can attract more people to live in the places that we need them to live in in our cities, which is in the middle of them, not on the outskirts of them, especially in a city like Barrie.

It’s something we need to really focus on in the big picture—and make sure that we focus on children with special needs. We spent years, since the 1970s, integrating these kids into our system so they could live integrated, productive lives in our communities, and they’re not. They’ve been integrated, but they’re not being given the right potential and the right tools to be able to succeed—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome in the House today a group of women who are visiting Hamilton as part of the women’s exchange program of Canada World Youth. They come from Nicaragua, Honduras and various communities across Canada. Please help me welcome—and bear with me—Carmen Acunia, Deema Sierra, Ena Rodriguez, Grisselda Hernandez, Gyneska Velaski, Judith Gutiérrez, Karen Nenio, Krystal Alicia Bell, Maria Urbina, Mirian Bermudez—they’re going to hate me after this, Speaker—Neweme Lowhando, Nubia Melara, Teanna Ducharme, Ambar Deras, Karen Molina and Kelsey Pinch.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I call members’ attention to the members’ east gallery. It’s my pleasure to introduce a very good friend and my mentor, former Mississauga North MPP Steven Offer, on the day that both of us have served 10 years and 37 days in the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce my new legislative assistant, Sara Cleland.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s my pleasure today to welcome Mr. David Tanovich, who is with us in the gallery. David teaches law at the University of Windsor, but, more importantly, he’s the father of page Evan Tanovich. Welcome, David.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome the family of page Arianna Dossa—mother, Dinar Dossa; father, Farid Dossa; and younger sister Hannah Dossa—to the Legislature today, from the great riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. Welcome.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s my pleasure to introduce page Phoebe Gao from my riding of Carleton–Mississippi Mills. Her parents are here today in the members’ gallery: Xiang Sun, Wei Gao—and her brother Leo Gao.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure to introduce page Aiden Wong’s mother, Samantha, and his sister Holly Wong, from Richmond Hill, visiting the House.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to introduce, in the gallery, Carol Jolin, representing AEFO, which is the francophone teachers of Ontario. Welcome, Carol.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: It’s my pleasure this morning to welcome Haicen Zhang and Yali Liu, the father and friend of today’s page captain, Christina Zhang from Windsor West. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to introduce, in the gallery, Jeff Mole, who is a community energy planning consultant. I understand he’s here to meet with several MPPs today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is the tradition of the House, I would like to welcome to the members’ gallery Mr. Steve Offer, former MPP for Mississauga North in the 33rd, 34th and 35th Parliaments, and Solicitor General for the 34th Parliament. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. It looks like my question will be for the Acting Premier this morning.

You hired Don Drummond to map the way out of the financial mess that you got us into. He told us that to balance the budget will require “tough decisions,” and “most of the burden must fall on spending.”

Now we understand that your plan is to shift the focus from restraint and go on a spending spree. Any family having trouble paying their bills knows that you don’t run out and buy a swimming pool. What you’re proposing over on that side is absolutely preposterous. You’re using your MasterCard to pay off your Visa and your Visa to pay off your MasterCard. How do you expect people to believe you can balance the budget by 2017-18?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the Premier has said on many occasions, we are implementing Drummond’s recommendations. In fact, we’ve implemented 60% of them.

What is absolutely preposterous is when they stand up and say, “Implement Drummond; implement Drummond,” and then when we do implement Drummond, they oppose us every single step of the way.

At the Ministry of Health, we made changes to physio; you objected to that every step of the way. We worked to bring down the price of drugs; you objected every step of the way. We had tough negotiations with physicians; you objected every step of the way. You’ve got to choose a lane.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: That’s rich, considering this government added $20 billion to our debt this year alone—just this year. When Moody’s downgraded you, they also said that if you don’t stabilize the debt burden, you will risk another credit downgrade.

You say you’re going to spend and grow your way to balance, but the Bank of Canada just two weeks ago told us that Ontario will not meet our growth projections for this year, or for the next. You’re not fooling anyone.

We’re not the only ones who have seen through this fiscal facade. Yesterday, the revered Wall Street Journal reported that Ontario’s fiscal situation is worse than California’s, and the province will have trouble hitting its deficit target. And that’s before your new spending announcement of yesterday.

Acting Premier, will you please tell us: Is the Wall Street Journal wrong in their forecast?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a real difference between the opposition party and ourselves because, do you know what, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They have chosen to focus everything on reaching that zero deficit. We have chosen to grow the economy. We have chosen jobs. We believe that the way to economic strength, the way to balance, is through growth, through jobs, through prosperity. We’re still on track to balance, but I tell you, our Holy Grail is investing in our people, investing in our infrastructure and having a dynamic, thriving business community.

They only thing they care about is the deficit; we’re not like that.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The Wall Street Journal isn’t the only respected outlet who’s not buying this line from you, Acting Premier. The Globe and Mail, this week, called your plan to encourage corporate investment “equal parts lunacy, desperation and a return to failed 1970s-style state planning.” That’s the Globe and Mail. The Globe also said, “There is a very clear sense in which the Ontario government is playing ‘blame the victim’ for the sorry state of the provincial economy”—not your own problem. These are hardly ringing endorsements; they’re condemnations.

Now is not the time to play riverboat gambler with Ontario’s finances. We need real leadership to return to prosperity.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Will you admit that you’re in over your head and you just are not up to this job?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not get attention for you to start.

Acting Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our priority is clear. We’re focused on creating great jobs, attracting great jobs, and we’re focused on helping support middle-class families and protecting key services. That’s our priority.

What people like the members opposite don’t understand is that achieving that zero deficit is—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —no victory if it means that people don’t have jobs.

Interjection.

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

New question.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question, as well, is to the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday, the Liberals survived a Progressive Conservative motion on the gas plants—thanks again to the NDP for sitting on their hands, abstaining and choosing, of course, the Liberal Party over the people of Ontario.

Together, the NDP and the Liberals have accomplished a great deal together. They doubled the debt in the past 10 years to $270 billion. They ran a $12-billion deficit. They voted to ensure that the horse racing industry would be destroyed in Ontario. They’re keeping one million Ontarians from being gainfully employed. And there’s one other thing that they’ve done together: They have found the OPP—in order to have investigations into the gas plant scandal and into the Ornge fiasco.

This marriage between the Liberals and the NDP has been utterly catastrophic for the people of Ontario. Will the Deputy Premier pull her party out of a coalition with the NDP and actually face the people and get a mandate for themselves?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, our Premier has made it very clear that we are working very hard to find common ground. The voters of this province sent a minority government to Queen’s Park, and we are working to make minority government work. That means working with the opposition party sometimes. It means working with the NDP sometimes.

Our job is to make this government work, and that means working with both opposition parties so we can continue to improve the lives of the people in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Well, this Liberal government only survives because of the help of the NDP. That’s why we have a high jobless rate. It’s why we have a high deficit. It’s why we have a high debt. It’s why we have disastrous energy policies—all aided and abetted by the NDP.

But the $1.1-billion scandal with the gas plants in Oakville is exactly what the Ontario public is the most angry about. They can’t understand why this Liberal government sat in its place for two years and said the cancellation was only $40 million when that party over there knew for over two years that it would be over $700 million, close to a billion dollars, which it finally rang into. They also can’t understand why the Premier of the province handed over bargaining rights to TCE and why they obstructed the Information and Privacy Commissioner and chose the more expensive location. But we know that we are all on the hook for a $1.1-billion tab.

Will the Liberals finally start to listen to the people of Ontario and seek a mandate from them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member will know, speaking of the Oakville gas plant, that the Premier initiated the Auditor General. The Auditor General did her work. She came in and she provided a report.

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that we’re moving forward. That’s why we’re taking action to ensure that electricity bills remain affordable for ratepayers:

—number one, the Clean Energy Benefit;

—most importantly, rescheduling the Samsung agreement, saving $3.7 billion over the life of the contract;

—changing the domestic content rules in the feed-in tariff program, saving ratepayers more than $1.9 billion over the life of the contracts;

—deferring the construction of two new nuclear reactors at Darlington generating station, avoiding an estimated $15 billion in new construction costs.

These are decisions we made over the last seven or eight months. They’re making a significant difference. We’re pushing the cost curve down, and this member should get with the new agenda—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, only a party that has a $12-billion deficit would say they’re overachieving. Only a party that blew $1 billion would have the audacity to look at the taxpayers and say they are saving them money.

This is a Premier who is leading her party and who has not been elected by the people. Amid this $1.1-billion gas plant scandal, she has refused to call a judicial inquiry. She has refused to call a want of confidence motion. And her staff obstructed the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of this assembly, from doing her job.

Stephanie Delorme, of Ottawa–Vanier, wrote to the Premier. She said: “My eight-year-old son was agog at the idea a billion dollars was spent, but nothing was constructed, nothing was gained…Even he concluded that a billion dollars could buy a lot of stuff for our communities.

“I am asking you to be more of a grown-up—more of a citizen than a politician—and have the guts to face your consequences. My eight-year-old—”

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

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: That member should have the guts to deal with her leader’s position on the gas plant. We have here a quote from Mayor Rob Burton.

“On October 5, 2011, on the day before the provincial election, in front of the still under construction Mississauga power plant, PC leader Tim Hudak promises to stop the power plant if he wins the election, after only days before warning that he’s sure it ‘may cost another $1 billion.’ Later, in 2013, he insists it was irresponsible for then-Premier McGuinty to have cancelled it ‘without knowing what it would cost,’ even though it cost far less than Hudak says he thinks it” would have cost when he himself promised to cancel it. “This is a new height in hypocrisy, even for him.”

That’s an exact quote, Mr.—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Regardless of whether he is reading or not, the member cannot say that. Withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I withdraw, Speaker.

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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Acting Premier. Ontarians want to see Ontario’s books balanced in a responsible manner. The government signed a plan to open a new corporate tax loophole to help Ontario’s largest corporations write off the HST on expenses like wining and dining of clients. Under pressure from the NDP, the government agreed this was a $1.1-billion expense that Ontarians couldn’t afford in tough times.

When will the government permanently close this loophole, or has it abandoned it altogether?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, we are absolutely committed to be responsible when it comes to managing the province’s finances. In fact, last year, spending was down. Spending was down last year for the first time since 1996. On the health care file, we’ve gone from annual increases of 6% to 7% per year to 2% per year, and the health sector understands that that’s the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

We are transforming how we’re doing business so that we can actually be responsible fiscally and continue to improve services that people so heavily rely on. I think that if the member opposite actually paid attention to the books, he would understand that we’re being extremely responsible. We’re taking our responsibility seriously, but we’re not going to cut services. We’re not going to slash services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I asked a sensible question. I got a whole bunch of stuff and nothing to do with my question at all. So I’m going to try a different tack; maybe you can answer this one.

Last fall, the government indicated that they were prepared to put a hard cap on public sector CEO salaries that have climbed into the seven-figure range. When will the government take that action, or is this yet another plan the Liberals plan to abandon?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: No, Speaker. In fact, we are looking at the issue of broader public sector executive compensation, because I think all of us understand that we need to have a responsible approach to executive compensation in the broader public sector. But I think the member opposite realizes that that is not a panacea; that is not the big fix. In fact, in the health care sector, the issue around hospital CEO compensation amounts to 0.03% of the budget. Yes, it’s something we’re looking at, but we’re realistic enough to know that it’s not going to fix everything.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Again, no one says it’s going to fix everything, but the Liberals promise things and don’t deliver. I’ll try a third tack.

Families have seen the government waste over a billion dollars scrapping private power deals. They blow millions on perks and excesses at Ornge and eHealth. They break promises of restraint at the top and dump billions of dollars more into new corporate tax loopholes that aren’t creating jobs. Why should anyone take the government seriously when it comes to balancing Ontario’s books?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I think I would simply beg to differ with the member opposite because, in fact, we are making great progress when it comes to jobs. We have done far better than recoup the losses that we had during the great recession. We’re continuing to improve outcomes for the people in this province, whether it’s health outcomes or whether it’s educational outcomes.

We’re creating jobs. We’re very focused on creating jobs. Our youth employment strategy has already demonstrated that with concerted effort, in partnership with broader society, we can put young people to work. We can put people to work because they’re skilled and they’re talented. We need to work together to get this economy really moving, to benefit all of us.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. For more than 10 years, Liberals have been cutting no-strings-attached blank cheques to businesses that aren’t creating jobs. Does the Acting Premier still think no-strings-attached giveaways are the way to create jobs?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have been in a position to support business in this province, because that is where jobs are created. We are prepared to work with the business community so they can create more jobs for the people of this province.

I think we have seen some excellent success when it comes to our investment in GM, for example. There are other very good examples of success, and I think the member actually knows that, because she lives in a community that has benefited from those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: To the Acting Premier: Actually, the region of Kitchener–Waterloo is successful in spite of this government.

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Ms. Catherine Fife: In 2011, Navistar in Chatham shut its doors, and 1,000 people lost their jobs. This government cut Navistar a $30-million cheque, but apparently didn’t get a guarantee to keep jobs in Ontario. Navistar moved those jobs to a state with a job creator tax credit, something proposed by New Democrats.

Later this month, there is going to be an auction at the Navistar plant. Will Ontarians get any of that $30 million back?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to have the opportunity to talk about some of the investments through the southwestern Ontario economic development fund, some of them very close to the member opposite’s hometown.

Let’s talk about what’s happening in Elmira. Elmira Pet Products got a grant and created 25 jobs and retained another 146 jobs, for a total of 171.

Linamar in Guelph received a grant; 51 new jobs were created and they retained 374. In Palmerston, $250,000 went to MSW Canadian Plastics Inc.; they created nine new jobs and retained 21 jobs. In Woodstock, NASG Canada created 50 jobs and retained 210.

This investment is working and creating jobs.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Another non-answer. People are ready to hear new promises today, but they also remember this government’s track record. Over the last 10 years, 300,000 good manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Our province has the highest electricity rates in the country, the lowest productivity growth and an unemployment rate that is above the national average.

The government says their old jobs plan is working, even while they try and roll out a new one. Are Ontarians ever going to hear a credible jobs plan from this government?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I don’t know why the member opposite is so darned negative. Let me tell you that we acknowledge the economy still faces challenges. We know that. But she might want to know that employment is up by 475,600 jobs since our low in June 2009. We are on the right track. We are creating jobs; we are retaining jobs.

We believe in the people of this province. We believe they are talented people. We’re going to continue to work with the people of this province, because we believe that that’s the strength of our future.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Acting Premier. We’ve heard testimony at the justice committee from the auditor and from senior officials in the Ontario Power Authority that your government was made aware of the costs of the Oakville power plant cancellation months before the Premier appeared before the committee.

Your claims to not have known simply aren’t credible. Cabinet was made aware and the Premier was made aware. She knew that the costs were going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but that’s not what she told the public and that’s not what she told this House. Yesterday afternoon, we debated a motion that gave all members of this House an opportunity to hold her accountable for her actions, and the NDP sat on their hands.

My question to the Acting Premier is simply this: What secret deal have you made with the NDP to buy their silence?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. This is skating on very thin ice when you pose a question in a manner that impugns whether or not somebody is paying somebody. So I’m going to offer you an opportunity to resist any further reference to such.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The temptation is there with the ridiculous question that’s just been asked, and I’m not going to fall for it because, you know what, Mr. Speaker? This is serious. It is very serious that the opposition, over the past several months, has stood up day after day after day, outlining the situation with the gas plants as being one of the most serious issues before the province, and yet they fail to acknowledge the fact that in the last election they were the ones out front—their candidates—their leader was saying that the only way to see the gas plants cancelled is to elect a PC government in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, it is time they came clean. The issues the member raised this morning have all been dealt with at committee. The Premier will go in front of committee. But the one issue that has not been raised is their commitment to cancel the plants, their costing and their analysis, and it’s time they came clean. This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Acting Premier: We know that the Liberals are willing to do anything to cling to power, and the NDP are steadfast in their commitment to prop them up. If the Premier can be allowed to waste over $1 billion without any consequences, what is to prevent even greater scandals from happening in the future? You’ve had nine months, and all you’ve done is attempt to get back that union support. Today’s economic plan, your so-called jobs plan, proves you’re doing everything you can to get that union support back from the NDP. Rumour has it that donations to the Liberals are up and donations to the NDP are down.

This government is responsible for scandal after scandal and will excuse itself for doing anything. The Premier has held no one accountable, and yesterday the NDP turned their backs on Ontarians by refusing to hold the Premier accountable. When will you finally do the right thing and let the people of Ontario pass their judgment on this corrupt, tired old government?

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we have tried, with some success, to make this government work. It is true that we brought forward a budget. We reached out to both parties—the PC Party refused to even read the budget, but yes, we reached an agreement with the New Democratic Party. In terms of the PC Party, quite recently we had a programming motion passed in this Legislature which allowed a number of very important pieces of legislation to move forward through committee and through to third reading.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make this Legislature work, but I ask the honourable members opposite to continue to show willingness. Right now, Bill 105, which is going to cut taxes for small business, is stalled in committee because of the machinations of the opposition.

Let’s continue that spirit of co-operation. Let’s continue to make this Legislature work.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. The people of Windsor and Essex county have faced terrible uncertainty and anxiety when it comes to access to cancer surgery as well as thoracic services in our home community.

New Democrats have been asking for clarity and assurance from this government for a full week, but all we’re hearing from the minister is spin. She has made it clear that she no longer wants Windsor to provide thoracic services, but the member from Windsor West has been evading the issue and implying that she supports thoracic services in Windsor. So can the Acting Premier come clean and tell us what the Liberal government’s position is on Windsor’s thoracic services today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the people of Windsor that they will continue to have access to first-class cancer services, and anything suggesting that they won’t is simply fearmongering. They will receive those services in Windsor.

The member from Windsor West and I actually met this morning with Michael Sherar, the CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, so that we could have a further conversation about this particular situation. I think it’s commendable that the member from Windsor West would take the time to understand the issue, to advocate for her community, and her commitment to quality of care is paramount.

We know that there is a relationship between volume of surgeries and quality of care. Cancer Care Ontario has driven quality improvement in cancer care that has benefited all Ontarians, and we’ll continue to work on this issue.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This government is all too happy to put out contradictory statements and to provide empty assurances, but the grim reality of the situation continues. Windsor and Essex county residents are faced with the loss of thoracic services under the threat of losing all cancer surgeries. Just yesterday, the CEO of Windsor Regional Hospital told the media that the threat from Cancer Care Ontario has yet to be withdrawn, and the hospital’s concerns about the loss of thoracic services have not been addressed either.

So will the Acting Premier let my constituents know if her government is done playing games and is ready to take action to protect Windsor’s health care services?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Absolutely, Speaker. I am committed to excellent care for the people of Windsor and area, as I am for every other part of this province. I think it’s very important that the member opposite understand that the $6 million-plus that is received by the Windsor hospitals from Cancer Care Ontario will continue. That funding will continue because people in Windsor and area count on that funding to get the cancer care that they need.

So we are continuing, as I said, to work on the issues specific to one type of surgery, but cancer care services will absolutely continue in Windsor, and for the member opposite to suggest otherwise is simply irresponsible.

EDUCATION

Mr. John Fraser: My question is to the Minister of Education. I know that Ontario’s publicly funded education system is recognized as one of the best in the world, and I’m extremely proud of our accomplishments, as our success is based on the talent, dedication and hard work of those in our education community.

We have a lot to be proud of. Today, 71% of students are achieving the provincial standards in grades 3 and 6 combined, which is up 17 points from 54% in 2002-03, and graduation rates are up 15 points from 2003, to 83% in 2013.

While we have seen great progress over the last 10 years, I know we can’t become complacent with this success. I was pleased to hear that the minister recently visited Ottawa to talk about the next phase of education in our province. Can the minister please update this House on the consultations you have been holding?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for raising this initiative. We do have a lot to be proud of when it comes to our accomplishments in education, and now is the time to build on that success and redefine our vision, aspirations and our goals, not just for the system but, more importantly, for our students.

I was pleased to be able to travel to Ottawa recently to participate in our provincial consultation on how to take our education system from great to excellent. I’ve also had the pleasure of travelling to Thunder Bay, Sudbury, London, Richmond Hill and Mississauga recently to hear directly from parents and our partners in education.

We’re asking questions about: What skills do students need to thrive in the 21st century? How do we support student well-being? How can we make better use of technology in our schools? And we have a host of more questions that will help direct our vision for education in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you to the minister for bringing us up to speed on the next phase of consultations.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister describe to this House what she hopes to learn from these consultations and when we will finalize this next phase for education in Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you again for the question. It’s important to note that this consultation has been a broader check-in than just with our usual education stakeholders. We’ve been talking, as well, to business, to chambers of commerce, to non-profit agencies and communities throughout the province, and to our students and to our parents. We’re talking about how to improve in areas like critical thinking, creativity, problem solving and communication skills, all skills you need for a variety of jobs in our province.

We’re talking about whether we should be teaching students more about entrepreneurship and financial literacy—what does that mean? What’s the role of technology in our classrooms of the future? So this really is a broad range of topics, with a whole host of people from every community.

We are looking forward to the release of a new vision early in 2014.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. Minister, yesterday in estimates committee, I asked your colleague the Minister of Transportation when we could expect to see the transit plan for the Pan Am Games. I have to say, his response was quite interesting. Your colleague said that we might get the plan in the next few weeks, but they won’t really have a clear picture of the costs until the games are finished. That begs the question: Why even have a budget? If your strategy for the Pan Am Games is just to endlessly bill the taxpayers, why even make the budget?

The sad thing is, given the Minister of Transportation’s comments and your record, whatever numbers come out of the Pan Am Games transit plan will have no credibility.

Minister, do you agree with the Minister of Transportation? Do you also have no clue what the Pan Am Games transit plans are going to cost?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. As you know, the Pan Am Games are a huge undertaking by the province. Come 2015, there will be 41 countries’ competitors coming to Toronto. The games will attract, according to the CIBC, about 350,000 tourists coming to our town.

The Minister of Transportation and TO2015 are leading the development of an integrated transportation plan for the games. Transportation planning for an event of this scale is complex. It takes time and involves many organizations, including the province, municipalities, transit systems and security planning. We are working very closely with the OPP and municipal police to ensure that transportation will be safe and secure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games as well. Minister, you can’t keep using complexity as an excuse for not having a budget. It’s precisely why you need a budget. Even your own colleague seemed to throw you under the bus for the Pan Am transportation budget, in estimates yesterday. Apparently, you won’t have transportation costs figured out until after the games—very perplexing.

Let me remind you: The value of having a real budget ahead of time is to ensure that the people who are paying for the games are being respected, and that you’re being accountable. Therein lies the second problem, Minister: None of your Pan Am budgeting to date is credible. Any time you need more money, you just bury it in another ministry. Your game of misdirection is over.

I want to know how much is buried in transportation and in any other ministry. Minister, will the Pan Am transportation plan be another hidden extra, above and beyond the $1.4-billion decoy Pan Am budget?

Hon. Michael Chan: The transportation master plan that will guide our operations as we prepare for the games is on track. Past games have reviewed their transportation plans 12 to 18 months before they are under way, and we plan to match that timeline.

We are also working together on an integrated stakeholder outreach and engagement plan, which will be used to guide transportation-related communications to all stakeholders.

Transportation costs have not been fully defined. The games are the first time the province has undertaken a transportation planning exercise of this magnitude. The costs will be identified as the transportation planning process is completed and the full scope of the transportation needs is better understood.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Jonah Schein: My question is to the Acting Premier. Nuclear officials are preparing to transport a toxic stew of liquid bomb-grade uranium by armed convoy from Chalk River, Ontario, to a South Carolina reprocessing site. This so-called high-priority mission marks the first time that authorities have attempted to truck highly enriched uranium in a liquid solution.

This announcement has alarmed nuclear safety groups on both sides of the border, and they’re sounding the alarm for far greater government scrutiny. What safeguards has this government put in place to protect Ontario residents from this potentially dangerous practice?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member will know that nuclear safety is the responsibility of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It is 100% responsible. It provides the oversight and accepts the responsibility for it. We work very closely with that agency when we’re asked to, and the member should know that.

He’s raising concerns. I will pass those concerns on to my federal counterpart. I’m sure, like in every other case when the NDP has raised concerns about the transportation of nuclear products, that they have been properly dealt with and no incidents have occurred from them. The record is impeccable, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jonah Schein: Back to the Acting Premier: This government has to understand that there are grave public safety issues at stake here, and the trucking of nuclear waste through our communities requires proper government oversight.

In August, a truck with radioactive cargo on the busy I-75 highway near Troy, Ohio, caught fire, but despite the fire emergency, nuclear regulators in Canada, where the cargo originated, and in the US were not informed of the incident.

Will this government provide hard evidence that the transport of liquid uranium poses no danger to the public and ensure that local officials are given advance notification of the transport of nuclear waste through their region?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Nuclear safety is a top priority for Ontario, and it has been for the 40 or 50 years that we’ve been in the business. Nuclear power has been safely providing electricity in the province for 40 years. Most importantly, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada are responsible for issuing transport licence applications related to nuclear materials in accordance with stringent regulations for compliance in connection with public safety and emergency preparedness.

As the federal regulator, the CNSC would not allow the transportation of any equipment or material if they were a risk to the public or the environment. The type of incident he’s referring to in the United States has not occurred in Ontario, and it won’t, Mr. Speaker.

ELDER ABUSE

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires des personnes âgées, l’honorable Mario Sergio.

It’s my view, as I meet more and more of my constituents in Etobicoke North, that the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat will have an ever-expanding mandate. Unfortunately, in the society that we live in, this more and more often involves elder abuse—mental, physical, even financial.

The WHO defines abuse of older adults as “a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring in any relationship where there’s an expectation of trust that causes harm or distress to an older person.”

The reality is this: Seniors are often the victims of fraud. They tend to be trusting and generous individuals, which of course can make them prey to fraudsters.

Given the minister’s role at the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat, I would like to know personally and I would like Ontarians to know what actions our government is taking to protect our seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Je suis très heureux de répondre à la question de mon collègue le membre d’Etobicoke-Nord.

Indeed, it’s very timely that this question comes at this particular time. Our seniors are not only trusting and generous but very giving as well. I have to say that, thanks to the contributions they have made, our country, our province and our communities are much better off today.

Shielding, safeguarding and protecting our seniors is my responsibility and that of the government and every member of the House. We introduced legislation to combat elder abuse, to raise awareness and to educate as well. We’ve injected more than $8 million since 2003, including the bill of rights for seniors and zero tolerance as well. More than that, let me say that in the next few days, on November 11, we have an extra reason to remember our seniors: those brave men and women who fought in the Second World War and the Korean War so we can enjoy our freedom today.

When it comes to our seniors, we can never do enough. We will continue to do everything we can for the safety and protection of our seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I appreciate the response, diligence and heartfelt commitment of the minister in this portfolio.

As a physician and parliamentarian, I am seeing more and more elder abuse in my various capacities. I believe that for my riding of Etobicoke North, there is, however, a certain degree of reassurance to know that the province understands the importance of combatting elder abuse and that the machinery of government is mobilized in this regard. Seniors—their contribution, their hard work, their collective wisdom are all precious resources.

Even so, sadly, many seniors are taken advantage of financially even by their own family members. How is Ontario working with other Canadian jurisdictions to alert seniors about financial fraud, whether it comes from friend or foe?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have to say that the member from Etobicoke North is a real champion and he’s a remarkable member when it comes to our seniors. I have to say that the question couldn’t come at a better time, when we are celebrating National Senior Safety Week throughout Canada. The theme, in fact, is, fight fraud and protect our seniors’ finances.

I have to say that a couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of participating with members from all the federal, provincial and territorial ministries with respect to raising the issues of seniors. I am very proud, as an Ontarian and a minister of the province of Ontario, to bring forth to the table and get approved a brochure with respect to powers of attorney and joint bank accounts.

I have to say that when it comes to our seniors in the province of Ontario: Here, there are no boundaries. I hope that goes for every member of the House.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, tomorrow will be the 10th day since you promised to respond to Kimm Fletcher about the crisis that she and her family face. That means that another 10% of her medically predicted life expectancy has gone by while you have continued to do nothing.

Minister, yours is a sacred trust, one that you choose to ignore when it comes to highly vulnerable individuals like Kimm, who look to you as their last resort and their court of final appeal. So today I’m taking the matter directly to the people of Ontario and I’m issuing a province-wide petition on Kimm’s behalf. The question is, Minister, will you at least now act on that sacred trust and respond to the voice and the will of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite and everyone else in this province that I take my responsibility as Minister of Health extremely seriously. I know that people are counting on me to do my job well so they can get the health care they need when they need it.

Interjection.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite continues to heckle. I find that disgusting, frankly.

I think it’s important that the member opposite understands that when it comes to funding cancer drugs, we have tripled funding for cancer-fighting drugs. For every $1 they spend, we are spending $3.

We are blessed in this province to have excellent cancer care. We have amongst the highest survival rates in the world. We have those results because we rely on science to make our decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: That increased spending isn’t helping Kimm, is it?

Minister, the petition I’m releasing today concludes:

“That the Ontario Parliament call on the Premier and the Minister of Health to extend OHIP funding of the drug Avastin, so that Kimm Fletcher, and others like her, can have as much time to enjoy with her family as possible and to tell the Wynne administration that our health care system includes Kimm Fletcher.”

Again, I ask you, Minister, why doesn’t your health care system include Kimm Fletcher?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In my health care system, people get access to the drugs they need based on their condition, not based on an MPP they might know. We apply the same rules to everyone. To single out one individual for exceptional access is not consistent with my commitment to provide excellent care to all Ontarians.

We rely on science. We rely on evidence. The members opposite have chosen to disregard evidence, to disregard science. I think that is wrong. I believe, because I do feel that I am put in a position of enormous responsibility, that I must rely on evidence so that we can get people the care they need, the care that will help them.

CATARACT SURGERY

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Seniors in the London area are facing unacceptable wait times for cataract surgery. My constituents are writing me, as surely as they are writing the Minister of Health, in distress. Because of the year-long wait times for this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Whom to, please?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Oh, my apologies. The Minister of Health. She’s been getting a lot of questions; I just forgot to introduce her. Do you want me to start again, Speaker? No? Okay.

My constituents have been writing me, Minister, as surely as they have been writing you, in distress because of the year-long wait times for this necessary surgery. Ophthalmologists warned this government that problems were brewing, and the Liberal government chose to ignore their concerns. Now seniors are paying the price. Does the health minister think it is right that seniors needing cataract surgery are forced to wait for a year or longer in her own hometown riding?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I welcome this question because this party has a very strong record when it comes to focusing on getting wait times down. In fact, we have recently—for the sixth year in a row—received straight As from the Wait Time Alliance. Our wait times are lower than anywhere else. We’ve made great progress. Province-wide, we’ve cut five months off wait times for cataract surgeries. In the South West LHIN, when we took office, people were waiting 351 days; they were waiting a full year for that surgery. We have cut that wait time in half.

Across the province, we have reduced wait times for cataracts. We’ve reduced wait times for various surgeries and diagnostic tests. We’re very transparent about it. You can go online and see what wait times are for any procedures in any hospital in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Living with reduced eyesight can impact every aspect of someone’s life. One constituent wrote about this year-long wait time, “This is unacceptable as my quality of life as a senior is grossly affected. I have problems with glare and this may affect my driving. This not only affects me, but also my immediate family as I may not be able to pick up my grandchildren after school, which will cost my daughter for after-school care.”

The Minister of Health seems more concerned with patting herself on the back than taking the concerns of our constituents seriously. Speaker, my question is simple: Can the minister tell my constituents when cataract wait times will be reduced?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: For all of the reasons that were mentioned in that letter, that is why we have really focused on bringing wait times down for cataracts. Across the province, wait times are down significantly. We were the first ones to actually measure, publicly post, publicly report and invest money to bring those wait times down. We have seen tremendous success.

In fact, I bet the member opposite would be interested in knowing our wait time success in other procedures: 98% of cancer procedures are being done within the priority level for targets, 100% of bypass surgeries, 94% of cataract surgeries, 89% of hip replacements, 85% of knee replacements, 61% of MRIs, 87% of CTs, 98% of general surgeries and 92% of pediatric surgeries. Wait times are a big focus of our ministry, and we’re seeing the results.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans I often meet and listen to families, as do all members of this House. One concern that I hear frequently from parents is that they want to know that the right services are in place for their child’s development. This is a universal concern, and I know that in Ontario we’re providing some of the best supports available anywhere in the world.

As a parent and grandparent myself, I know that these types of services make positive impacts in the lives of children. My question is, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister please tell this House what we are doing as a government to help children grow up to be healthy teenagers and then healthy adults?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orleans for this question. First off, there are a number of children in here. Welcome to all the children visiting us here today, and it’s for you that this question is very important.

I’m a parent as well, as everyone knows, and nothing is more important to me—and I think everyone in this House—to make sure that children are prepared for school and life. I can say that there are many more programs available today than there were when my kids were young. My ministry is investing $261 million in healthy development, services and supports directly for children and their parents. For example, we’re providing the Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program with $89 million. This program supports women, children and their families, from the prenatal period through to a child’s transition to school.

Through programs like this, our government is able to directly assist in the healthy development of our young people. This is part of our government’s commitment to provide children with the best possible start in life.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I would like to thank the minister for her answer. It’s very clear to me that this government takes the responsibility of healthy childhood development seriously. It is making significant investments. However, this is an area where there’s always improvement to be made. As a government, we need to be constantly looking to improve the services we provide and also seek out new and better methods.

I understand that in March of this year, the Healthy Kids Panel released a report with recommendations to improve healthy childhood development—specifically, reduce childhood obesity. I’m pleased that our government established this panel to help combat such an important issue. Can the minister please tell this House more about this report and how our government is responding?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Again, thank you for the follow-up question.

First, I’d like to thank the Healthy Kids Panel for their report, which aims to improve health and well-being. The report made a number of recommendations on some important Ministry of Children and Youth Services programs, as well as recommendations across government. These include our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Student Nutrition Program and the Mental Health and Addictions Strategy—all strategies that we are investing in.

We’re committed to reviewing the recommendations in order to inform our future. In fact, Speaker, Minister Matthews and I are co-chairing the working group on the Healthy Kids Panel report to review each of those recommendations. That group will be extremely important to move towards this government’s goal to improve early childhood development services.

Again, we’re committed to working with our colleagues across ministries to inform our next steps.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, I’m sending these energy bills to you and I’d appreciate you taking a look at them, and I’ll leave them with page Sarhan. Thank you.

Minister, earlier this week, I met with a business owner from my riding who showed me his massive energy bills. Most notably, his global adjustment has skyrocketed. If you look at his bills, you’ll notice that he is using less power than two years ago but paying much more, and his global adjustment has almost tripled.

Another business owner told me that he “is considering leaving Ontario and moving to the Detroit area, where he can get cheaper rent and his energy costs would be half of what they currently are,” taking jobs and tax revenue from my community. Minister, my question is simply this: If you were in my shoes, what would you tell these business owners?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would tell those owners that we have made significant investments in the energy system because of the negligence of that party when they were in government, requiring us to spend $21 billion on new generation and $10 billion on new transmission, and that pushed electricity rates up.

As a result of those rates going up—investments which were absolutely necessary to create a reliable and clean system—we created a number of programs for the energy sector, including the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit for families and for industry—and that includes small business and farmers—the Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit, the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program, the industrial conservation initiative and the industrial electricity incentive.

In addition to that, over the last seven or eight months, we’ve taken major steps to put pressure—to put prices down, and that included about—

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Minister, actions do speak louder than words, and I really hope that you’re not misleading Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Withdraw.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I withdraw.

Minister, my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex has lost over 10,000 manufacturing jobs since this government took office in 2003, and we cannot afford to lose any more.

You tell turbine companies not to produce energy while you continue to pay them for not producing energy. All the while, more and more turbines continue to be built up, not only in my riding but throughout Ontario.

Here’s the reality, Minister: Energy costs are doubling and crippling manufacturing. Businesses and families are struggling to pay bills and keep their lights on.

Admit that your Green Energy Act is a failure. Minister, will you admit that you do not have a real plan to lower energy rates—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: [ Inaudible ], and as I said earlier today in question period, by renegotiating the Samsung agreement, we saved ratepayers $3.7 billion over the