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

February 18, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Feb-18 (PDF)

L044 - Wed 18 Feb 2015 / Mer 18 fév 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 February 2015 Mercredi 18 février 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Curriculum

By-election in Sudbury

Power plants

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Poverty

Power plants

By-election in Sudbury

Climate change

Electoral reform

By-election in Sudbury

Disaster relief

Doctor shortage

Government announcements

Visitor

Correction of record

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Dairy breeding awards

Sex trade workers

Heritage conservation

Volunteers

Daughters for Life Foundation

Lent

Government’s record

Events in Ottawa–Orléans / Événements divers à Ottawa–Orléans

Black History Month

Private members’ public business

Use of electronic devices in House

Introduction of Bills

Safe Roundabouts Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la sécurité des carrefours giratoires

Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des Grands Lacs

Petitions

Taxation

First responders

Credit unions

Hospital services

Hospital parking fees

Government services

Ontario Provincial Police

First responders

Distracted driving

Health care

School closures

Hispanic Heritage Month

Agricultural colleges

Forest industry

Wind turbines

Orders of the Day

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Régime de retraite de la province de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 4, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

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

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Good morning, Speaker. It’s good to be back in the Legislative Assembly. I know we did a lot of hard work as MPPs back in our ridings, and it’s kind of a bittersweet return. It’s good to be here, but it’s also nice to be home and do the real work that we’re elected to do with our constituents.

Today it’s a pleasure to rise as the MPP for London–Fanshawe, as I am the citizenship and immigration critic, to debate Bill 49, the Ontario Immigration Act. This bill was originally introduced in February 2014, as Bill 161, by the previous Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Honourable Mike Coteau.

When we’re looking at immigration to Ontario, we know that Ontario has been falling behind when it comes to the number of immigrants who arrive in Ontario. From 2001 to 2011, the proportion of immigrants to Ontario declined by almost a third, from a 59.3% peak in 2001 to 40% in 2011. These numbers are the lowest share Ontario has seen in 30 years. So there is a problem, Speaker, when it comes to attracting newcomers to Ontario. It is estimated that Ontario will face a shortage of 364,000 skilled workers by the year 2025.

Statistics Canada indicates that among the Canadian population in 2011, three large generations can be identified using demographic criteria: the baby boomer generation, the parents of baby boomers and the children of baby boomers. In the coming years, many of the baby boomers will reach the age of 65, accelerating the population of seniors past working age in Canada. By 2031, all baby boomers will have reached 65, and the proportion of seniors could reach 23%.” That comes from Statistics Canada.

We have a skills shortage when it comes to specific skills in Ontario. Immigration is a component and a crucial part of our economy and educational future so that we can respond to labour market needs and remain competitive.

Immigration will make Ontario a better place to live. Immigration would need to be more than 2.5 times greater than it is today to offset the decline in Ontario’s labour force being caused by the aging population.

In 2012, an expert round table released a report called Expanding Our Routes to Success. It included 32 recommendations. This minister, at the time, announced the launch of A New Direction: Ontario’s Immigration Strategy. This report set out the following targets. I’ll read some of them. One of them was: “Request a doubling of our provincial nominee program limit to 2,000 in 2013, increasing to 5,000 in 2014.” This bill is part of that recommendation. It is looking for the federal government to allow us to increase immigrants coming to Ontario—newcomers coming to Ontario—to 5,000.

It also recommends:

“Achieve employment rates and income levels for immigrants that are in line with those of other Ontarians.

“Maximize the potential and the use of temporary foreign workers and international students.

“Improve job prospects of non-economic immigrants.

“Provide more resources for employers to recruit and welcome immigrant employees.”

That’s very important, Speaker, because when we’re inviting, when we’re trying to sell Ontario, we have to make sure that people who come here have job prospects, and the employers should communicate to this government what their needs are in the job market so we can fill them; we can fill them with people who already work here and we can also fill them with newcomers looking for new opportunities.

It also says we should:

“Encourage employers to develop or expand mentorship, internship and on-the-job training programs.

“Achieve 5% francophone immigration.”

That is very important as well.

“Increase employment rates of immigrants in fields that match their experience.” We have a lot of concerns with respect to that. We know a lot of professional newcomers come to this country with credentials that are quite high-level skilled, but they have trouble finding work. We’ve heard from newcomers and immigrants who are here that the trouble is that their credentials aren’t recognized; therefore, that sets barriers in their field for them being employed in what they were trained to do.

They also recommended that we should: “Work toward a decrease in the unemployment rate of recent immigrants so that it is in line with that of other Ontarians.” That speaks to the fact that when we have newcomers come to Ontario, we don’t have programs to fill those job gaps; therefore, they end up being unemployed.

Having someone come to this country, and they’re looking for new opportunities, they’re looking to work hard and have their family come here or have a family and start their life here—no one wants to do that without an employment opportunity, an employment prospect. You can’t survive without having that employment prospect.

Another recommendation is: “Increase the number of immigrants licensed in their professions.” Again, could we do that? We could look at having that retraining, having those credentials upgraded if they need to be, so that professionals—like doctors, like engineers—can actually come here and work. There are many, many professionals who aren’t living up to their full potential with their educational background when they arrive in Ontario.

This is an interesting one: “Create a ... forum to drive a ‘no wrong door’ approach to accessing immigrant services.” We hear many times that, when immigrants or newcomers come to Canada, they have limitations on services they can access. You know, we open our doors for them to come here and work here. They should be deserving enough to use our services—our educational services and our health services.

“Commit to annual reports on progress and achievement.” That’s something where I think this government is lacking in doing that. Setting targets is great, but once you set those targets we need those reports to confirm that work has been done, that you’ve reached those targets and been successful. That’s something I’ll speak to later; in the Auditor General’s report they actually also recommend that this government should be tracking and reporting the success of this program.

Another thing they suggest—this is kind of common sense; I’m not sure why it hasn’t been done already—is, “Establish a minister’s table with employers to consult businesses on immigration matters.” Maybe that has been done already, but I find it highly strange that, if it’s a recommendation in the expert round table, they actually had to include that recommendation for the government to consult with businesses on immigration matters—what their needs are, what the deficiencies are, where they need help and what can be improved.

I hope as well that, as these programs are being developed, as the provincial nominee program is implemented and as this act goes through the House, hopefully gets passed and goes into legislation, we also will consult with the people we want to come here—the newcomers, the immigrants—on what their barriers are, because we need a full picture. When we’re going to address the outcome, the performance of a program, we need—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There are about six sidebars going on, and I’m having trouble even hearing the speaker, so I’d appreciate, if you have any major discussions, you taking them outside. Thank you.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The participants in these programs need to be consulted and need to give feedback. They need to give success stories and need to give stories of not being successful in order for this government to get it right. Right now, the government is only reintroducing this bill—it’s number 49—and it’s designed to increase the class of economic immigrants. They want to promote immigrants, newcomers coming here, to work in Ontario.

In February 2014, there had been some debate on the bill in the House—at that time it was Bill 161—by then NDP MPP and immigration critic Michael Prue. At the time he did the lead on the bill, he remarked that he had been seeking immigration reform in the province for more than a decade, and he supported many of the ideas behind this bill. I can speak on behalf of myself and our caucus: We do agree with the premise of this bill and the intent of the bill, so we would like to see it move forward and be debated and given some feedback in this House.

Then, when it gets to committee, hopefully some of the real work can be done to make these changes on this bill a positive thing for newcomers when they get here.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but, like Mr. Prue, I have concerns that this bill isn’t as strong as it could be. Michael called the bill, then 161, timid, because it only gave the minister the ability to set regulations for how to act, and did not actually prescribe how to act by laying out a clear framework. That’s always important. If you’re going to have the captain of the ship drive that ship, he needs to have the power to create policy and a framework of the course of that ship. The lack of substance persists with Bill 49. When you read through the sections of the bill, there is a lot of “the minister may” in this piece of legislation. Therein lies the rub, Speaker.

New Democrats have been very clear that we support a made-in-Ontario solution for immigrants. Ontario will be following behind a number of other provinces like Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec, some of which have had detailed immigration laws on the books for a long time. Of course, this legislation was very much prodded by changes that the federal government would like to see, which I’ll return to later.

New Democrats agree that, in order for this province to grow and assume our rightful place, we need to encourage more economic immigration to this province, but as of right now this is really only a piece of economic legislation. New Democrats are glad to see at least that in the

preamble to this bill.

The

preamble reads: “The government of Ontario is committed to implementing a vision of immigration to the province that recognizes not only the important role that immigrants play in growing the economy across Ontario but also the importance of family and humanitarian commitments.” But as my colleague for Windsor–Tecumseh pointed out when he spoke on the introduction of this bill, if this government finally wants to bring Ontario into line with other jurisdictions in this country, like Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec, that if Ontario wants more control over immigration, then with that greater control, that greater power, comes greater responsibility.

Since under this bill the minister will have new powers to set the course of immigration in this province, this could mean getting out of the detention business, for instance. We’ll see if that’s actually the case: if the government’s intent is really to do that and get out of the detention business when it comes to immigration.

It could mean ensuring that any individual within Ontario can gain access to services they need to ensure they are productive and safe, regardless of status. Where better than within legislation governing immigration in this province? That’s what New Democrats mean by greater responsibility.

I should point out that I’m glad this government saw fit last year to end the long practice of co-operating with the federal enforcement of immigration warrants through traffic stops. This practice exclusively profiled individuals working in vehicles, and I’m glad that New Democrats could help bring this issue to light.

I think it was in 2000 and—gosh, it’s been a while. I can’t remember exactly. What had happened was that it came to light that the provincial government, the MTO, was working with the Canada Border Services Agency and they were doing traffic stops and vehicle inspections. They were pulling over drivers in vehicles just because they were ethnic; they were diverse in nature. They were not checking their vehicle, per se, but their status, and many of them were deported. When we brought this to the minister for the MTO, the Honourable Mr. Del Duca, he looked into it, so I have to give him credit for that, and he did respond by saying that that practice would not continue any further.

Good immigration policy means making sure that new immigrants and their families can settle here and that the services and resources they need to integrate and succeed, such as access to affordable housing, are explicitly factored into the legislation.

I was given this card by an advocate for newcomers to Canada. Decent housing is not just for people who live here. Decent housing is for people we want to come here as well. If we’re asking newcomers to come to Canada, immigrants to come and work here and live here, let’s provide them with decent housing so that they can find those supports that they need and thrive.

Good immigration policy means making sure that new immigrants and families can live here, as I said. I also recognize that Bill 49 leaves open the possibility of funding for the settlement of NGOs, and that’s a good thing. But after 10 years of Liberal governments without an immigration policy, we need some detail and we need some meat on the bones. Putting into the bill that they’re going to be funding NGOs for settlement services is great, but we need those details and we need that information.

Yes, Speaker, I would want to see some changes, some toughening up of the loopholes as they are currently existing that would have the potential to exempt some of the biggest recruitment and immigrant employment agencies that operate in the federal system from potentially having to register. As bigger employers they don’t necessarily have to register, and we need to toughen that up when we’re looking at having people come over here for economic opportunities.

In fact, there are laws on the books already that can protect against recruiters for foreign workers charging unfair recruitment fees—the 2009 Ontario Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act—but that same study found it lacks enforcement. That’s key: the enforcement and what that will look like. So it’s good that the study was there, Speaker, but, like we said, that study lacks enforcement.

What’s to stop the worst offenders among immigration consultants who take fees from temporary farm workers and new arrivals from operating in Ontario? What are we doing to curb that—a proactive approach, actively engaged in doing that? In this bill, there’s not too much teeth to it. Again, it’s a lot of maze and regulations that we don’t know what it actually will take the form of. Right now in this legislation it’s not clear anything will. It’s not clear if some of the bigger recruitment agencies that operate federally will have to register, as it is now in this bill.

I’d like to hear more detail from the minister on how these consultants will be made to opt into registering, and what will prevent them from operating if they don’t.

As with anything, there are some very hard-working consultants, but there has also been a lot of opportunism with consultants who have taken advantage of people who seek safety and opportunity here in this great province.

I’m glad that there are provisions for compliance and enforcement regimes in the bill, including inspection and investigation powers, offences and penalties for both individuals and organizations seen to abuse those simply looking to make a better life for themselves. But much of this, as written, is discretionary and left up to “the director”—again, not some real clear authority for the director to do this. We’d like to see specifics. I’d like to hear from the minister what that would look like in practice.

The reality is that there are many questions left about this bill, and concerns about it from those who represent, particularly, migrant or temporary foreign workers and other non-economic class immigrants to this province.

I have heard from migrant worker advocates that this bill hints at all the things we want but does them badly. Unless the loopholes around the registry of employment placement agencies are closed, little will change for the 90,000-plus foreign workers to Ontario, who can’t expect to be fast-tracked into permanent residency under the federal legislation. The federal government’s immigration policies will now make it harder, and it will take longer for most landed immigrants to become permanent residents.

The federal government’s immigration policies are making it harder, and the federal government has been explicit that they mean to invite or recruit wealthy investors to immigrate. We need to make sure we have those laws or those requirements that they must register. But that isn’t the majority of people who migrate to Canada, or Ontario. The people who do immigrate here expect to work very hard, and do work very hard indeed, to make life better for themselves and their families. We have a responsibility to them, as a province. The fact is that we need them here and many of them go out west.

This is an economic bill, a labour bill, and so New Democrats would like to see a requirement that there be coordination between the Ministries of Labour and Immigration. Really, we are promoting economic opportunities for newcomers, but where are the labour laws to support that? It’s currently not in this bill. So why now? In fact, the federal government has signalled that they need the provinces to take more of a hand in setting economic immigration goals. This bill, in order to be able to do that, still needs the federal buy-in.

Right now, the split between economic immigration and family settlement, which includes refugees, is essentially 50-50. I know this government would like the numbers of skilled economic immigration to go up as much as 75%.

As I mentioned earlier, New Democrats understand the need to bring along skilled economic newcomers. We have long supported recognizing foreign qualifications so that when someone migrates here looking for a better future and to offer the skills they already have, they will be able to. We talked about skilled worker shortages and then making it incredibly difficult for individuals who have these skills to use them once they immigrate here. If someone is a trained health professional they should be able to work in health care. If someone is an engineer or has an economic degree, or any number of other professions, they should be able to work in those professions.

I recently met a man in London who wrote to me and told me his story. I’d like to read that. This is what he wrote. He is an internationally trained professional in civil engineering, water resources. With more than 10 years’ experience, he came to Canada in February 2011. He says:

“My goal is to find an employment relative to my field of study. Obtaining an engineering licence; i.e. a PEng, is one of the major steps for this type of employment. During the last four years, I tried my best to complete this step by evaluation of my credentials, passing professional practice exam (ethics and law—PPE) and approving my international experience. Having done this, the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) has issued me a provisional licence which is only valid if I work under the supervision of a PEng.

“To get my regular engineering licence, I need to have a minimum of one year of Canadian engineering experience. It looks like not many employers are ready to offer the position without a licence, even if the person is ready to volunteer to get this experience. Public service employers also have only very limited positions for this purpose during the year. In other words, it is less likely many candidates like me can get these positions.

“I am sending you this email to let you know about the importance of the issue and hoping you (as our respected MPP) can address the problem in the higher level of the government to find a proper and immediate solution.” This bill does not address the challenges facing newcomers who are highly trained immigrants to acquire the accreditation and/or the job experience they require in the field.

Speaker, as you can see, that is a true life story. I met this gentleman at an event in London. We were chatting, and I said, “Send me an email; put your thoughts in writing.” I’m glad I had this opportunity to bring his perspective forward, because he’s not the only one. We’ve all heard the stories of when you get in that taxicab and they talk a little bit about themselves, and you exchange a personal anecdote and they talk about how hard it is for their credentials to be recognized in Ontario.

Some of them, I’ve heard they’re promised that they’re going to get a job—and that could be through those recruiters or those consultant agencies that promise a great life here—and once they get here their hopes and dreams are let down.

Another barrier I have heard about from constituents is about newcomers obtaining ID. That’s becoming increasingly more difficult for them to do. We agree that people, of course, need ID in order to enjoy the full rights and services that ensure their well-being and to be able to contribute and participate. But if you don’t have ID, that’s a barrier to inclusion that should be addressed in the immigration bill. Currently, it’s not.

Again, another example: A constituent of mine lost her record of landing. Service Canada will not provide a replacement of this document once it’s lost; when it’s gone, it’s gone. The original—there’s no way to replace it through Service Canada. What they will do is issue a verification status document which has all the same information, but Service Ontario doesn’t accept the verification status document. That just seems like it’s two governments not communicating.

So you lose your record of landing—and sometimes people come over in a state, maybe they’re leaving their country for reasons of conflict, and they may not have everything organized, or they’ve moved from one place to the next—that can happen to all of us, where we misplace documents. Service Canada is willing to give them verification status, but Service Ontario won’t accept it.

This constituent in particular is a refugee, and she doesn’t have a passport. She can’t get her permanent resident card without some form of primary identification like an Ontario photo ID card. So we can see the Catch-22 here that people find themselves in, Speaker, and I don’t see anything in this legislation that would actually facilitate making that a smoother process, a smoother transition.

Two government ministries, on different levels—this is part of my recommendation—need to sit down at the table and figure out what documentation is acceptable if they’re concerned about fraud on documents. They need to find systems within the system to help people. Bringing refugees here who can’t access ID to have services just doesn’t seem humane. It really doesn’t.

Talking about examples brings me to a case that was recently here in Queen’s Park. They went to the media studio with respect to a live-in caregiver. It was the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. They came to the media studio to tell her story. Her name was Marites Angana. She started work as a live-in caregiver in Toronto in August 2014, not too long ago, and she died of a brain hemorrhage from a fall while at work in December of last year, so she was here about four months.

Domestic workers, many of whom are current or former live-in caregivers, are excluded from the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which provides health and safety protections to Ontario workers and triggers a Ministry of Labour investigation in the case of serious injury or death in the workplace. A Ministry of Labour investigation would uncover the causes of Marites’s death to better prevent future workplace accidents.

It wasn’t widespread, but it was covered in the Toronto Sun’s files, and I’ll read from that article:

“The death of a caregiver in her employer’s home has prompted calls for greater labour law and workplace insurance protection for domestic workers.

“Supporters of Marites Angana are trying to raise $10,000 to send her body back to her 13-year-old son and parents in the Philippines.

“Liza Draman, of the Caregivers Action Centre, said Marites died of a brain hemorrhage on December 2 in a Toronto hospital, a few days after falling in her employer’s garage.

“‘As family and friends of Marites Angana we cannot rest until we know what caused her death and prevent such tragedies from taking place again,’ Draman said Friday.

“The Ministry of Labour must broaden its investigations to include the deaths of any domestic workers on the job as it would regular workplace accidents, she said.

“Ernie Puguon, of the Ifugao Association of Canada, said Angana came from one of the poorest regions of the Philippines, and was the primary breadwinner for her family.

“‘Her father is a rice field worker, her mother is a housewife,’ said Puguon. ‘She has a 13-year-old son in grade 7, and is supporting the studies of her 19-year-old sister who is still in college.’

“Angana arrived in Canada only four months ago, brought by a recruitment agency to which she paid thousands of dollars, Puguon said.

“The association is appealing for financial help through the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office for the funds to provide a funeral and send her remains home to the Philippines, he said....

“A WSIB official contacted Puguon a few minutes prior to a media conference Friday to tell him that the case is being assessed to determine if Angana was entitled to any benefits.”

It goes on a little bit more, but it just goes to show. This lady, Marites, was a working mom. She came to Ontario to try to support herself and her family, and had a tragedy happen. The Migrant Workers Alliance for Change is calling for some fairness under the Ontario Health and Safety Act. They’re workers here in Ontario. We bring them here, but they’re not good enough to be protected under that act. We have to look at that, Speaker. This government has to address those issues and concerns.

Speaker, these are some examples of various issues facing immigrants in Ontario. This government needs to do better on these issues so immigrants have the opportunity to succeed as well as provide health and safety protections to all who work in this province.

This bill is a very small start but I would like to see some changes. The changes that I would like to see, Speaker, are some of those recommendations that came from the expert study in 2012. When it goes to committee, I would love to hear the deputants’ feedback on how to make this bill stronger and successful. If we want to increase the number of economic prospects coming to Ontario through newcomers, we need to make sure it’s a positive experience and that when they’re here, they’re going to continue that economic prosperity.

I also wanted to talk about the Auditor General’s report, because the Auditor General’s report came after the bill was tabled, so I’m not sure if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration actually took some of these suggestions and put them in the bill. When I read the bill over, it didn’t appear to me that some of these things looked like they were going to be implemented as process. I’d like to read some of them to you.

Again, the Auditor General reinforces this: “As Ontario’s population ages, the need for the province to attract skilled immigrants is likely to increase. A number of recent reports highlight that there is a shortage of skilled labour in Ontario. For instance, a report published by the Jobs and Prosperity Council in December 2012 noted that, despite Canada’s strong education system and skilled population, there are still a number of sectors that report challenges recruiting workers with specific skill sets, especially in the skilled trades.”

So there have been expert reports about this. It’s nothing new. We need to retrain our workers here and we need to bring in newcomers to fill these positions or we’re going to be falling behind globally.

“The Ontario provincial nominee program is becoming more attractive to foreign nationals because, in February 2014, the federal government terminated both the Immigrant Investor Program for passive investors (that is, investors not actively involved in or managing the business), and the Immigrant Entrepreneur Program for experienced businesspeople from other countries who want to own and actively manage businesses in Canada.”

By doing that, Speaker, this bill is, I think, a response to those two things that the federal government has done.

This is what the auditor has said: “During the course of our audit, we received a number of allegations about the program’s operation and the risk that it was continuing to consider applications from individuals and organizations who were suspected to have been involved with immigration fraud and/or illegal immigration-linked investment schemes.” That’s where we need to tighten up this regulation piece: where we have the recruiters and the employers registered and licensed so that they’re both responsible; they’re both legally liable for what they do.

“In writing this report, we have included recommendations that address not only the issues raised during our value-for-money audit, but also those identified in the allegations. As well, the ministry, after recommendations from our office, formally referred certain case information to law enforcement in September 2014.” Good on the auditor to find those holes and bring that to light.

It also says, “It also needs to track and measure how well people nominated in the past have in fact contributed to Ontario’s economic development.” It needs to do that. It needs to have that tracking process, setting targets and aspirations. If, at the end of those aspirations and targets, you don’t see those results, then it’s all for naught, all these plans that we make.

They said, “We also found that the ministry did not share program integrity concerns with both internal staff and external parties (law enforcement and regulators) who needed to know and could act on them accordingly. Furthermore, we found that program staff had not been provided with clear guidelines on how to deal with potentially fraudulent situations, and the program had not established anti-fraud mechanisms.” So within their own ministry, Speaker, they need mechanisms and procedures to prevent that kind of fraud that takes advantage of newcomers and immigrants coming to our country. They need to do better in their own ministry.

Here’s another one: “Many program staff are temporary, and have received no written guidance or job training; turnover is high.” If we’re going to take this kind of initiative seriously and ask for higher newcomers and immigrants with economic opportunities to come to this province, we need to have properly trained staff who are going to review those applications and the program that’s been set up.

Here’s another one that the auditor says that they found here in their report: “The ministry used incomplete information to assess program outcomes.” You set up the program, you set up the act, but you’re using incomplete information to assess the outcomes. We can’t track something and know if it’s working effectively if we don’t have the outcomes assessed with the right tools.

Some of these revelations in this report I find kind of surprising; really, I do. This government and this ministry need to take this particular citizenship and immigration piece in Ontario seriously.

“The economic impact of nominating individuals without a job offer has not been assessed.” That’s the other piece, Speaker. Having a job offer is a stronger predictor of economic success than not having a job offer; that’s pretty common sense. If you come to Canada and you don’t have a job offer, you don’t have a prospect of getting a job, you’re not going to succeed. We all know that.

Then they talk about the impact of the current program design: “Majority of nominees selected had a post-graduate degree and no job offer, and their economic impact was not assessed”—again, failure after failure to follow through on what is happening with these newcomers once they come here, highly educated with credentials, high-skilled workers, yet there is no assessment of what the outcome is.

“In 2013, two thirds of nominees did not have a job offer. This appears contrary to the intent of the program, which is to select individuals who are likely to be an economic benefit to the province. The nominees without a job offer were primarily individuals with a master’s or PhD degree from an Ontario university.” That’s shocking, too. And we know this. We know this because post-secondary students, when they graduate, are saying they’re having a hard time finding work.

We encourage international students to come to Ontario, but if we don’t have those job prospects for them—it seems like a dismal future for anyone coming out of post-secondary education after spending years of study and financing their education and not being able to practise what they’ve learned.

I know that our member from London West yesterday reintroduced the work-integrated learning bill, which helps students who are graduating or need to graduate find internships. I hope that when this bill comes up for debate, this government will see fit to pass it on to committee, because the member from London West in her previous life was a researcher and she’s very passionate about this bill that she introduced. Part of the bill she has put in there is the work-integrated learning piece. She introduced it last session and she reintroduced it yesterday.

It’s very important that when we have these educated international students in the province and they’ve got PhDs and master’s degrees—where’s the employment and where are the assessment tools to find out what the outcomes are, what happens after they get here and they can’t find work? We should be tracking. Do they leave the province? Do they go back to their home country? What are they doing when that happens to them?

“The ministry has not adequately monitored whether nominees without job offers admitted to Ontario are eventually employed.” That’s what I’m saying now. Nobody monitors it. “Doing so could demonstrate whether nominating people who do not have job offers but have post-graduate degrees results in positive economic outcomes. The ministry had administered surveys in 2010 and 2013 to measure outcomes, but the surveys did not cover a large enough sample from this program component (less than 5% of all nominees without job offers responded to the survey).”

They did try, but the response was kind of abysmal.

Speaker, the other piece: “In 2010, cabinet instructed the ministry to introduce the master’s stream only after an evaluation was completed on the PhD stream. However, the master’s stream was introduced just two months after the PhD stream without an evaluation of the latter. The ministry stated that introducing the master’s stream was a ministerial direction, but could not produce any formal authorization.”

We are not doing that great of a job in this ministry providing economic opportunities when we’re looking for newcomers coming here. We need to support employers who identify work gaps in our communities. I know Fanshawe College works very closely with the local business community to try to meet the demands of where employers are saying they’re going with their businesses and what skills they need workers trained in. That’s part of this whole picture when we have newcomers come to Canada: making sure that the economic opportunities that we say are here in Ontario actually come to realization for people.

In London we have a high employment rate, and it’s been steady for quite a long time. If we don’t do something about the need that employers are looking for when they say, “I need a specific skilled worker for this job”—we need to tie that in with our education system, our post-secondary education system. We need to tie that in with the immigration newcomers coming to Ontario. What is our workforce going to look like? We’re going to be losing potential employers in Ontario if they can’t meet the needs of the people they need to do the work for them.

High-tech jobs: That’s something I’ve heard over and over again. That’s a new part of a sector that’s happening in employment. Manufacturing is still there—we still need our manufacturing—but tech jobs are the up-and-coming new industry that we’re finding is happening.

There is a website that has some pilot funding that started in London. It’s called WorkTrends. They’re doing wonderful work with employers. They’re actually identifying where employers are looking for job positions. You can go to their website and it will tell you what the job market is like. What they’re trying to do is help people who are looking for a career in the future, to try to give them some insight as to what’s coming in the future.

There’s a lot of good work and agencies that are trying to bring the workforce up to a standard where we can match skilled workers with the job market that’s available, but this government also needs to participate when it comes to the newcomers and the immigration piece. Inviting people to come here on the premise that they’re going to have a job, and then we see in the Auditor General’s report that’s one of the things that is a problem, and then, again, it’s not assessed, it’s not monitored and it’s not reported on—there is no success to your program if you can’t show me the evidence. Show me the numbers. Show us the numbers. Show us the success rate.

When it goes to committee, I hope there are going to be some real changes. I know the government has a Liberal majority on committee, but they need to stop being so narrow-minded and selective when they hear these deputants. You need to open up your ideas. Be innovators.

You want employers to innovate. You want employers to produce. You want them to research. They provide you a lot of that information already. In London, there’s lots of research going on—that WorkTrends I was just talking about.

When people come to committee, don’t be so rigid. Open up your mind to ideas that come forward. We hear that a lot. Young people’s voices want to be heard in many new ideas across this province. They want to have some evolution to how things are done.

For example, my son said, “Mom, we’ve got to change this suit-and-tie way of doing business. People can work from home.” He loves working on the cloud and Skype. He talks about having meetings on Skype. He gave me a strange suggestion—maybe it’s my generation, but perhaps for his generation, things will change—and he’s putting the idea out there. He said, “Mom, why do you have to go to Toronto and sit in the Legislature four days a week? Why don’t you guys have electronic meetings? You can do the same business here in this house and you can be on the cloud or Skype.” I said, “Oh, really? I never thought of that.” He said, “Think of the money it would save.”

Another idea he was telling me about—because he’s surfing the Net and doing a lot of research: He said, “Mom, if you’re travelling, you can actually go on a website and you can find people who will take you into their home for a night. It’s way less expensive.” I saw some problems with that. You don’t know whose home you’re going into.

But again, these are things that are out there that some of the younger generation are accepting as new ways of doing business. They’re not stuck in the box, in the lines. They want to go outside the lines and think of new ways of how to get creative.

Speaker, I want to encourage the minister and the people who work for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to read this Auditor General’s report. There are a lot of procedural suggestions in here that are extremely important for the success of the program that the Ontario Immigration Act has set forward. If they don’t tighten up what they’re doing in there, people are going to fall through the cracks. The results of these immigrants coming here and what their experiences are—we won’t know what that will look like because the reports won’t be done.

One other piece of information in the auditor’s report said that there was never a procedural manual in seven years—if I could find it later, if anyone has a question, I can certainly look at it in detail—for people who work in the ministry. How do you expect people to do their job without some kind of guidelines or direction? That needs to be tightened up if this is going to be something we’re going to take seriously in Ontario. It’s long overdue, as the previous member from Beaches–East York, Michael Prue, pointed out. It’s a long time coming that we’ve been waiting for legislation on immigration.

If this is what the government is proposing, then let’s get it right from the ministry perspective.

Let’s get it right when we go to committee and we hear deputants. Let’s not dismiss ideas that come forward right away, just because they don’t fit in our little box. It doesn’t mean you have to accept the whole premise of it, but you could take some things from it.

I was reading in the London Free Press this morning that a lot of schools are being closed in London, as they are throughout Ontario. What happened is, the city had purchased a particular school and now they’re going to develop it into housing and some park area. They’re going to repurpose that school. It’s just not going to sit there abandoned. It was in the paper how this was a great, new idea of how to move with the times. The way things change, we have to change the way we do things as well. As a government, as a business and as families, we all have to go with that pace sometimes. Things are going to change.

I remember when we had bank machines and my dad refused to use a bank machine. Seniors had a really difficult time accepting that they would go and push these buttons and get money out of a machine. It was like, “Wow, this is just so forward-thinking and futuristic. Wow, look at this technology. We can get money out of a machine. You don’t have to talk to the teller.” My father refused to use it, and not that it’s a bad thing. That’s what he wanted to do. He still had the passbook. He’d go in all the time and get it updated.

But sometimes ideas limit us because it’s a generational block. We, as leaders, have to think beyond those blocks, beyond our generation. Just because it’s comfortable for us doesn’t mean things shouldn’t change. We need to get out of our comfort zone in many things when it comes to how we’re growing Ontario. We’ve talked about that here, job prospects, the job ideas that we mentioned, and one of them is a good idea. It’s attaching funding, it’s attaching government money to job creation. It’s attaching government funding to resources produced in Ontario in processing plants, instead of just giving the money away. That’s seen results. That’s connected to actual evidence of success.

Speaker, I want to thank the members today for being here and listening to my contributions to Bill 49. I look forward to listening to more debate and for this to go to committee so that we can actually do the work.

I’m sure all members have had an opportunity to sit on committee. It’s actually very fascinating to listen to the deputants. A lot of them are very passionate. They come up with very interesting perspectives from their backgrounds and what they do as advocates. It really opens your eyes to what’s happening not just in these four walls but in your own constituency when you hear them—and then other cities around Ontario, and encouraging members to move out of their ridings when there’s a committee and hear other constituents’ concerns up north.

If you’ve never been up north, take the opportunity to do that. Go in the wintertime so you can experience the road conditions.

Mr. John Vanthof: Bring a coat.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Bring a snowsuit, a Ski-doo suit that you only see—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: And a shovel.

Interjection: And a snow shovel.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, and a shovel. Then you can have an appreciation. I had that appreciation. I went up to Sudbury last year. I was at Sault Ste. Marie as well. You have an appreciation when you hear members from the north talking about road conditions. Out in southwestern Ontario, we get all in a fluster when we can’t get out of our driveways because the snow hasn’t been plowed, and that’s rightfully so. But imagine being up north and having those severe road conditions impeding you from getting out of your house. You might be a senior and you may have a medical appointment that’s necessary.

Get out there, go to different ridings and get to understand the lay of the land and go when it’s not the best time of year. Go when it’s not a good time of year. Challenge yourself. Get out of your comfort zone. Put yourself in the place of people who have to pay those heating bills when it’s so cold up north, those exorbitant hydro rates, and then maybe you can understand some of their plights.

That’s what we’re here for. We’re supposed to listen and we’re supposed to take action, but if we can’t identify with some of those concerns—sometimes we can’t really effectively understand those things that people come to committee and bring concerns. So going to those places up northeast—Timiskaming–Cochrane—John, what’s the population of your riding?

Mr. John Vanthof: Sixty thousand.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Sixty thousand? We should all go to John’s riding and hear what farmers have to say.

Mr. John Vanthof: Seven hours, then five hours.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: There you go. That’s a long drive, and we take it for granted.

We really need to make sure that we keep our minds open to what we’re doing here, because if we start just looking at our four walls, in our box, we are not going to grow; we are not going to contribute positively to leadership. Challenge yourself. Get out of your comfort zone every day as a leader, so that you can keep your mind fresh and have perspectives that aren’t the same old perspectives when it comes to looking at ideas for helping newcomers and immigrants in Canada fulfill what the act is promising.

I just want to say thank you, Speaker, for that opportunity, and I look forward to hearing what members’ contributions are.

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

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’d like to thank the member opposite from London–Fanshawe for her comments. I’m glad to see that the NDP want to see this bill go forward and that they too agree that we need to control and support immigration in this great province of ours.

I’m proud that Ontario is the second province, after Quebec, to introduce its own immigration legislation. Our proposed legislation is a beginning, not an end. The Ontario Immigration Act will formally recognize the long history of immigration to Ontario and the important nation-building role it has played in forming Ontario’s social, economic and cultural values. With this legislation, we are taking steps towards charting our own course when it comes to attracting more skilled immigrants to drive our economy and keep Ontario strong.

Equally important, the act will contribute to good governance by making sure that authority for Ontario’s selection programs is clear and transparent. If passed, the act will strengthen our ongoing efforts to deter fraud and detect misrepresentation. The Ontario Immigration Act will increase transparency and information-sharing with our immigration partners. The act will allow Ontario to work more closely with the federal government on recruitment, selection and admission of skilled immigrants.

Everyone has a different recipe for economic success in Ontario. Immigration is a staple ingredient, along with great public education, skills training, infrastructure renewal and supporting a dynamic business climate.

In this way, our Ontario Immigration Act is part of the government’s plan to invest in people and support the sectors that boost the economy and create jobs for all Ontarians. This bill is very important to Ontario’s newcomers, just as it is for its employers. As such, Bill 49 is vitally important to Ontario. I look forward to further debate on this very important bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member from London–Fanshawe. She points out some of the issues with the Ontario Immigration Act, Bill 49. We are supporting it. We need some changes in it.

I think the biggest attractor to Ontario—our province used to always lead this country in immigration because it was a place where you’d come to get a job. Now we’re not seeing that. Actually, we see the other provinces pulling ahead in their quest for skilled trades and skilled immigrants. It’s unfortunate because if we want to get back up to number one, we’re going to have to do something to get our economy going, and we’re not seeing that. Over the last 10 years, our economy has shrunk in relation to the rest of North America.

But there’s no secret to what’s happening here: It’s the cost of doing business. It’s so high in this province that we’re chasing our employers away. Places like Michigan and New York state—their best economic development officers are actually up here in Canada. They work right in this building, on the other side of this House, as they raise all the payroll taxes that we talk about. Now they’re considering another carbon tax, and we’re seeing the exodus of business increasing at a rate that’s hard to believe.

We have to get back to being a place where employers can feel confident that there’s a future for them, confident so that they can actually invest in Ontario, invest in their employees and get a return. If we get to that point, we’ll likely see ourselves come back up in our ability to attract good, qualified immigrants that really are the backbone of this province.

We look forward to making some changes. The federal government has forced the hand of the province to do something, so this is their response. I’m looking forward to more debate.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s a pleasure to stand and compliment the member from London–Fanshawe on her comprehensive report on this bill.

Our province was built on immigration. I know in my community of Windsor—I believe we’re the fourth most diverse community in Canada. A lot of our growth is from people who immigrate to Ontario. We have the Carrousel of the Nations, a wonderful festival. The multicultural council is very, very active in our community.

Let me say, to our Chinese Canadians: Gong Hay Fat Choy; Happy Chinese New Year.

To the member from Davenport, who I believe is either the daughter or granddaughter of immigrants—and I believe she speaks four or five languages. This is how our communities get enriched, how we grow, how the fabric of our culture is enhanced: through immigration.

The member from London–Fanshawe talked about problems with an immigrant having photo ID. I just went through that with my mother, who turned 91 in December. She still lives alone in Newfoundland and still drives. Her driver’s licence expired before she left to come up here, and that is the only photo ID that she had. At the ticket counter, when I was flying her to Ottawa on her way back to Newfoundland, she said, “This has expired. You need photo ID.” Well, when you’re 91 years old, you don’t have a lot of photo ID. She did have her birth certificate, and she did have her social insurance number, so we got her on the plane.

But what is going to happen to a lot of our older people? We’re changing the health cards, but a lot of them are still red and white, and they don’t have a photo on them. If you don’t have a passport, what do you have for photo ID?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise this morning in support of Bill 49. I’m very pleased to hear my colleague from Windsor–Tecumseh wish me and my colleagues and everyone celebrating lunar new year a happy new year. That’s the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to this proposed bill, the Ontario Immigration Act strengthens the ongoing efforts to make sure highly skilled immigrants can work in their sector of expertise, especially in the health care sector. That’s stated clearly in the bill, Mr. Speaker. The bill is called

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

As a former registered nurse, I’m very pleased to see that, if passed, the legislation would amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, RHPA, so that regulations and requirements in relation to professions like nurses, doctors and dentists align with those in the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act.

This act will also require transparency, objective—and decisions must be made in a timely manner. All of us in this Legislature have met somebody who has been trained overseas as a nurse, doctor or dentist but has not been qualified to work in the province of Ontario. If this legislation is passed, it will allow a more timely response from our regulatory body.

This measure is in line with our commitment to increase the number of immigrants licensed in their respective professions. One of the goals of the immigration strategy is to increase the number of skilled immigrants who are able to find work in their field and to increase the percentage of internationally trained professionals who are licensed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, just last night, I spent some time talking to former colleagues in Scarborough. They’re telling us that this is a big problem, and we need to pass this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for London–Fanshawe has two minutes.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you to the members for Davenport, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Windsor–Tecumseh—always a pleasure—and Scarborough–Agincourt. The way we went around the room here, the Legislature, people talked about how there are a lot of immigrants, and a lot of us have immigrant roots. Somehow, other than the aboriginal population, we’ve all come here as newcomers or immigrants. Many of us have built our lives successfully, worked hard. I’m second generation to Ontario. I know the member from Davenport said that she came here as an immigrant too. So we know some of those struggles.

This bill is a step in the right direction by having people come here who are highly skilled, and health professionals, as the member from Scarborough–Agincourt pointed out. There are good steps in there that are moving us forward, but we need to make sure, as we make those steps, that we have the support services and the jobs that we’re promising in those fields for those educated professionals and skilled workers—that they translate when they get here—and then tracking that, having some kind of system where you find out how that success translated for that newcomer.

Because if you can see where it’s working, then you know that you’ve accomplished what you set out to do. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve it. Once something is working, you can’t just sit back and say, “Yes, that’s working great.” There are always things that change, and that’s what I was trying to say earlier: Bills are virtual. As things change, as time changes, we need to make sure that we’re up on that so we can see things out to the finish line.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Laurie Scott: On behalf of Christine Elliott, the MPP for Whitby–Oshawa—the page captain today, Riley Eaton, is from her riding. I’d like to introduce her parents, Teresa and Chris Eaton, from Whitby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my great delight to introduce my intern, who I’m about to lose in a week—my loss will be somebody across the aisle’s gain: Kristen Neagle.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Setimo Eneriko, who is a Ryerson University student volunteering in my office on an exciting community project; and my legislative assistant Dave Bellmore. Welcome to the House.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I just want to add one addendum to what Laurie Scott mentioned about Riley Eaton’s parents. Teresa Eaton was actually a page here in the 32nd Parliament, but I’m not asking how old she is.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome, and congratulations.

The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to welcome somebody to the Legislature who has been the mayor of Sioux Lookout, the mayor of Cochrane and the former chairman of Mushkegowuk Council, now the Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Council: Lawrence Martin. Welcome.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to introduce page Niko Hoogeveen’s mother, Dr. Kelly Emerson Hoogeveen; grandmother Ann Hoogeveen; and grandfather Harry Hoogeveen. They’re in the members’ gallery this morning.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce two friends in the gallery today: Ahsan Irfan and Brian Thilagarajah.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It is with great pleasure today that I introduce my daughter, Monica Granados, who is sitting in the gallery today with me. C’est un plaisir.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I know we all find it challenging running our small businesses at our Queen’s Park office and our constituency office. I want to welcome, on her first day at Queen’s Park, my new assistant, Chana Weinstein. Thank you, Chana.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome to the gallery today Mike Bloxam and Maggie Whalley from London, who are here with the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Welcome.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to welcome here to the Legislature today the grades 4 and 5 students from Dovercourt Public School and their teachers, Mr. Fulton and Mr. Toale. Welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, members from the Canada youth delegation that I met with this morning: Anthony, Leah, Kathleen and Christian. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I am becoming a woman of a certain age, but if my eyes are not mistaken, there is a woman from my community named Diane Dent here in the gallery.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’d like to add to the introduction that the member for Timmins–James Bay gave of Grand Chief Lawrence Martin. Not only is he the Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk tribal council and the former mayor of the communities of Cochrane and Sioux Lookout—may I say the only person to ever be the mayor of two different communities—but also Grand Chief Martin is a Juno Award-winning musician from 1994 and has a new album out called Train of Life. Grand Chief Martin, please stand up. Go out and buy the album.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to introduce two guests from Laurier university who are here today, invited to participate and look at what’s going on here at Queen’s Park. They asked to come. We have both Aron and Eric who are here. Please take a bow.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to also welcome members from the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to welcome back former page Amber Bowes from Oshawa and her mother, Katherine Bowes. They are in the public gallery this morning.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m like the leader of the third party. If my eyes do not deceive me, one of my constituents, Susan Ratcliffe—I was thinking, what on earth is she doing in the gallery? Then the minister helpfully explained that she’s with the Architectural Conservancy. Welcome.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this time I would like our pages to assemble to be introduced to the House, this new group of pages. They may have trouble setting the record if they’re not quicker here.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Trickling in, like members coming in the House in the morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): They seem to be doing so with a little more vigour.

From Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Dhairya Bhatt; from Oshawa, Amber Bowes; from Halton, Vaughn Courage; from Northumberland–Quinte West, Julie Darling; from Whitby–Oshawa, Riley Eaton; from Barrie, Niko Hoogeveen; from Scarborough–Guildwood, Fardin Islam; from Eglinton–Lawrence, Arlyne James; from Scarborough–Agincourt, Andrew Liu; from London West, Muntder Madlol; from Mississauga South, Natalie McLean; from York–Simcoe, Madison Mote; from Pickering–Scarborough East, Ali Rizvi; from Etobicoke North, Ishani Sharma; from Markham–Unionville, Victoria Soltau; from Simcoe North, Rachel Stong; from Kitchener Centre, William Stuart; from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Morgan Tamminga; from Mississauga–Streetsville, Hannah Tang; from Toronto Centre, Inaya Yousaf; from Oak Ridges–Markham, Eileen Zhang.

These are our pages for this round. Thank you. Now get to work.

Oral Questions

Curriculum

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. On November 18 in this House, you affirmed that your government had established a process to consult with parents on proposed changes to the Liberal sex education curriculum, but over the past three months I have heard from thousands of parents from across Ontario who have told me that no such consultation took place and that the period for consultation is now over.

Premier, why did you suggest to this House that you expected the chairs of each school council to consult with parents on the sex ed curriculum when this was, by the order of your Minister of Education, never going to happen?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just be clear: We were, and the Minister of Education was, very clear that all of the schools in the province, all 5,000 schools—the school council chairs—were being asked to take

part in a consultation. That means that every region of the province, every school, every school council chair, had access to the consultation process. That is exactly what happened. We have completed that process.

The fact is that the health and physical education curriculum is out of date. In fact, it’s dangerously out of date, Mr. Speaker. Children in our society need the information that is contained in an up-to-date health and physical education curriculum. They are going to get information somewhere. We want to make sure they get the right information and that they get information that is based on evidence.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: You clearly stated that “the role of a school council chair is to talk to the people in his or her school, to get that input and then to feed that input into a process.” Yet, Premier, the survey itself says, “to support the quality and integrity of the data collected from parent representatives, we strongly encourage parent representatives to complete the survey independently”; that is, Premier, without consulting parents.

Premier, when you stood here and said you expected school council chairs to conduct consultations, consultations the Liberal Party promised back in 2010, were you aware that your Minister of Education was working against a proper consultative process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think 5,000 parents who are informed parents, who are connected to their school communities—and I don’t know if the member opposite has ever been a school council chair. I have, and I know that when you’re a school council chair, you’re in touch with your community. You hear from your community. You know what your community is about and you have conversations with your community. Five thousand parents from around this province, from every region of this province, from every school had access to this process.

But I guess for me the real issue is that this health and physical education curriculum that is in place in Ontario right now dates back to 1998. We need to have this curriculum updated. We engaged in a consultation. We’re behind jurisdictions like British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the update has to—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Well, back to the Premier: Premier, I can only conclude that when you stood up in this House and defended this so-called process, you simply had no idea what the actual process was that your Minister of Education had established, perhaps, Premier, much in the same way that Dalton McGuinty had no idea about the new sex ed agenda his Minister of Education and her officials had planned back in 2010.

Enough of the secrecy, Premier. Enough of defending a process that doesn’t even exist. When are you going to start respecting the role of all parents in the education of their children?

Premier, when do you plan on releasing the proposed new curriculum to all Ontario parents so that the real consultation process can begin?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The curriculum will be posted on the Ministry of Education website for all to see within weeks. Later this winter it will be posted, Mr. Speaker, and it will be rolled out in classrooms in September 2015. The fact is that the curriculum we have in place in Ontario is out of date. We need to have it updated.

I’m not sure what the real agenda of the member opposite is. I’m not sure if the fear-mongering has more to do with his leadership campaign or whether it has to do with a very small group of people who want to stir up fear about the reality that kids need information. They need to understand how human beings relate to each other and they need to get that information based on science. That’s what the curriculum will do, and it will be available very shortly on the website.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My second set of questions is also for the Premier, regarding an ongoing criminal investigation into the conduct of her officials.

Premier, the Sudbury by-election was quickly called for mid-winter. You ignored what your own local party members had to say and appointed your candidate.

Premier, as you know, the OPP have noted their belief that the Liberals broke the law by attempting to lure a potential candidate with a government or political job. Premier, something stinks here. Ontario residents deserve to know what inducements were offered to keep Mr. Olivier out of the Sudbury by-election race.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in this House and elsewhere, any suggestion that anything was offered in exchange for any action is simply false. The reality is that I had made a decision. I had made a decision to appoint a candidate, to appoint Glenn Thibeault as our candidate in Sudbury. He is going to be and is a wonderful MPP.

Having made that decision, there were conversations with the former candidate, the past candidate, to try to keep him involved in the party. That was the initiative, because I believe, as I have said, that it is important to keep people involved when they have taken

part in an election, when they have been part of a party process. So we reached out to him to try to keep him involved. The fact is that the decision was made to appoint a candidate and the initiative was to keep him involved in the party.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Premier, you can continue to dance around this issue or you can use the time to come clean with the people of Ontario.

There can be no doubt that your deputy chief of staff went to Sudbury with the intent of influencing Mr. Olivier and inducing him not to join the race. In fact, the OPP have investigated and they’re of the belief that the law was broken when a government or political job was offered.

Premier, what exactly did you or your staff or the Ontario Liberal Party offer to Mr. Olivier to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think this is an interesting issue and I think it is acknowledged that all parties do work to keep former candidates—

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister of whitewash.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. If I was absolutely sure of what somebody said, I would ask them to withdraw, but I’m not 100% sure. I think he gets my message.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’ll withdraw.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think Ontarians actually expect more of their elected leaders than the politics of personal destruction. Both the opposition parties have appointed candidates in elections. Both the Tories and the NDP have sought to keep past candidates involved.

I guess I have a question back: If you think back to January 2009, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—and it might just be a coincidence, but on the very same day as she resigned her seat—

Mr. John Yakabuski: There was more to this than what you’re saying. There were inducements offered.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: OPP investigator Detective Erin Thomas says: “I believe the words spoken by both Lougheed and Sorbara to Olivier assists me in my belief the Criminal Code offence has been committed.” Premier, in fact, your government and your party are under three different OPP police investigations.

Premier, are you saying that you had, personally, no conversations with Ms. Sorbara or Mr. Lougheed about Andrew Olivier and the Sudbury by-election?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I was saying, on the very same day in January 2009, the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock resigned her seat so the new leader could win and was given a paid job the very same day.

The Sudbury Star, January 10, 2009, said:

“Scott Trades Seat for Head Office Job.

“Progressive Conservative Laurie Scott was given the job Friday of getting the opposition party ready for the next election in exchange for giving up her seat in the Ontario Legislature.”

The Peterborough Examiner said: “In exchange for giving up her seat, Tory said Scott is taking on the ‘enormous responsibility’ of election readiness chairwoman for the party.”

Speaker, the record speaks for itself.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. When we asked you yesterday about—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was the wrong rotation.

The leader of the third party.

Power plants

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The Premier promised that she was going to clean up corruption and cover-ups after 10 years of Liberal scandal, when she came into office. She claimed that she was going to lead the most open and the most transparent government in Canada.

But the report from the gas plants committee shows that not a lot has changed. The gas plants scandal started with a cover-up, and the report is an attempt to cover up the cover-up.

Let’s be honest: Covering up isn’t the same thing as cleaning up. So my question to the Premier is, will she stop trying to cover up her scandals—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I was quite lenient up to that point. The member is accusing another member. Please withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very glad that the justice committee has completed its report. The report is clear on a number of points. The report is clear that the large-scale energy siting process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order—second time.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It happens all the time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order—second time.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That doesn’t happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if you continue, it will be a third time, and the last.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy is not helping.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There were a number of findings that I think make it clear that the work of the committee really did unveil some of the challenges that we were confronting. The large-scale energy siting process failed. The costs were unacceptably high, record-keeping was inadequate, and new rules were needed for the minister—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —new rules were needed for the minister’s office staff.

The fact is that there are 16 recommendations that are designed to improve the siting process and improve records retention. Those recommendations are very important, and I’m glad that we’ve got them as a result of the committee’s work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is something seriously wrong when the Premier’s office is trying to distract people from a criminal investigation into a bribery scandal in Sudbury with a billion-dollar gas plant scandal and its criminal investigation.

Politicians owe it to the people of this province to do much better. Using one scandal with a criminal investigation to distract from another scandal and criminal investigation is pretty darned cynical.

When will this Premier take the responsibility seriously, clean up her government, clean up her office, and clean up her party so we can start getting into the issues that really matter to the people of this province?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is, two and a half years of work that this committee did—there were over 400,000 pages of documentation that were looked at; there were 93 witnesses that came forward. As the process rolled out, we worked to change some of the rules that we knew needed to be changed, to change the siting process, to change the rules around document retention.

Now we have the recommendations of the committee, and there are further recommendations there that we can follow. The fact is, there were 16 recommendations that came out of the committee’s work. The NDP, to their credit, actually put some recommendations in their minority report. Strangely, the opposition, the Conservatives, had no recommendations except to continue to meet.

The fact is, we have those recommendations. We will follow them, and we appreciate the work that all the committee members did.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact is named Peter Faist. That’s what the fact is that these Liberals will not let come into this House.

This Premier, though, insists—in fact, she kept insisting that she was going to be so different and she was going to clean things up around here. Yesterday, she stood up in this House to protect her deputy chief of staff, whose actions are part of a criminal investigation by the OPP in the Sudbury by-election.

The gas plant report shows that the Premier protected Dalton McGuinty’s deputy chief of staff, whose actions are part of a breach-of-trust investigation by the OPP.

The Premier said she was going to be different. So why is the Premier doing the same things all over again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I came into this office, I said clearly that we would open up the process around the committee. We did that. That’s why the committee met for two and a half years. That’s why there were 93 witnesses and 400,000 documents that were read.

I said that we would get to report-writing once the election was over. The NDP decided on the timing of the election. They decided when the election was going to be. We went through the election. We were clear that we were going to have report-writing. That report-writing has happened. We have—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finished?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Liberal gas plant report claims that the blowing of $1.1 billion came down to “inadequacies of record-keeping and document retention policies and training.” As my friend Peter Kormos would have said, bullspit. Liberals deleted emails and they got caught—end of.

Yesterday, the Premier said there was “no specific offer” made to Mr. Olivier. I call bullspit again on that, Speaker. The Liberals told Olivier, “Name your price,” and they got caught.

The Premier tried to cover up the gas plant cover-up. Will she come clean with the Sudbury by-election scandal or will we just see more cover-ups?

Interjections.

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

I’m trying my best to ensure that I’m listening very carefully to all questions and all answers. I’m going to ask temperance when it comes to language and to try to bring it to a decorum here that allows us to go without having to be called to order. I’m not doing that right now, but all I’m asking for is a little temperance when we deliver our questions and answers.

Please?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On the second part of the leader’s question, in terms of the Sudbury by-election, I’ve been very clear. I’ve answered that question a number of times in terms of having made a decision to appoint a candidate and then working to keep a past candidate involved.

Let me go to the first part of the question, which was about the report of the justice committee. Regarding the cost of the relocations, the opening of the report says, “it is clear that the cost was unacceptably high.” I agree with that. Regarding local input, the report says, “It is clear that communities have not been sufficiently engaged in the large-scale energy siting process.” I agree with that. The report and the Information and Privacy Commissioner said, “not enough was done to ensure that ministers’ and Premier’s office staff were aware of their record retention responsibilities.” I agree, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, those recommendations that flow out of those insights are very important. We have taken action on many of them, and we will take all of them very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, there is an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Ontarians deserve the facts.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Why don’t you live by that saying?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Who made the decision to offer a job—any job—to Andrew Olivier so that he would stop seeking the Liberal nomination in Sudbury? Who did that, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The characterization that was just expressed of what happened in Sudbury is simply not the case. That is not what happened. Here’s what happened: I made a decision as the leader of the Liberal Party—it is my prerogative, and I made a decision to appoint a candidate in Sudbury. That candidate was Glenn Thibeault. Having made that decision—

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: People, I’m not finished here.

Having made that decision, there were attempts to keep a young man who had run for us in the previous election—to keep that young man involved. There were no specific commitments. There were no specific offers. There were offers and suggestions about what he might consider in order to stay involved. I would expect any leader in this House to work to keep someone involved who had run for them in a previous election.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier keeps insisting that there was no offer made to Andrew Olivier. There was, Speaker. Pat Sorbara offered him “a full-time or part-time job at a (constituency) office” or “appointments to boards or commissions.” The Premier keeps insisting that she’d already made up her mind to appoint her candidate, but Pat Sorbara told Andrew Olivier that the Premier was in fact weighing her options.

We are confronted with two versions of the truth: Pat Sorbara’s and Gerry Lougheed’s version, and the Premier’s version. It’s apparent that somebody here is not being quite truthful. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier: Who is it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The conversation to which the leader of the third party refers is a conversation that took place after I had already had a conversation with the former candidate about the fact that I was going to appoint a candidate, and that candidate was not going to be him.

The attempts to keep him involved were just that: They were suggestions about things that he might apply for, that he might consider in order to stay involved, just as I expect that the leader of the third party had conversations with Jonah Schein and Paul Ferreira about keeping them involved when they failed to win their seats back. I expect that she had similar conversations.

That was the conversation I had with Andrew Olivier. That was the conversation that Pat Sorbara had. I expect—

Interjections.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. Premier, when we asked you yesterday about allegations that you, and specifically your deputy chief of staff, offered taxpayer-funded positions in return for a political favour, you told us that you were only working to keep the candidate involved in the party—eight separate times. Premier, isn’t this just code for getting Andrew to step aside, endorse Glenn, shut up and obey?

Premier, can you tell Ontarians whether it was the full-time job in the constituency office, the part-time job in the constituency office, or the government appointments to boards or commissions that you and your deputy were offering to keep Mr. Olivier involved with the Liberal Party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said a number of times, the conversations that took place about keeping the former candidate involved were conversations in the context of a decision having been made about an appointment. The fact is that the authority that I have as the leader of the Liberal Party is an authority that comes from the party. We have a constitution. The constitution allows me to appoint a candidate.

The fact is, I had made that decision that I was going to appoint a candidate. That candidate was going to be Glenn Thibeault, so there was no question of who the candidate was going to be. The only question was whether the past candidate wanted to stay involved in the party in any way. That’s what the conversations were about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: The Premier can BS us all she wants in this House, but—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I have now made a decision in my mind. I will not accept that term, because what you cannot say indirectly, you will not say directly, and it impugns that.

Please finish.

Mr. Michael Harris: Sitting across from the OPP, she’d better start telling the truth.

Premier, you said you’d be different. You said you were committed to accountability, committed to transparency. Today you lead a government under the cloud of three separate OPP investigations—a record, Premier. Your deputy chief of staff is clearly heard on tape, clearly understood by people across Ontario to be offering a taxpayer-funded job to Mr. Olivier.

Premier, you say the duties of the deputy chief of staff are separate from the ongoing investigation, but that’s just the point. Your deputy crossed that line the moment she offered Mr. Olivier a government job.

Premier, tell your “never retreat, never explain, never apologize” deputy chief of staff to resign today.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let’s just go over what happened. The fact is that I made a decision to appoint a candidate in the Sudbury by-election. Having made that decision, there was an attempt to keep a young man who had run for the party involved.

As I suspect, I hope that someone over there is going to be talking to Paula Peroni and hoping that she might stay involved in the party. Or maybe you just cut her loose.

What we want to do on this side is keep people involved. Glenn Thibeault was going to be the candidate. The attempts to reach out to the past—

Interjections.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question, Speaker, is to the Premier. When did the Premier decide she was going to skip an open nomination process in Sudbury and appoint her candidate from a boardroom here in Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I go back to my comments earlier about the fact that we have a constitution in the Liberal Party that gives the authority to the leader to appoint a certain number of candidates. That’s part of the decision of the party. I have that authority and I made that decision in this case. Because we had the possibility of having Glenn Thibeault as our candidate, I made the decision that I would make that appointment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, Speaker, to the Premier: That’s not what the facts show. When Pat Sorbara called Andrew Olivier on December 12, she said to Andrew Olivier the following: “force the Premier to move to the appointment process if that’s the only option....” That was the quote. She said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Two things: Number one, the dialogue that’s going on between members of the two caucuses at the back will stop.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I bring order to the House, sir.

And the second thing is, let’s try to tie this into government business, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, when Pat Sorbara called Andrew Olivier on December 12, she said to Andrew Olivier, his actions would, “force the Premier to move to the appointment process if that’s the only option available.” She said to Andrew, “you’ve been ... asked by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to step aside to allow Glenn to have the ... opportunity uncontested.”

So the question is that there are two stories here. The Premier claims she made up her mind previously, but the facts in regard—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me, your time is up.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it’s time to kind of step back and think about the decision the Premier made to appoint a candidate, an extremely fine candidate who has served the community of Sudbury very, very well over the past six years as an MP.

The Liberal Party of Ontario has a constitution that gives the leader the right to appoint candidates. She exercised that right because Glenn Thibeault, although he did represent a different party—I know that’s a sore point for the party opposite—he represented his community extremely well. We have brought that into our caucus, into our government, into this Legislature.

The focus of the party opposite on this personal destruction—and it’s not just as the House came back, the whole campaign they ran was based on destruction of an individual. We’re proud of our—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

Poverty

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is to the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. In September, you launched Ontario’s second Poverty Reduction Strategy, Realizing Our Potential.

Building on the successes of our government’s first strategy, Breaking the Cycle, released in 2008, the new strategy contains many measures to fight poverty, including expanding health benefits and nutrition programs for children in low-income families, creating a local poverty reduction fund to support organizations that achieve outcomes for people, and reducing child poverty by 25%.

Mr. Speaker, I’m also pleased to see the new strategy sets the bold, long-term goal of ending homelessness in Ontario, a goal that the minister shares with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Through you to the minister responsible for our Poverty Reduction Strategy: Can you please give this House an update on what our government is doing to reach our goal of ending homelessness?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the honourable member for this very important question, Speaker. As the member mentioned, our new Poverty Reduction Strategy sets the long-term goal of ending homelessness in Ontario. It’s the right thing to do and it’s the smart thing to do, because having a place to call home gives people a stable foundation from which they can build their lives back up again and rise out of poverty.

Currently, there is no consistent definition of homelessness. We have no consistent methods for counting the number of people who are homeless in Ontario, but we do know that we have a problem, and we are determined to resolve that problem. We need expert advice, and that’s why we’ve announced a new Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness, shared jointly between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and myself. They’re going to give us practical, actionable advice and expertise to help us define and move forward on this very important commitment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you to the minister for her answer. In addition to her work on the file, I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been instrumental in the fight against homelessness in Ontario. Commitments in the new Poverty Reduction Strategy, such as the $42-million increase to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative and the $16 million for 1,000 new supportive housing spaces for Ontarians living with mental health and addiction issues, demonstrate that we are already making strides when it comes to reducing homelessness.

The Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness is the next logical step in crafting an evidence-based approach to achieving our long-term goal of ending homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy: Can you please give my constituents and this House more information about the panel?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thank you to both the honourable member and the minister responsible for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. As the minister mentioned, the creation of the new Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness means that our government will, in fact, have the tools it needs to pursue an evidence-based approach to eliminating homelessness in Ontario.

The panel consists of 13 members who reflect Ontario’s geographic diversity and have a wide range of experience and expertise, including people with lived experience of homelessness, people with expertise in aboriginal youth homelessness, people with technical expertise in homelessness data and measurement, people with subject matter knowledge and expertise, and people with knowledge of the current Ontario practices in measuring homelessness locally.

The panel will also engage additional experts and groups, such as youth, newcomers, seniors, aboriginal people and the LGBTTQ community.

Power plants

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday was another sad

chapter in the ongoing saga of the gas plant scandal and the Liberal Party’s coordinated efforts to delete emails and wipe hard drives with the tabling of your whitewashed, sanitized report by your committee.

Late last year, under cover of darkness—Christmas break and darkness—it was announced that the Liberal Party would repay the $10,000 that the government had paid Peter Faist to destroy hard drives and delete emails in your office.

Premier, Peter Faist is the boyfriend of the former deputy chief of staff who is now under a cloud of darkness for giving false testimony to the committee. This is further evidence that taxpayers’ money was used inappropriately by your Liberal government and another example of your lack of leadership. Will you commit to restrike the gas plant committee so that we can finish the job of getting to the bottom of your scandal?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, we are glad that the justice committee has completed its work. I want to thank all the members of the justice committee, who have done tremendous work over the last three years in making sure that we get good information as to how decisions were made around the gas plants. Speaker, as you are aware, the gas plant committee has listened to about 93 witnesses, some of them multiple times. They received almost half a million pages of documents, including about 30,000 pages of documents from the Premier’s office.

As a result of all that work and deliberation, they have provided a critical assessment of government record-keeping practices and the way in which large energy projects are sited. We look forward to evaluating and implementing those recommendations provided.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, I could say that that was a shiftless response but I’ll say it was a responseless shift. It brings up three words. It could be summed up in three words: failure of leadership.

Let’s be honest with what this cheque from the Liberal Party was all about. Your party paid Peter Faist, the boyfriend of Laura Miller, former deputy chief of staff, to eliminate evidence in a criminal investigation and destroy property belonging to the people of Ontario, and to prevent this House and the OPP from getting to the bottom of your gas plant scandal.

The report submitted yesterday changes nothing. This is not over. Through the power of your majority, you forced the committee to produce an incomplete report. Will you commit to re-striking the committee and allow us to investigate and question Laura Miller, Peter Faist and David Livingston, the key players in this scandalous cover-up?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Start the clock. The member for Stormont will come to order. The member from Renfrew—I have to say it—will withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. We should let the OPP do their job. Our job is to make sure that we look at the 16 substantive recommendations that have been provided by the justice committee and make sure that we implement those recommendations.

I’m glad to see that there are some really important recommendations that are provided in this report regarding the cost of the relocations and making sure that we have extensive and substantive engagement with communities where large infrastructure projects are planned to be sited and better record-keeping practices.

We have been working, over the last couple of years under the leadership of this Premier, in making sure that we’re making all the necessary changes in terms of better staff training for mandatory record-keeping training and in passing an accountability act which has stiffer penalties around deletion of records. I’m actually very sad to see that the opposition parties provided no substantive recommendations after the incredible amount of work that was done in this matter.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, can you confirm whether you directed Pat Sorbara to offer Andrew Olivier a full-time or a part-time job at a constituency office or appointments to boards or commissions, and are those job offers still on the table for Mr. Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier has, on several occasions, discussed this particular issue.

I did this yesterday and I’m going to do it again today because I have a feeling that not everybody was really paying attention to understand what a fine new colleague we have in this Legislature. We offer our congratulations. It is the tradition of this House that a new MPP, regardless of whether they’re on your side or someone else’s side, is given the courtesy of respect and congratulations.

Who is Glenn Thibeault? Who is this all about? Well, throughout his career he has shown an unwavering commitment to a better, fairer Sudbury. I have a feeling that the member from Nickel Belt knows better than most of us the contribution that our new member has made to Sudbury. He has fought tirelessly—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Back to the Premier: When Gerry Lougheed spoke to Andrew Olivier, he began the conversation by saying, “I come to you on behalf of the Premier.”

Premier, can you confirm that you authorized Gerry Lougheed to make offers to Andrew Olivier on your behalf?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what we’re witnessing is the same negativity that voters have rejected. Voters have rejected the kind of negativity that we are seeing expressed in this House today. The by-election campaign that was run by the NDP—and, apparently, the PCs, to the extent that they ran a campaign—the negativity was rejected.

The people of Sudbury made a decision. They made a very good decision. They made a decision where all of the information was presented to them. The public has said that they demand more. They reject the negativity of the opposition, and they elected someone who will make a positive contribution to the lives of people in Sudbury.

Glenn Thibeault, the member from Sudbury, has a very strong and positive record in driving change. We welcome him and look forward to the contribution he will make here in the Legislature.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Climate change

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and poses a threat to our infrastructure, food supply, drinking water and our economic competitiveness.

But climate change is a problem with a solution. While the opposition has refused to put forward meaningful solutions to this challenge, our government has taken action, closing Ontario’s coal plants, curbing the use of cosmetic pesticides and protecting 1.8 million acres of land with the greenbelt. These initiatives have resulted in fewer smog days and cleaner water for all Ontarians.

I was pleased to see last week that the minister has launched a climate change discussion paper and invited Ontarians, businesses and communities to share their thoughts on how we can best combat climate change while continuing to grow our economy.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change inform this House about the nature of his discussion paper and the consultations with Ontarians?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s particularly helpful to have people like the member from Cambridge, who is a nurse, who understands the health implications for families—Lyme disease—and it’s great to have such a champion in the House who understands the dimensions of this.

The Premier and I and the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Health—our entire cabinet, Mr. Speaker, our entire caucus understands that the biggest, most important issue we’re facing for our families and our children is climate change. We are fast-tracking to a four-degree mean temperature change on this planet in the latter half of this century. That is the biggest challenge we, as human beings, have faced in our entire history.

We’re also seized with the economic opportunity. As John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, said, we will be seeing a $6-trillion expansion of the western economy—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —thank you very much, Mr. Speaker—and that opportunity is also unprecedented. We want Ontario to lead in this new economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Minister. I’m really pleased to see that our government is continuing to build on the progress that we’ve already made in reducing greenhouse gases and fighting climate change while helping our businesses to increase their productivity and competitiveness, to build on our strong economic growth.

I note that the climate change discussion sets out a bold vision which would:

—establish Ontario as a leader in climate change mitigation and science;

—redesign and build strong, carbon-neutral economies, communities, infrastructure and energy;

—protect ecosystems, including air, land and water;

—leave a legacy of a healthy world for our children—my children—and future generations.

I know my constituents in Cambridge have many great ideas for Ontario’s upcoming climate change strategy and how they can reduce their carbon footprint while helping to make Ontario’s economy stronger and more competitive.

Speaker, could the minister inform the House how Ontarians across the province can join the conversation on climate change?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I certainly can and am very happy to. We are going to every corner of the province: Thunder Bay, Ottawa, southwestern Ontario. We will be engaged in direct conversations with Ontarians—regular folks, municipal leaders, labour leaders, business leaders, environmentalists, families, moms, dads, grandmas. This is everybody’s conversation, and it has to land well.

This is the second time we’ve done this. Our Climate Ready strategy started this same way five years ago. I’m very happy to report to the House that our 6% reduction below 1990 levels has been achieved for 2014, and we know that we’re going to meet our 2020 cut.

All members can participate and all Ontarians can participate by going to www.ontario.ca/climatechange, where all the paper and all the data are. We’re going to be reading those and really building on the knowledge, expertise and thoughtfulness of Ontarians to get this right economically and environmentally.

Electoral reform

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Premier. Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa has repeated his call for limiting advertising by special interest groups during election periods. We support his recommendation. Mr. Essensa is an officer of this Legislature, and I respectfully suggest that all members of this House should be mindful of his advice. Premier, will you accept and implement the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: We are always open to conversations on ways to improve Ontario’s democratic process. Ontario has rules in place to ensure that there is both transparency and free speech in our election campaigns. Third-party advertising rules were introduced in Ontario for the first time in its 2007 reforms to election legislation.

Under current rules, third parties that spend $500 or more on election advertising are required to register with the Chief Electoral Officer. Registered third parties must also report to the Chief Electoral Officer on election advertising expenses.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll say this: When they were in power, they did nothing. In 2007, Ontario, for the first time, in its reforms, put those rules in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Premier: In the last election, special interest groups spent $9 million on political advertising. That’s more than 19 registered political parties combined, and three times more than was spent in 2007. Under your watch, Premier, the deep pockets of the well-connected special interest groups win, while democracy and the citizens of Ontario lose. This is a direct violation of the principle of equality—one person, one vote—that is fundamental to democratic government. Free speech should be free.

Premier, you can’t justify buying free speech or allowing it to be bought. You know it’s time to bring Ontario in line with the rest of the country on electoral reform. Premier, will you cap third-party advertising spending? Yes or no?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, we always welcome the good recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. For the first time, as I said, Ontario, in its 2007 reforms to elections, introduced third-party advertising rules. This was done in 2007. We’re always looking for good advice from the Chief Electoral Officer. I’ll say that this party was very quick to put some rules around election advertising. We always welcome his good advice, and we will take that into consideration.

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. The Premier says that she had made up her mind to appoint Glenn Thibeault before offers were made to Andrew Olivier. That’s not what Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed are saying. They are saying that offers were on the table and no decision—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

M me France Gélinas: They said that offers were on the table and that no decisions had been made. This is what the Premier is claiming. Yesterday the Premier said, “I had, in my role as the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, made a decision to appoint a candidate in Sudbury” and “I had already made the decision to appoint.”

My question is simple: When did you make your decision to appoint?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When the member from Nickel Belt got up to ask a question, I was sure she was going to ask a question about health care. I was sure that there were issues in this province affecting people in her community and beyond and that she wanted to have the opportunity to put that question to the minister. I was sad to see that she is continuing the theme of negativity and personal attacks that we’ve seen from both parties.

I want to congratulate the member from Sudbury. I want to congratulate the people of Sudbury for choosing such a fine representative to send to Queen’s Park. This is a citizen of Sudbury who has, time and time again, demonstrated his worthiness. The people of Sudbury made a thoughtful, informed and wise choice, and we look forward to working with the member from Sudbury as he works to improve the lives—

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

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: Here are some of the facts. Gerry Lougheed said to Andrew Olivier on the tape that everybody can listen to, “The Premier, up to now, has always said to me she’s in favour of a nomination race. So I want to make that ... clear; she’s never said to me, ‘I want to appoint ...’” Glenn Thibeault.

Pat Sorbara says exactly the same thing. To Olivier she says: “You’ve been directly asked by the leader and the Premier to make a decision to step aside ... you recognize, then, the position that we’re going to find ourselves in here, right? Where she’s”—the Premier—“going to have to make a decision around the appointment, right? Versus letting this go ahead.”

The question is simple: When did you make the decision to appoint?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As somebody said earlier: Pot, meet kettle. The NDP decision to install Adam Giambrone—you might remember Adam Giambrone in 2013—is well known. The Toronto Star reported that Giambrone was “parachuted into the riding”—you might remember this—“allegedly stacking the nomination meeting.” It’s obvious that the third party has hired past candidates, past MPPs. That has been mentioned before.

Let’s go back to the quality of the candidate who was elected by the people of Sudbury. Glenn Thibeault has fought tirelessly for supports for people with developmental disabilities, for quality services for families struggling with autism. As director of the United Way—how much more grassroots can you get than that?—he led many successful campaigns in support of community development. He’s a proud volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters, something I share with him, and he has coached minor hockey and football, which I have not done. He’s a fine new member—

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

Disaster relief

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, we all remember the ice storm of December 2013 so well. It caused widespread damage and blackouts across southern, western and eastern Ontario, and at its peak left over 800,000 hydro customers without power. Many of the members in this House, including yourself, Minister, know this first-hand from the storm’s impact on our own communities.

In my own riding of Davenport, many residents were left without heat and power for several days. A warming centre was opened at J.J. Piccininni Community Centre on St. Clair Avenue.

In response, our government announced that it would offer a one-time ice storm assistance program. Your staff has now received all 58 applications from the municipalities and conservation authorities seeking reimbursement through the program.

Last Friday, your ministry shared an important and long-awaited update. Minister, please tell this House how our government is moving forward in support of these—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the honourable member for that question. Yes, of course I remember. I remember something else. I remember the incredible efforts of all the municipal and EMS staff who were out there building a stronger community by reaching out to their community. I want to start by complimenting them.

The province has initiated final payments to three municipalities: the townships of Mapleton, Centre Wellington and Puslinch. Here’s some more good news: The other 52 municipalities and six conservation authorities that have submitted claims have been offered an interim payment, and most have availed themselves of that opportunity, which is really good, so they can get on with the task of continuing to build that strong, caring community that on a good day we all in this House want to see happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Minister, it’s wonderful to hear that municipalities that have been waiting for assistance with their public costs will be able to benefit from support. I know I speak for the municipal leaders in Toronto when I say they have been eagerly awaiting these funds.

Reimbursement will go towards costs incurred to protect public health and safety, and to secure access to public roads, sidewalks and frequently travelled routes. These interim funds will also assist municipalities with their budget planning.

These interim funds will be welcome, but can the minister tell us why the ministry isn’t flowing the full amounts municipalities have requested yet?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We initiated these interim payments now because we didn’t want municipalities to wait any longer for at least a partial reimbursement of those expenses that they have. By the way, the interim payment has been very, very well received by municipalities.

It’s important that we begin flowing these interim funds so that they can get on with the remainder of their claims, so that we can adjudicate those as quickly as we can without disadvantaging them in any real way. We’re going to flow funds in a responsible way, ensuring that public dollars are spent wisely.

And as I explained earlier, the feds are involved in this, too, so we’ve got two sets of accountability mechanisms here. Each claim is going to be reviewed carefully, and as soon as we get that adjudicated, the full payment will be delivered to municipalities as they’re hoping for.

Doctor shortage

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I’m very concerned about the state of Ontario’s health care system and the availability of doctors in my riding.

Under your imposed contract with the doctors in Ontario you’re prohibiting new doctors from joining family health teams in well-serviced areas. However, your government’s model in defining well-serviced areas is extremely flawed.

My riding has been experiencing a shortage of doctors for a number of years. The cities of St. Thomas, Aylmer and Rodney have lost up to six doctors, and in fact the municipality of Dutton/Dunwich has only had one doctor for a number years.

Minister, too many people in my riding are without doctors. In fact, a number of the doctors in my riding will be retiring in the next three to five years, and your current model of family health teams will not allow for succession planning.

Minister, can you share with me your plans to address the doctor shortage that you have created?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you for the question opposite.

Actually, I have good news, because what we’re doing with the changes that resulted from the OMA’s refusal—to walk away from the table after a year of negotiations and not accept the fair offer that was presented to them and the fair offer that was recommended by, frankly, the umpire that we brought in, retired judge Warren Winkler, who was our conciliator aiming to bring the two parties together: He said that the government’s offer was a fair offer and implored the OMA to accept our offer as well, feeling that it was fair.

But what we’ve done with our family health teams for our important family doctors who are graduating is precisely what you’re asking for: We’re directing those resources to those parts of the province that need them most, to the underserved areas, the areas where there are doctor shortages, where we need to make that added effort, to make sure that our family doctors—that broad family health team, the professionals that provide that important care—go to those areas of the province that need it most.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, what’s not fair about the system is the fact that your system classifies my area as well-serviced, which it’s not. It’s flawed, and under this new decision you’ve made with the Ontario doctors, doctors cannot come to my riding.

Minister, it’s clear that you have no plan for the health care system. You’re ignoring groups like the Ontario Medical Association, who want to work with you, who have plans to make the system better. Not only has your government stopped new doctors from joining family health teams, you have now threatened doctors—to penalize them—who see too many patients.

Minister, the baby boom generation is growing. It’s a tremendous increase on the usage of our health care system, yet your government cut services and access to health care in order to balance the budget.

Minister, why are you cutting health care to make your government’s financial budget commitment?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I don’t quite know where to start. We aren’t cutting health care. The health care budget continues to increase year over year, as it has for many, many years.

The physician services budget, which is currently at $11 billion—10% of every dollar that this government spends in the province—that fund for physicians specifically is going up by 1.25% next year, 1.25% the year after that and 1.25% the year following.

We are increasing health care; we’re committed to our family health teams. More than three million Ontarians currently have access to a family health team.

But quite frankly, I’m disappointed at the question, because we worked hard and diligently and with good-faith intentions with the OMA for over a year—a year and a day, to be exact. Retired Judge Warren Winkler came forward as an independent umpire. He took our side, Mr. Speaker. He asked the OMA to accept a fair offer.

Government announcements

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Huron–Bruce on a point of order.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Speaker, I’d like to draw to the House’s attention that this morning, the Minister of the Environment announced the Great Lakes Protection Act outside of the House at Ripley’s Believe It or Not aquarium. Is it not the privilege of the House to hear of acts being called forward in the House before anyone else hears it? Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for her point of order. I would remind all members that I have no authority over when and where those announcemen