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

October 30, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-30 (PDF)

L079 - Wed 30 Oct 2013 / Mer 30 oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 October 2013 Mercredi 30 octobre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

CANCER TREATMENT

MINING INDUSTRY

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

CATARACT SURGERY

TRANSPORTATION

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DEFERRED VOTES

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AWARD RECIPIENTS

JOHN WHITE

FRIENDS OF THE GUILD PARK

AND GARDENS

GREY BRUCE AGRICULTURE

AND CULINARY ASSOCIATION

ALL TRIBES CHRISTIAN CAMP

SENIORS’ IDENTITY CARD

FOOD BANKS

PARC ROYAL 22 E RÉGIMENT

TRANSFORMER STATION

WILL FERGUSON

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

434753 ONTARIO LTD. ACT, 2013

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(MPPS’ RECALL), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

(RÉVOCATION DES DÉPUTÉ

S) STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MINING INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

PETITIONS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

MINIMUM WAGE

SMALL BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TENANT PROTECTION

SMALL BUSINESS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mrs. Sandals moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mrs. Sandals.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, I stand in the House today to speak in support of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, and I will be sharing the time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

We are rising in support of this bill that will, if passed, provide an improved legal framework for collective bargaining in the education sector. It would ensure that the roles and responsibilities of all parties are clear at the outset of the new collective bargaining process, and it would continue our efforts to repair relationships with our education partners, to put previous challenges behind us and, most importantly, to move forward.

Since I was first appointed Minister of Education, rebuilding relationships with our education partners has been my number one priority. We made great progress in the spring, as our partners in public, elementary and secondary schools returned to providing extracurricular activities. We made further progress by reaching memoranda of understanding with all of our education partners that helped build a positive start to the current school year and keep our collective focus on improving student achievement in our schools from now until the expiry of the current contracts in August 2014.

This bill is a critical next step in the progress we have already made. We need to ensure a clear and consistent labour framework that works for all parties involved, and I’m confident that the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act would put that clear framework in place. For too long, we have worked with a bargaining process that was outdated and did not reflect the current realities of the education system.

Legally, local school boards bargain with local unions. But back in 1998, under the previous government, local school boards were stripped of their taxation powers while maintaining their status as the employer in collective bargaining. Meanwhile, the province became the sole funder for the education system, yet did not have a formal legal role in collective bargaining. In other words, local boards recruit, employ and supervise teachers but rely on provincial funding to run their schools, yet the government has no statutory role to bargain over issues that are inextricably linked to funding.

This was obviously unsustainable and needed to be addressed. As a result, our government then created the provincial discussion tables and, through these voluntary forums, made significant investments and improvements in the education sector.

In 2004 and 2008, working together with federations, unions and school boards, our government facilitated agreements that benefited employees and boards, while ensuring peace and stability for students and families. The PDTs, or provincial discussion tables, helped bring the unions and school boards together, with the government acting as a facilitator to reach province-wide framework agreements on major issues of province-wide significance, such as compensation and benefits.

As a result of the PDTs, and our commitment to invest in publicly funded education in Ontario, things changed. For example, the 2004-08 PDT agreement resulted in: funding for 2,630 elementary specialist teachers; funding for 1,900 secondary student success teachers; and zero learning days were lost due to full-time teacher strikes.

Building on that, the 2008-12 PDT resulted in: funding for 2,300 elementary specialist teachers; funding for 220 grades 7-8 teachers to support literacy and numeracy initiatives; and funding for 650 grades 4-8 class-size reduction teachers; funding for 890 secondary teachers; 400 additional professional and paraprofessional staff; 215 additional office support workers; approximately 500 additional custodians; and eight school years without a full-time teacher strike.

These were solid investments to ensure our schools had the resources they needed to help students succeed. However, this forum for negotiating, the voluntary provincial discussion tables, were just that: voluntary. The province supplemented the local process with a central process, and that helped. But it was still an ad hoc process, one that worked better when investments in education were increasing.

Now we are in a time of fiscal restraint and facing a challenging mandate. In order to produce an improved process more ready to deal with the coming challenges, we want to move to greater consistency. The process should be made into a legal framework that more clearly recognizes boards as employers and provides a clearer role in bargaining for the government as the funder. And in our 2012 budget, we pledged to establish a new legislative framework for provincial bargaining in the education sector.

That is why we have proposed this groundbreaking legislation. If passed, it will move beyond the voluntary discussion tables and establish a clear legal framework, with clear roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in negotiations. And it will allow the government, as the funder of the public education system in Ontario, to have a prescribed role at the negotiating table where it can bargain directly.

The relationship between all parties involved in education sector negotiations has grown more complex, and we need a process that reflects that increased complexity.

In addition to providing the government with a clear role at the central table, there is a newly prescribed role for central employer bargaining agencies: to negotiate legally enforceable provincial agreements on behalf of all school boards. This recognizes the important role of trustee associations in this process. As for individual school boards, they would remain the legal employer and continue to negotiate local agreements that would address local matters.

Speaker, this proposed legislation is of vital importance because virtually all collective agreements in the education sector expire in August 2014. That is why we need the provisions of this bill in place well before next August. The next round of bargaining is around the corner, and a structure that recognizes the government’s role at the table, along with the trustee associations representing school boards and the provincial unions, will be essential.

Speaker, the proposed model for labour negotiations would establish two processes for negotiations: a central table for significant province-wide issues and a local table at each school board to address local issues. Negotiations would take place at each level, guaranteeing that all issues, whether large or small, would be discussed in a clear, consistent and focused manner.

The central bargaining table would see the negotiation of key issues with province-wide impact, such as compensation. Issues that affect the implementation of education policy or that could result in significant costs for one or more school boards can also be negotiated centrally. Management representation at central tables would be made up of both the government and the provincial trustee associations. Employees, of course, would continue to be represented by their provincial unions or federations.

In the case of local bargaining, the structure would remain the same, as it currently exists, describing local bargaining. Local issues would continue to be bargained by local school boards and local employee representatives, and would be allowed to happen concurrently with central bargaining. The provisions of centrally negotiated agreements, combined with locally negotiated provisions, will make up the final collective agreement.

This new structure, if passed, would enshrine for the first time a clear, legally defined role for government at central tables. It only makes sense that since the government has a strong interest and obligation in the outcome of negotiations, it should likewise have a formal role at the central table.

Another big difference from the previous process is the creation of legally recognized central voices for school boards. Historically, there was no legal status for the trustee associations to provide central representation for the school boards. This now needs to change to better reflect today’s reality.

We are also proposing changes to the ratification process. This is one of the more innovative aspects of this legislation: three-party ratification for central bargaining. This means that a central settlement, which will be part of the collective agreement, will only be reached if all three parties—government, trustee associations and unions—agree to it. I repeat: No central settlement can be reached without the agreement of each of these three parties.

Speaker, this is truly a made-in-Ontario approach to collective bargaining, and different from the status in any other provincial bargaining scheme, where the school boards, as represented by their associations, have no role in the ratification of the central agreement. It’s a homegrown solution that shows that we listened to stakeholders who wanted clarity, accountability and consistency during bargaining.

With the proposed model, we’ll have a process that ensures all parties have a clear role and are accountable during the negotiation phase, while also ensuring that everyone plays an essential role in the final outcome. Also, this process would formally recognize the trustees’ role as elected representatives by naming the trustee associations as central bargaining agencies. With the newly prescribed role for government at the central table, we, as the funder of education in Ontario, will be able to bargain directly about issues that are connected to funding.

Speaker, this simply makes sense. The funder, the employers and the employee representatives will all sit at the central table, and each of those three parties will have a critical role in how and when central agreements are reached. I’m optimistic that the addition of three-party ratification will lead to a more effective and consistent bargaining process for everyone involved. It ensures that all parties are 100% clear about their role and, similarly, 100% accountable for the outcome.

As mentioned before, this means the role of trustee associations is prescribed in the legislation. The trustee associations will be required to establish their own policy and procedures to fulfill their duties and functions as employer bargaining agents. I have full confidence in the trustee associations’ ability to perform this role.

Support staff unions, such as CUPE, will also have access to central tables but on a voluntary basis. If a union representing more than 15 support staff bargaining units wishes to participate in central bargaining in any given round, the Minister of Education would have authority to designate a union or bargaining council of multiple unions to represent support staff in schools. We do anticipate that that is what would happen in most cases on the support staff side. What it means, for example, is that office staff, early childhood educators and maintenance workers, represented by unions such as CUPE, ETFO and OSSTF, would be eligible for a central bargaining table.

Once the union is designated as a central employee bargaining agency, it’s the responsibility of the minister to create a central table by designating a council of trustee associations as a central employer bargaining agency. The significance of that technicality is the fact that if we think of CUPE, for example, it has bargaining units in all four school board sectors, so we need to have all four trustee associations represented at the management side of the table.

I would like to speak more about what this newly prescribed role would mean for the bargaining process. Currently, the government has only been party to voluntary central negotiations, despite having the legal responsibility for funding elementary and secondary education. This proposed legislation would change that. The government would have a direct, formal role in central negotiations and will work to coordinate all central tables.

The province would work with the trustee associations to set the bargaining mandate for the management side at the central tables, and it would help determine which issues would be bargained centrally. Of course, with three-party ratification being a requirement, the crown also plays an essential role in ratifying the central agreements. But to be clear, the government would continue to have no role in local bargaining. The proposed model continues to respect the existing local collective bargaining process as the best process for addressing purely local matters.

With the introduction of a new structure, this legislation, if passed, would require all parties to agree on which issues will be negotiated centrally versus locally. This will be determined at the outset of the bargaining process before negotiations begin and could vary from contract to contract, from round to round, even from table to table. This makes sense, as we need to know which issues will be negotiated at which bargaining table before negotiations can begin.

While the issues to be negotiated at each table are not dictated by the legislation, there are some general guidelines. In general, major monetary items and items with major policy implications would be discussed at the central table, and the Minister of Education would have authority to reserve certain matters for the central table. Such matters would include those that could have a significant impact on the implementation of provincial education policies or a significant impact on the expenditures of one or more school boards.

The proposed legislation also provides a process to resolve an impasse over what issues will be bargained centrally. If, after a fixed period of time, all parties cannot agree on what issues will be bargained centrally or locally, any party may turn to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a final decision. This means that no issue can be negotiated at both the central and local tables in a particular round of bargaining. It has to be one or the other table.

As I have stated, this innovative legislation would require three-party ratification at the central table, and ratification between employers and employees at the local level. Any resulting collective agreement would be comprised of the centrally negotiated terms and the locally negotiated terms, but local terms would obviously apply only to the specific school board for which they were negotiated.

The duration of education sector collective agreements are also prescribed in this proposed legislation. Collective agreements can only be set to terms of two, three or four years in length, while common expiry dates will be retained; that is, the August 31 expiry date that we currently are using. These pre-set terms are also part of our goal to establish a clear and consistent process for all parties involved.

Speaker, with the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, we are proposing a framework to move beyond past challenges and to look into the future. We want to build on the work we accomplished at the voluntary central tables and establish new rules for all parties involved in the process. This clarity, consistency and efficiency will improve negotiations and help put previous challenges behind us. That has been a top priority for me since becoming Minister of Education: to rebuild the relationships with our stakeholders and to move forward. That is why we have worked very hard, over many months, to get feedback from key education stakeholders.

Speaker, this made-in-Ontario approach to collective bargaining was developed through extensive consultation with our education partners. Five informal rounds of consultation took place this past summer and early fall with trustee associations, teacher federations and support staff unions. This valuable input helped shape this proposed bill, and we included elements in this legislation that were asked for directly by education stakeholders, both trustee associations and unions.

All parties we consulted supported a bargaining structure that included central and local tables, and virtually all parties agreed that major monetary items should be negotiated at a central table. At the same time, it was agreed that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that local bargaining remains meaningful. We also heard that central and local issues should be agreed upon by all parties at the beginning of each round and not prescribed in legislation. And, finally, everyone we consulted supported access to provincial negotiations for support staff.

Speaker, this is not just our government’s proposed legislation; this is a made-in-Ontario approach to improving collective bargaining in this process. We did listen to our stakeholders, we valued their input and we heard what they asked for. While it’s impossible to satisfy everyone with every clause in one piece of legislation, we do believe that the proposed legislation balances the interests of all parties and proposes a model that responds to the unique characteristics of Ontario’s education system.

That is why we are confident that this legislation will help modernize collective bargaining in the education sector. It’s a bill that reflects our need to find a better way to negotiate, and it’s a bill that reflects and respects the needs of our stakeholders and of all Ontarians.

Speaker, I’ve outlined why we need this legislation, what it will do and how it will help improve relationships with our education partners. It’s a bill that helps build on the great progress we have made in education. It’s a bill that will bring clarity and consistency to provincial-level bargaining for publicly funded education, and it will do this by establishing a framework for negotiations that will replace previous discussions that were voluntary. It will do this by allowing all parties in negotiations to work together and work toward a common goal. That is why we are proposing this new model for negotiations.

As I’ve said, the voluntary process we engaged in previously at the provincial level created challenges. Now is the time to adopt a new model, a new process, where everyone has a formalized role at the central table. This is essential as we remain in fiscally challenging times.

The current method of collective bargaining may have worked better when school boards had taxation powers, and during periods when investments in education were increasing. But in these times of fiscal constraints, we need a model that encourages creative, collaborative discussions where everybody works together to find solutions to challenging issues.

As mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the next round of bargaining is approaching fast. Current contracts in the education sector expire in August 2014, meaning that the collective bargaining process will need to begin early next year. That is why it is so important to have the provisions of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act in place before the next round of bargaining. It is critical that we have this new process in place quickly, to ensure that everyone at the bargaining table has an opportunity to put in place the structures that would be required to successfully implement the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act will help establish such a process, and I look forward to the support of all the members of this House on this very important piece of legislation. By passing this groundbreaking bill, we can deliver a made-in-Ontario approach that improves the way we negotiate in the education sector.

Speaker, in the spirit of partnership, I urge all MPPs to stand up and do what’s best for our education system. Without question, we need a collective bargaining process that is clear and consistent for everyone, and the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act will help us do just that.

Thank you, Speaker, and I’m now going to share my time with my parliamentary assistant.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to add my comments in support of the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

As the minister pointed out, this proposed legislation needs to be in place before the next round of negotiations. We are proposing this bill to help formalize in legislation the relationships with the educational partners as it relates to collective bargaining. This will help build on the great progress we’ve made in education, in a system that is already recognized as being among the best in the world. We are seeing great results, results that we can all be proud of.

These accomplishments are directly tied to the hard work and dedication shown by our teachers, students and school administrators each and every school year. These are the people who help Ontario lead the pack in publicly funded education.

Since 2003, Ontario has made great strides in helping students succeed and reach their full potential. This has given our province an international reputation for innovation and excellence, and rightly so. I’m very proud of our sterling record on education. It is a record that has delivered tremendous results for our province.

While there are many ingredients that have contributed to our success, we are always guided by three core priorities: increasing student achievement; closing the gaps in achievement for students struggling within our system; and increasing confidence in publicly funded education. Since 2003, these core principles have delivered very positive improvements. In 2002-03, only 54% of children in grades 3 and 6 were achieving the provincial standard in reading, writing and math. That number has jumped to 71% of children in grades 3 and 6 meeting the provincial standard in literacy and numeracy. This is an impressive increase of 17 percentage points since 2003.

Similarly, our graduation rate is up significantly. In 2003, only 68% of our students were graduating, but now that number stands at 83%. That is a 15 percentage point increase in this short time. This means that over the past 10 years, an additional 115,500 students have graduated who would not have if the graduation rate remained at the 2003 level. We have come a long way in the last decade, and we have our educators, students, parents and many community partners to thank for these great improvements in student achievement in our school system.

As I mentioned, Ontario’s publicly funded education system is one of the best in the world. Time and time again, international studies show this to be true. Scholars from around the world, including Australia, China, Denmark, Japan, Sweden, India, Finland, Northern Ireland, the Bahamas, Germany and the United States, have visited our great province to learn of our success. That worldwide excellence was evident in 2012 when Ontario was once again recognized as a leader in education.

A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, explained that our government’s emphasis on solid education has achieved real, positive results towards increasing literacy and numeracy comprehension, improving graduation rates and reducing the number of low-performing schools. This adds to the previous OECD reports that ranked Ontario students among the best in the world at meeting or exceeding international standards. Speaker, this is astounding progress.

Of course, one of our proudest achievements has been full-day kindergarten—one of the most significant transformations in our education system in a generation. We are giving students the best possible start with full-day kindergarten, the benefits of which can last a lifetime and lead to a successful future.

Full-day kindergarten continues to roll out as planned and is now offered in approximately 2,600 schools across the province. That means that about 184,000 of Ontario’s four- and five-year-olds are benefiting from full-day kindergarten this school year.

By September 2014, full-day kindergarten will be available to all of Ontario’s four- and five-year-olds. We know full-day kindergarten is worth it because the program is already producing great results. But full-day kindergarten is just one way we are transforming our world-class education system.

We’re also working hard at the elementary level. There, we’ve looked at new ways of improving literacy and numeracy, and we’re also focusing on the development of higher-order skills. Creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving skills are all part of our modern world. This means that educators increasingly have to teach students how to use information to think independently.

At the secondary level, we’re helping students gain real-life, hands-on experience in the workplace. Students gain valuable experience in co-op programs, while earning credits towards their high school diploma. Our Specialist High Skills Major program means students can match their personal interests and skills with a career path.

Seven years ago, when we launched the Specialist High Skills Major program, 600 students enrolled. This year, more than 42,000 students are in the program. These priorities are benefiting Ontario students and putting them on a solid path to success. But we recognize that our work is not done.

We must ensure that we continue on this road to success. That is why we’re looking at ways to take our education system from great to excellent. We must continue to raise the bar and take student achievement to new heights. To this end, we are currently engaged in consultations around the province on the next phase of our education strategy.

Our world is rapidly changing, and the evolution of technology is creating a greater demand on our system. So we have been asking education stakeholders and non-traditional stakeholders for their ideas. We have been leading, hosting and encouraging provincial, regional and community discussions to create an updated vision of our education system. This direct feedback has been invaluable.

We are hearing from a wide range of sectors, from education to business, not-for-profit, research and innovation, and more. This diversity of perspectives and wide range of opinions will help us identify ways to take our education system even further. We want to know how front-line educators envision our education system over the next 10 years. We want to hear from business leaders on what they expect from the next generation.

Parents, volunteer organizations and our aboriginal partners, among many others, are also contributing to this exciting new vision. Of course, we’re hearing from students, for whom everything we do in education is focused—to help them succeed in school and far beyond.

These consultations will help build a powerful future for education in Ontario, a future that depends on all of us to ensure we continue to live in a prosperous Ontario. Most of that prosperity is tied to the investments we continue to make in our education system by supporting it with stable funding.

The Ministry of Education, with an overall budget of $25 billion, is the second-largest ministry, and provides a vital public service to all Ontarians. As part of our commitment to full-day kindergarten, we’re providing about $963 million for the 2013-14 school year to support the ongoing rollout of full-day kindergarten. This combined investment of the Grants for Student Needs and full-day kindergarten is almost $22 billion, but our current fiscal reality means everyone in the public sector needs to be financially responsible.

School boards are benefiting from funding that has increased by $6.4 billion, or 44%, since 2003, and per-pupil funding now sits at $11,200, an increase of more than $4,000, or 56%, since 2003.

We also continue to make sound capital investments in our schools and communities. Since 2003, our government has provided $11.6 billion in capital funding to school boards, including funding to support 610 new schools that have either been opened or planned or are under way currently. This funding helps build new schools or expand, refurbish or repair older schools being renovated, closed or replaced. We’re also investing in green schools that use modern, environmentally friendly technologies. We will continue to make these investments so our schools can provide the best possible learning environments to support students’ success.

Nevertheless, we must also remain mindful of our current fiscal climate. We live in a time of global economic uncertainty, where we have to count our coins and stretch our dollars.

That brings me back to this proposed legislation, where we are looking to establish a new model of collective bargaining in the education sector. As the minister said, if passed, it would provide a made-in-Ontario approach to labour negotiations, with clear and accountable roles for all parties involved in collective bargaining.

Since the government funds education in Ontario, it puts us at the central table, where issues tied to funding are discussed. This will be essential as we move forward in our time of financial constraints. We need to protect our world-class education and find a better way to negotiate while working within our fiscal parameters.

As such, I urge all MPPs in this House to join Minister Sandals and myself as we support this bill. The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act is necessary and important legislation. As the minister said, we need to have this legislation in place long before August 2014. It is in everyone’s best interests that it be passed and in place before this next round of bargaining.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to respond to the Minister of Education and the parliamentary assistant, the member for—I’m just looking here right now—Scarborough–Rouge River.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education have offered a number of points with respect to this legislation, and I particularly respect the fact that their goals are to increase student achievement, to reduce the gap between underperforming students and underperforming schools with the top-performing ones, and improve confidence in public education. I think that members on this side of the House certainly would applaud the government for that and agree with the government that those are worthy causes of discussion.

I know that through the course of my response—I will be having an hour lead on this. I’m going to reserve many of my comments for that period in time. But what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is it is interesting to hear that the government has presented this particular piece of legislation that focuses on the process of collective bargaining. This bill, more or less, is about process; it’s not about the politics, it’s not about improving test scores. It’s simply about outlining and laying out a framework and a process for negotiation.

Certainly, on this side of the House, we have a number of perspectives on how to improve education. We would like to be talking about those pieces of legislation, but I know, through the course of debating Bill 122, that we will be stuck talking about the process by which collective bargaining will take place.

So there is an opportunity, I think, to talk about this process and framework, but what we really would like to talk about on this side of the House is how we can actually improve student scores, how can we actually improve the education system, which this bill simply fails to do. This is simply about process and not about improving quality of education.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise today as MPP for London West, but also as someone who has been involved in the education sector since 2000. Really, it was the chaos of Bill 115 that led me to put my name forward, to seek elected office at the provincial level and stand before you here today as MPP for London West. In my 13 years in the sector, we saw each round of collective bargaining was basically reinvented by the government, depending very much on the personality and the priorities of the minister of the day, and I don’t think the sector was served well by this constant change in process.

I’m very pleased to see that there is an effort to bring forward a legal framework to guide collective bargaining and define the roles of each of the parties. It’s especially important to give provincial trustee associations a formal legal role in the process. I think this will help very much, but we also have to be very cautious. I heard both the Minister of Education and the member from Scarborough–Rouge River talking about the need to move expeditiously and put this legislation into place. As always, with legislation, the devil is in the details.

We need to get this legislation to committee, ensure that all stakeholders have ample time to review the legislation, to respond to the legislation, to bring forward amendments, because we absolutely owe to the students of this province a commitment not to put them into the kind of chaos that we saw last year with Bill 115. We owe it to the students of this province to have a quality public education system that is framed by a responsible collective bargaining process.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I just wanted to reflect on the comments by the minister and the parliamentary assistant that, ultimately, getting this right means that we get it right for students and parents. Really, that’s the bottom line. We’ve got to remember that it’s not just the teachers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, my father was a caretaker in the school system. The support workers are critically important because they all come together to do something that sometimes we don’t pay enough attention to, day in, day out.

I visit schools regularly—I was at Baycrest school in my riding the other day—just to see the incredible care that the staff and teachers take for our kids. I’ve got Forest Hill Collegiate. It’s as good as any high school in the country. I’ve got Dante Alighieri high school. The kids have been in 20 portables for the last 15 years, yet the teachers and staff carry on and take care of these kids.

Sure, our education system always needs improvement. We know that. But the amazing thing is that the tens of thousands of teachers, support staff and the parent councils, the CSACs, are doing this on a regular basis. This is our attempt to make sure there’s a framework where the schools work for the community, for the students, for the parents. That’s why this framework has to be connected to the kids and to the workers in the schools in a way that’s fair. I think the minister has spent a lot of time—she has got a proven track record of working in our schools. She has a real love of our schools and our kids.

I think we’ve got to try to find a way of building this proper framework, and I think that’s what this is about, in terms of everyday people.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: I’m happy to provide my two minutes on the leadoff for Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act. I know that I’ll listen with interest as my colleague Rob Leone, the member from Cambridge, who I know has dove deep into this issue as the new critic for education, enlightens members of this House as well as Ontarians on where we stand with regard to this issue.

I think, first, it’s quite unanimous that our intent here is to ensure that our kids get the highest quality of education possible in the province of Ontario to ensure that they’ve got a bright future ahead of them. Education is an important part of that. I will say that not only what happens in the classroom is important, but outside the classroom, after hours or even before the school day starts, is an important aspect.

I recall the students that I had into my office last fall, who were denied a lot of those extracurricular activities that are so important to a part of their school day. You know what? Some strong students who organized their colleagues and wrote letters to the minister came to see me in my office and said, “Hey, don’t use us as bargaining chips here.” These are important activities. I know students who were preparing to go to college getting a bit of extra help in the morning or those participating in after-school activities who were really shut out from that, while their counterparts on the Catholic side were able to continue those extracurricular activities.

We talked about clearing the decks and bringing forward a jobs plan that would address jobs and the economy. We know we have a major situation there. We talked about amending reg 274, something that’s extremely important to ensure that the best teachers are in the classroom and that when hiring is on the books, those folks get the best possible education they can.

Thanks for the opportunity. I’ll await the member—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The Minister of Education has two minutes.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the members from Cambridge, London West, Eglinton–Lawrence and Kitchener–Conestoga.

I want to focus on what the member from London West had to say, because her observations were quite correct, that the provincial discussion tables were an ad hoc arrangement, an ad hoc process—that each process was different. I can assure her, because I, too, was a trustee, that before we went to provincial discussion tables, the process was also quite difficult, the time when we were doing local bargaining in the years between losing taxation rights and attempting to do a provincial discussion table.

So I think what we’re both reflecting is that there is frustration in the system with a process that’s legally fine but that doesn’t match reality, and that that frustration is shared by the unions, it’s shared by the school boards and it’s shared, quite frankly, by the government.

In response to the member from Cambridge, that’s actually why we have put so much effort into the process. I do need to assure you that the consultations that we did with both the unions and the trustee associations were very much focused on the details of exactly how this legislation works. We have been talking here today about the broad strokes, but there’s been a lot of discussion going into every clause and how every detail of this should work.

For my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence, thank you for recognizing the support staff, because the education workers are also an important part of this scheme. They too can have access to the central table.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s good to have an opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 122. It is certainly an improvement over Bill 115. I know that many Liberal MPPs are relieved with Bill 122 because it is an attempt to reach out once again to the teachers, who they hurt badly under Bill 115. I know that many Liberal MPPs were profoundly nervous about what had happened and that they had broken the wonderful relationship they had with teachers that they had built for a long, long time.

Recall, Speaker, that the former Premier was touted as the education Premier. That is what he wanted to be known as. His wife was a teacher, of course. He himself had a love for teaching, teachers, children, and when they came out with Bill 115, most of the members were horrified—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You have to stand down the lead. Say, “I’d like to stand down the lead,” or you’re—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s exactly what I thought we had to do.

Speaker, with your indulgence, can we have unanimous consent to stand down our lead, please?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina has asked for consent to stand down the lead. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Continue.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much, Speaker. These are the rules that we normally follow. I didn’t know how they could have been done any differently.

You will recall that the Premier was the education guy. Imagine the horror of this opposition party. Imagine the horror felt by so many Liberal members who themselves are teachers, who themselves were close to the teaching profession, some of whom might have been school trustees as well.

They just couldn’t quite understand how they could have moved away from virtually 10 years of good relationships with the teachers to bring down a bill that essentially violated that relationship with the teaching profession and disrespected school boards—because they obviously overrode the agreements, overrode the powers of school boards, overrode and dismissed the relationship they ought to have with the federations, and they did get punished here and there, and they felt it. Each and every one felt it.

What I said in a speech that I made—it seems quite a long time ago—is: Why would you do that? Why would Liberals do that? Why would the then-Premier do that, and why would that caucus allow the Premier and others, whoever they are, to do that? It made absolutely no sense.

I understand how things work. I know that the Premier has tremendous power. We know that. And we know that the chief of staff of the Premier has tremendous power. Between the two of them, the power is immense. It is absolutely immense. It’s possible that one or two cabinet ministers—maybe three—have some influence on the Premier, but on the whole, they have none. Where others might say, “But where were you?”—and they do say that: “Where were you? You could have said no.

You could have resigned.” You could have insisted that Bill 115 was wrong, and together you would have been mighty; if you had 30 or 40 of you saying no, the Premier would have had to back off. So the question is: What happened?

Mr. Mike Colle: Like Bob Rae.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Similarly. Similarly. People could say that of the social contract as well—absolutely true. Which is why I say to the Minister of the Environment, because he’s always the one who reminds us of these things, “Have you learned nothing from that experience?” That’s the point I make.

It doesn’t mean that if you had a bad experience 20 years ago, you could then do the same and learn nothing from bad experiences. The idea is that you learn from something that was truly difficult, problematic, for politicians and the professions that were affected by it—

Hon. James J. Bradley: “Social contract.” Say the words.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That was the one.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Say the words.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That was the one.

Interjection: He won’t say it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I obviously don’t want to hurt someone who’s a friend of yours and was going to be the leader of the federal Liberal Party. Clearly, it would not be useful to hurt you even more. The point is to learn from the past.

Bill 115 was truly damaging to you, and it was good that it damaged you, because what you did is to simply overwrite contracts. Contracts meant nothing. What you did was to simply—but I just told you that you had a lesson from 20 years ago.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Good judgment is based on past experience.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Good judgment is based on past experience, and the point is that you learned nothing from it. The idea was that you treat the federations with respect, that you have them at the table, and you treat school boards with respect, and you have them at the table. With Bill 115, you did not do that.

You’re trying to recover lost ground, and I understand. God bless; it’s good that you’re doing it. Now you’ve got the federations onside, so to speak, at least having them at the table. That is good. You have the boards onside, which is good. So you have them on board, so to speak, at the table, which is good. And at least you’re able to, hopefully, negotiate reasonably, amicably, respectfully with the teacher federations and the boards of education. It’s all they want. It’s all they deserve. It’s all they expect.

But when I hear the member from Scarborough–Rouge River talk about all the wonderful things you’ve done in education, it makes me vomit, from time to time. Please, please, please. It’s almost revolting. I exaggerate. Speaker, I exaggerate. I don’t want to hurt them too much.

Some of you may not know, but some of the ex-Toronto trustees know this very well—I will not mention them by name or by their riding—they do know that most boards have deficits. I think you know that. The way they deal with deficits is to find various cuts to make in order to balance their budgets. What has the Toronto board done for years now? They have a maintenance budget, a capital budget, and boards of education, particularly the Toronto board, have had to raid that budget to balance the budget. What does it mean to raid the capital maintenance budget? It means our schools are falling apart.

It’s like the Dufferin line, that has no clean buses going up Dufferin. It’s similar to that, right?

Mr. Mike Colle: All the smog.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: What would it take, to help the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, to bring some clean buses going up Eglinton so that he doesn’t have to suffer the smoke of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ve been unusually lenient for myself today, and it’s getting out of hand. The member knows that he has to go through me and not have conversations across the floor with the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence knows better, especially being the veterans you are. So let’s have a little decorum—a great word, I know—in the House. I’d appreciate a little quiet, because the Speaker is getting a little upset about this. Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, if you noticed, I am making a tremendous effort to look at you as often as I can; I am. While you were looking away, I was looking at you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I must admit, from past experience, the member from Trinity–Spadina has improved immensely with his ability to go through the Chair. And I love it when you look at me.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That’s what I was doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thanks very much.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And I just wanted to emphasize the tremendous effort that I have made. So while I was distracted momentarily, I had to look at him briefly, but I quickly turned to you, as you might have noticed, because of the respect I have for the Chair and your position, of course.

Speaker, the point that I make to the minister and to the member from Scarborough–Rouge River is that we have tremendous fiscal problems at the boards level. So the Toronto board raids their budgets, the maintenance budgets and their capital budgets, on a yearly basis to balance the budget, as they try to maintain their dollars for essential programs that they deem to be important for the board of education. What it means is that elementary and secondary schools are falling apart. It is important for some of you—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I was distracted.

It is important for some of the members to actually do a little visit of some of their schools in Scarborough—that would be useful—and in the old Toronto. I think it would be very, very useful, because, remember, the old Toronto is old schools, and if we don’t repair them, they are in serious trouble.

So for years, we have taken from that budget to balance our budgets because, by law, boards have to balance their budgets, and to do that, they have to take money from different programs, rob-Peter-to-pay-for-Paul kind of programming. That’s what has been happening for years. Boards have raided the ESL programming for years.

I remember the then minister, Monsieur Kennedy, who gave $120 million for ESL, and it was understood that that money could be raided by boards in order to be able to balance their budgets and move money around, and it didn’t go directly to all those needy kids coming from different countries, who desperately needed ESL. How do you square that? How do you defend that? You could say money is going to ESL, and you could say loads of money are going to boards, but the money isn’t there—money desperately needed for needy children, who don’t get the ESL.

The French language program: They don’t get the dollars that they deserve either. Money is raided from that program as well, to be able to balance their budgets. Music programs have been devastated. We used to have, a long time ago, what we used to call gym teachers, that are now called physical education teachers. We used to have a heck of a lot more physical education teachers, and we needed them. We needed them then, and we need them desperately now, because young kids are overweight—some are obese.

We desperately need to get kids moving, and we need teachers who have knowledge of how you teach kids health, what we eat and so on, but physical health in particular. And now only 30% to 34% of our schools have physical education teachers. That is a serious deficiency in our system, and why is that so? Because of underfunding.

If you don’t have the funding, you cut away, you chip away at various programs that are important. I am a big supporter of full-time JK and SK—a big supporter of that program. Our party talked about this in the 1999 election as a very important thing to do. We don’t shy away from its importance, but what I said then was that if you don’t invest properly, there are going to be problems in that program, and that will hurt the program, not help it or save it.

Principals were very, very nervous about it because more responsibilities were put on their heads and their shoulders, and they knew that once that program came in, they would have to find the dollars to fund that program, because the program is not adequately funded. The government quickly moved in to put those programs where there was space, and when there was no space any longer, they had to scramble to deal with the problems that they faced in schools where they had to build additional space for those children. That’s why we still don’t have a program that is fully complete.

Where you have full-time JK and SK, you don’t have a seamless program in the morning and in the evening. That problem is everywhere across Ontario. Most parents cannot afford the early child care and the late child care, which means some parents are using it if they can afford it, and some are not. That’s a serious problem. So that seamless day that was supposed to happen in the schools is not happening.

We have tremendous problems in our system, and while this government, in 10 years, has made some effort to improve our educational system, we have a long, long way to go to make it the best possible system that we can have.

We talk about math. Math is another issue that we have not addressed as a government, and I am one of the few who believes that we should bring specialized teachers into grades 7 and 8, because it is incredibly important that we have teachers who are experts in the field to be able to pass on that important skill to the kids. If the kids are afraid of math and they don’t learn it properly, half of the possibilities in our lives are eliminated by the mere fact that we don’t have the math skills.

So I’m a big fan of having specialized teachers in grades 7 and 8, and to the extent that we can bring in more specialized teachers teaching math, it is something that we should be looking at. It’s another issue of big concern that I believe we should be addressing, and until we do that, I don’t know that we’ve done the job.

Bill 122 is a bill that obviously has brought the stakeholders together, and that includes the federations and includes the boards. They, I suspect, might have some questions based on the legal component of this bill and/or other elements. Clearly, they, and we, want to bring this bill into committee for debate and discussion, and we want to be able to hear from them and others about what they think is good about this bill and what they think might need improvement. But this goes a long way to improve what we had by way of Bill 115. It goes a long way to improve the relationship between the federations and the school boards and the government, and I believe this is a good thing.

So I’m looking forward to having hearings on this bill, Speaker, and I’m happy to have had the opportunity to speak to it.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise in support of Bill 122. I heard intently this morning the Minister of Education kick off her remarks about Bill 122. As a former school board trustee before I came to the House, Mr. Speaker, I can speak of one item that’s so important to my constituents in Scarborough–Agincourt. Education is the foundation of the growth of this province. Through Bill 122, it will provide, as the minister talked about, a made-in-Ontario model framework to talk about protecting the public education system that we know we’re so proud of across the province.

My colleague from Scarborough–Rouge River, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, also spoke eloquently this morning about the success and the gains we have made for over 10 years in terms of public education.

I know that the member opposite from Trinity–Spadina does not want to echo those comments, but I can tell you that the reading and numeracy numbers—it’s factual. The fact that our schools are leading the way in terms of internationally—we are all proud of our public education system.

Through Bill 122, we address the whole issue of how to continue to move forward in public education, to make sure the system is strong and stable and to address the issue of collective agreements, and we will be having two-tiered bargaining. There will be a central tier. At the same time, we will also have a local tier to allow the local school board, along with their employees, to bargain local issues.

The other piece here is that the minister spoke very passionately this morning, as well as the parliamentary assistant, about the time sensitivity of this particular bill. We all know in this House that August 2014 will be upon us, and it’s incumbent on this House and this chamber to pass some type of legislation to provide the framework for the next round of bargaining.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I want to congratulate the member from Trinity–Spadina on his remarks today. I know that he and I shared a very special moment on Monday afternoon while we were looking for some Italian cheeses. We had a road trip, and he showed me the goods on Corso Italia and Little Italy. I very much appreciated that outing, and I appreciate that we’re going to be doing it again.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member from Trinity–Spadina raises a number of important points. One of the key points that he made is a point that I would echo, in that this is a very highly technical bill, a bill that likely will have labour lawyers debating the nitty-gritty and the technical aspects of the bill, but ignoring largely some of the policy objectives that the member has outlined. Particularly, I know he referenced the declining math scores that are in our schools. I think, perhaps maybe with a bit of disappointment, he is suggesting that we could be talking about those items which, because this is a technical bill, we won’t be debating very much at all.

This is an important aspect. I think there are a lot of issues in education. I think that providing the rules and formalizing the negotiation—obviously, it’s very important for all parties to understand and listen. But I get the sense that the member from Trinity–Spadina would like to be talking about other issues with respect to education, and he wants to move on addressing some of the concerns that he has, not only for the system as a whole, but those issues that are particular to his riding and to the municipality and city of Toronto in which he lives.

So I look forward to participating in this debate, and I want to thank the member for his comments today.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I wanted to comment on some of the remarks that were made by the member for Trinity–Spadina. He’s obviously a very passionate advocate for public education and someone who has seen a lot of change in education over his years here in this Legislature.

I think he raised a really important point when he spoke about ESL and the importance of ESL in his riding. What that really reflects is some of the differences between school boards in terms of the priorities they place on local issues. I think that one of the challenges we may see in this legislation is around the definition of what is a central issue and what is a local issue, particularly when it comes to funding. We know that school boards across this province are all very different. They have very different sets of priorities.

Sometimes, what boards want to advance at the local level as a local priority requires provincial funding. We need to ensure that there is an appropriate process in place to allow that definition of what is a central issue and what is a local issue.

I’m pleased that the legislation includes that opportunity because that is going to be very important to the province moving forward in terms of having a fair collective bargaining process.

Once again, I want to say on behalf of our party that we believe that this framework is necessary. We would like to hear what stakeholders have to say as it moves forward to committee.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I must say, in response to the member from Trinity–Spadina, I share his passion for looking at teaching math. That’s also something that we are looking at, although that doesn’t require legislation. What we’re debating here today is Bill 122, a change in the legal labour relations framework for the education sector, which does require legislation.

But somewhere in the member’s comments, he did say something quite relevant, which was the observation that school boards are not legally able to run a deficit. From a technical point of view, that is because if a school board does run a deficit, it is actually reflected back on the province’s books and increases the province’s deficit, which is why that prohibition is there.

But that’s very relevant to this discussion because the reason that the government has come up with these various forms of voluntary provincial discussion tables is that when you looked at just simply doing local bargaining absent taxation power, it made local bargaining almost impossible because the school boards didn’t know how much money they would have beyond a one-year GSN announcement.

The unions obviously would have liked to get raises periodically, and it’s awfully hard to figure out how to give a raise that won’t cause a deficit if you don’t know how much money you’re going to have, which is why both the boards and the unions said, “Government, we need you at the table because you’re the only people who know how much money you’re willing to spend.”

So the comment from the member for Trinity–Spadina about school board deficits and school board financing is actually absolutely essential to understanding why we’re doing what we’re doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina has two minutes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. I was very sad when a previous government, in the past, removed the power of local levees, because local levees allowed boards to be able to reflect their own needs in their own areas. When the government that shall remain unnamed did that and centralized education financing, that took away local power. It took away the powers to be able to negotiate even agreements with unions in a way that reflected their own needs. And once power was centralized, it gave so much influence to the provincial government.

For all intents and purposes, we’ve had provincial negotiations for the last 10 years, really, under the Conservative government and under the Liberals. For a long, long time there was the sense that perhaps we were negotiating locally, but really the power lies on central governments, and that is scary sometimes. It can be hurtful.

I was reminded about the needs of our special education kids. This is a growing, growing phenomenon and a growing problem. So many of our kids are not getting the special attention they deserve. So many of our kids are now into the regular classroom without educational assistant support. It is unbelievably difficult, and I don’t know how families are making do. I don’t know how teachers survive it, really, because it’s hard to teach a classroom where there are no needs and then all of a sudden you’ve got four or five kids in your classroom with specialized needs that you can’t deal with on your own.

Teachers are doing that at the primary level. We have many, many difficulties we need to address. This bill addresses some problems of fixing Bill 115. God bless. I’m happy to debate that.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. It being 10:20, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1021 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like the members of the Legislature to look to the visitors’ gallery. I want to introduce my constituents Clint Cole, Stan Kuzma, Jim Sullivan and Pedro Pelletier, who are members of the Clarington transformer group. I welcome them to Queen’s Park. They’re having a video this afternoon, if you want to join us at 2 o’clock.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Filomena Ferraro from the York region OECTA to today’s proceedings. Welcome, Filomena.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is an exciting day in the Legislature, as I’m joining the Ontario Mining Association in hosting our annual Meet the Miners Day here at Queen’s Park, an annual tradition going back 25 years.

We have a number of important members of the mining industry in the gallery, and I want to introduce them: Kelly Strong from Vale, and also the Ontario Mining Association chair of the board; Rowland Howe from Sifto—welcome, Rowland; Larry Sparks from Omya Canada; and Tess Lofsky from North American Palladium. Did I mention Duncan Middlemiss—I don’t believe I did—from St Andrew Goldfields? Thank you very much—and Phil Bousquet, who is manager of industrial and government relations with the Mining Association. Welcome, all of you. It’s going to be a great day.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there’s a reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230 from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and we invite all the members of the Legislature to join us there this evening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You may not say that.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to welcome to the gallery today my friend and former colleague Rae Gropper. She is an education and health consultant who works with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome Alex Wellstead to Queen’s Park today. Alex is a constituency assistant in my Oakville office.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I’m delighted to introduce, in the east members’ gallery, Kelly McGiffin from FirstOntario Credit Union; and from Central 1 Credit Union Helmut Pastrick, Kelly Harris and Katie Rochefort. I welcome them to the gallery and welcome them to Queen’s Park. I hope they have a great day.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce Dave Bryans, the CEO of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, as well as Ron Funk, who is the chair of the board of directors of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport—for page Sarhan Shafaque: her mother, Masoom Shafaque, and father, Abdul Shafaque, are here in the galleries. On behalf of the minister, thank you very much for joining us today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A number of people have joined us from the Fort Erie area. They’re arriving now. As I mention their names, I’m sure they’ll be taking their seats: Jim Thibert, general manager of the Fort Erie Race Track; Ted Mansell, executive vice-president of SEIU Local 2; Elissa Blowe; Harry Eder; Jackie Eder; Braydon Eder; Justine Eder; Kayla Alderson; Ryan Alderson; Claudia Whalen; Henry Whalen; Conner Whalen; Miranda Whalen; Michelle Crawford and Drake Crawford—all wonderful people involved with the Fort Erie horse racing track.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier on the motion that we’ve tabled with the Chair. I do want to say, in light of the Premier’s position on Bill 74—I’ve been in politics for a long time. I’ve seen people take two sides on an issue. I’ve never in my life seen somebody take three sides on an issue, and that’s not the kind of leadership we need in the province.

It’s just further evidence that we definitely need change in our province. We’ve seen the cancellation of the Oakville gas plant, the $1.1 billion to put forward the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the taxpayers. We’ve seen 10 months of indecision. We’ve seen 36 panels.

I’ve just got to ask the question: In light of the lack of decisions, except to save Liberal seats, why should we trust you to run the province of Ontario for even one more single day?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Before I call the Premier, I’m going to make mention of the fact that I’m hearing something that you know I don’t like to hear, and you will be reminded for all of you. You mention people by their riding or by their title. I will not tolerate anything else.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday, I had the privilege of being at Centennial College and being part of an announcement about an investment into a program that is going to allow young people to get experience in the aerospace industry, which is an absolutely leading and important industry in this province. In fact, 14 of 25 manufacturers in the aerospace industry—14 of 25 in the world are here in Ontario. That investment in a facility at Downsview Park is going to play to our strengths as a province.

I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been supportive of that kind of job creator, that kind of investment in people and infrastructure that is going to help the economy. It’s going to help people get into the economy. It’s going to create jobs. I would have thought that he would have been supportive of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I just want to see a government that’s not corrupt. I want to see a government that’s not morally bankrupt, that’s what I want—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m just going to caution: Let’s stay away from the kind of language that could be inflammatory. I would ask the member to follow that request.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier continues to put the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of hard-working taxpayers. We put a motion on the floor of the House to say that we simply cannot trust the Liberals to run the province of Ontario. Clearly, that’s what I hear from Ontarians around this province. We’re losing jobs. We’re losing more manufacturing jobs in Hamilton. We have folks at the Fort Erie Race Track who are facing closure and, quite frankly—despite the NDP protest—that track would not be closing without the support of the NDP for the Liberals over and over and over again.

So the question is, if the NDP actually suddenly agrees with us instead of siding with the Liberals in each and every vote, if they say they’re on the side of Ontario families and agree with us that we can’t trust the Liberal government, instead of being patsies for the Liberals, will you then say, “Let’s go to the people; let’s actually let them decide. We can forge forward to a better Ontario.”

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we want to do on this side of the House is give people the opportunity to get the training that they need, make sure that communities have the infrastructure that they need, so that we can continue to bring business to the province. We want an economy that’s going to thrive. We have a plan to make those investments, and we are executing that plan.

What we are not going to do is make a 180-degree turn and cancel the services that people need, fire workers, close hospitals, close schools. We have done that. So the reality—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, come to order, and I’ll catch the rest of you the next time around.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The public policies that we are putting in place, including those around the horse racing industry—and I know that the leader of the third party has a new-found interest in horse racing in Fort Erie, but the reality is that the public policy that was in place, as a result of their government, was not transparent. It was not accountable. It had to be changed. We have changed it, and my hope is that the race tracks across the province will have a sustainable future.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, frankly, the Premier caused the crisis, and she signed the document that sold the province down the river to the tune of $1.1 billion—and quite frankly, the NDP sold their soul to prop you up.

Here’s the reality across the province: Hydro rates have doubled; we’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs; people are worried about keeping their job, let alone the pay raise that they need in this province in the private sector; the horse racing industry is in jeopardy. The reality is, to get anything done, you need two parties in our Legislature to support that agenda. So far, the Liberals and the NDP have been hand in glove in driving forth its agenda that has resulted in doubling hydro rates and the closure, potentially, of racetracks across the province. If the NDP changes their mind and says, “You know what?

We’re actually saying enough is enough. We can’t trust this Liberal government”—if they support our motion, will that mean you’ll actually put the vote to the people of Ontario to decide to move forward—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to pick up on something that the Leader of the Opposition said. You know, I acknowledge that we are in fragile economic times. If you look around jurisdictions around the world, we are in fragile economic times. So I do not believe that firing 10,000 education workers and 2,000 health care workers and putting in place right-to-work legislation that would drive down workplaces to the lowest common denominator and, in fact, kill jobs—that is not the route that I believe is responsible, so we’re not going to take that route. That is the route that is laid out by the Leader of the Opposition.

We believe that the investments in people and in infrastructure and in a business climate that will bring business to the province is where we should go, which is what the announcement yesterday was about. The aerospace industry is one of our strengths. That’s the kind of strategic investment that needs to be made in order for this economy to thrive. We’re going to continue on that path.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m actually telling everybody to stop heckling.

New question.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question, as well, is to the Premier. Speaker, the Premier has no mandate from the people of Ontario. She is presiding over the largest political scandal in Ontario’s history, and a new opinion poll says Ontarians want an election over the gas plant scandal. It says somebody should be thrown in jail over this $1.1-billion scandal, and I believe those results, Speaker, because when I’m in Osgoode or Kars or North Gower or Nepean, the same people who are being asked in these polls are telling the same thing to me. They think they ought to be thrown in jail.

Voters have lost confidence in this Liberal Party. It seems the only person with any confidence in this Liberal Party is the leader of the New Democrats—who by the way sat idly while that party cancelled the Slots at Racetracks Program in Fort Erie and at Rideau Carleton.

My question is, if this Legislature adopts our opposition motion next Wednesday that says that voters have lost trust in your party, will you call an election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, it’s a little bit much that the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Progressive Conservative Party have stood up and made all this noise about wanting to clear the decks and get on with legislation involving employment, involving creating jobs for Ontarians. Right now, we have Bill 105 in front of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and instead of finishing the debate on Bill 105 and allowing it to proceed to the next stage, they’re engaging in all sorts of efforts to delay. They’re bringing forward these mischievous motions. The honourable member knows that under the standing orders of this Legislature, this is simply a stunt by the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it’s time that the opposition started to focus on jobs for the province of Ontario. Let Bill 105, which lowers taxes for small business, go through, and stop—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to go back to the Premier of Ontario, because this relates directly to the confidence and the trust the people of this province have in her.

The Forum Research poll was quite clear: People don’t view them as a trusted government; they view them as a bunch of criminals. That’s why it’s important that this goes to a vote. It is why it is important that this motion be listened to.

This is a Premier who would prefer to set up panels across the province, so that everyone in the province is on one, so she can feel that she’s having a conversation. But what we learned in those conversations, particularly at the justice committee, is that their government is at the very root of a very corrupt scheme in Oakville and Mississauga, and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock for a moment, please. I’m trying to do my job, so I don’t need armchair quarterbacks. I heard what the member said, and I’m not impressed again. We will stay away from any references to any member in this place as involved in criminality, and I’m asking the member to stay away from that.

Carry on.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks. Now that the Liberals are ignoring Ontarians and their wishes, and the NDP continues to prop them up, I’d like to know what she has promised the NDP in order to prop them up. Next Wednesday, when our party puts forward our motion, I’d really like to know, Premier—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —if you are going to listen to that motion—

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, they can’t have it both ways. They can’t stand here in the House and say over and over again that the cancellation of the power plants was the worst thing to befall civilization since the plague or the Macarena and forget the fact that they stood up in the campaign aggressively and said, “Vote for us and the power plants will be cancelled,” that their candidates had robocalls and flyers and tweets, that they went door to door saying, “Vote for a Progressive Conservative government and the plants will be cancelled.”

Mr. Speaker, it was a promise they made and a promise we kept. It was a promise that was made by every single party in this Legislature, and the honourable member cannot deny that fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier of Ontario, who—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —owes it to Ontarians to respond to the opposition’s questions over a very important matter of trust and confidence. She has lost their confidence and never was able to get it in the first place because she has no mandate from the electorate.

Not only will I debunk what this government House leader has said with respect to the Oakville gas plant, I have the words from the Auditor General, as do the rest of the people of this province. You are behind that Oakville power plant cancellation. You cost the taxpayers of this province $1.1 billion.

I want to know from the Premier’s own mouth: Will she listen to our confidence motion next week? Will she tell the people of the province that she will listen to them when they don’t trust her?

Premier, yes or no? Will you have the courage of your convictions to stand in your place and tell us you’ll respect the vote of this House next week or not?

Hon. John Milloy: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it’s not a confidence—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: First of all, it’s not a confidence motion, and the member knows that.

Mr. Speaker, I direct the member to go to the website of Mayor Rob Burton of Oakville. He has a

section called “Timeline” related to this. Let me quote—you’ll want to hear this.

“On September 25, 2011”—I’m quoting—“PC leader Tim Hudak says the Oakville power plant”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont.

Hon. John Milloy: —“cancellation ‘cost $1 billion’ and suggests”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Because you were yelling so loud, you didn’t hear me, even with my mike on. The member from Stormont will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: —“and suggests the Mississauga power plant cancellation ‘may cost another $1 billion.’

“On October 5, 2011, on the day before the provincial election, in front of the still under construction Mississauga power plant, PC leader Tim Hudak promises to stop the power plant if he wins the election, after only days before warning that he’s sure it ‘it may cost another $1 billion.’”

That is the testimony of Mayor Rob Burton of Oakville, and I invite the honourable member to check out that website.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Today, we’re joined in the Legislature by four horse families from Fort Erie. They’re wondering why the Premier is killing racing in their community and whether it’s just so that the Liberals can help out—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. If it continues, I might jump right to warnings. We will have civility here.

Finish your question, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and whether it’s just so the Liberals can help out the newly privatized Woodbine track pad their profit margins—the kind of track that the Tories prefer as well, Speaker. Is the Premier ready to meet with these people face to face today—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce is warned.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and explain to them why she thinks the Fort Erie track should not have a future of racing in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I welcome the folks from Fort Erie here today, and I would just say that the leader of the third party is absolutely wrong. I want there to be a future for horse racing at Fort Erie, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I want us to have a robust and sustainable horse racing industry across the province. That is not what we had in place. There was an unaccountable, untransparent system in place. It had to be changed.

When I came into this office, I said that I was going to make sure that we had an integrated system with the OLG so that horse racing across this province would have a future, because I believe that it is an important part of our culture. It’s an important part of the culture in rural communities around the province, and it’s important to the province.

I want Fort Erie to have a future. It may not be exactly the same as its past, but I want it to have a future, and the plan we’ve got in place will allow for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Liberals are gambling on the future of horse racing, and the Premier should know that the stakes are real.

Henry and Claudia Whalen are here today. They’ve had to meet with the bank about how they can keep their home, and the stress has caused Henry to have a heart attack. The government is pulling the rug out from under them, but still trying to roll out the red carpet for private casinos, even while community after community rejects those private casinos.

The Premier has admitted that the government’s so-called modernization plan was a mistake. Will she let families like the Whalens pay for that mistake? Or will she back away from a plan that just is not working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, as I said, I have been clear from the outset that there is a future for Fort Erie. The reality is that the track will need to work with the Ontario Racing Commission, as the other tracks will need to, Mr. Speaker, to make sure there is a plan in place.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are putting $400 million into horse racing over the next five years, Mr. Speaker, and each one of the tracks around the province has the opportunity to work with the Ontario Racing Commission to make the case for a business plan. That is the responsible way forward. We want a horse racing industry that is sustainable and for which the success is tied to usage by people who go to the track. We want that to be the benchmark. There was no benchmark under the slots program; there was no benchmark. There was no transparency. We need that transparency. That’s—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Twelve-year-old Kayla is with us today too, Speaker. Her dad and her brother have had to move to Florida to find work.

Kayla grew up on a farm, and horses have been part of her life since she can remember. But instead of working with families like Kayla’s, the Premier has taken away their livelihoods and her livelihood. Kayla asked to put this question to the Premier, and so I’m going to do it. What does the Premier think is going to happen to the horses that have been raised and trained by families like hers when there’s nowhere to race those horses, and those families can’t afford to keep them anymore?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not sure where Kayla is, but I want Kayla to know that the tracks that I have visited, the horse families, the racing families that I’ve spoken to, the people I’ve spoken to in the horse racing industry are exactly the reason that I was so committed, when I came into this job, that we would put a plan in place that would allow the tracks, like Fort Erie, to work with the Ontario Racing Commission.

So I want Fort Erie to have a future. I want horse racing to have a future. It was one of my priorities. It’s one of the reasons I took on the role as Minister of Agriculture and Food. I want the people in this gallery to know that there is an opportunity for Fort Erie to work with the Ontario Racing Commission and to put in place a sustainable plan for the future. That is why we wanted to bring the plan out early, so that people who are breeding horses would know that the plan was in place: $400 million over the—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier said that she killed racing at Fort Erie because the Slots at Racetracks Program wasn’t affordable or transparent. She just said that earlier this morning.

Jim Thibert, the CEO of Fort Erie Race Track, is here with us today. Jim made sure that the track at Fort Erie opened their books to auditors and to the public. Will the Premier ensure that the newly private Woodbine Racetrack has to open its books so Ontarians have the same level of accountability and transparency for that track?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely. I think what the leader of the third party is alluding to is the reality that, as we went into the transition, there were audits that were done of each of the tracks in the province. Those audits contained commercially sensitive information, and so they were confidential, and that was the agreement with the tracks.

There is currently an audit being done by the Auditor General of the Slots at Racetracks Program. Obviously, when that report comes out, that report will be public and will be available to all members of the Legislature and the public.

But make no mistake: We needed to make a change to the program that was unaccountable and that had been put in place by the previous government. We’re making that change, but we’re making it in a way that horse racing must have a sustainable future, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government did conduct an audit of racetracks to see how SARP money was being spent, and Jim Thibert and the folks from Fort Erie gladly opened up their books, but the Premier is keeping the Woodbine audit under wraps. She is not making that information public because it’s commercially sensitive, Speaker? That sounds like the gas plants to me. That’s why they didn’t let that information come out, because it was commercially sensitive, and look where that landed Ontario.

She says she wants to be accountable and open. In fact, she’s got a panel to tell her how exactly to do that. Do I need to be a member of that panel to suggest that she release the Woodbine audit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, if you’d like to be part of that panel, you may be part of that panel.

But the reality is, as I have said, that in order to work with tracks, to go through a transition so that we could redesign a program that would be sustainable, there were audits done of each of the tracks. Those were done confidentially. That was the agreement with the tracks, and there is commercially sensitive information as part of those audits. There is currently an audit that’s being done by the Auditor General, and that report will be made public. If there had been misconduct discovered in the third-party audits, then that would have been sent to the authorities. That did not happen.

Going forward, we have put a sustainable plan in place. I think it’s interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard absolutely no strategy from the third party on how they would make horse racing sustainable—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Speaker, I think what the Premier is saying is, “Just trust us. Everything in those audits is tickety-boo.” I don’t think the people of Ontario buy that from the Liberal government.

You know, when people go to the track, they expect a fair race. Not-for-profit tracks like Fort Erie have opened up their books—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —and people are wondering if the privatized Woodbine will do the same. The government has put the livelihoods of the people here today and in rural communities across Ontario at risk. At the very least, she should be giving them the openness and the transparency that she likes to harp about but rarely delivers. When will she open the books?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, there has been no plan coming forward from the third party on how they would make horse racing in this province sustainable.

The suggestion that underlies the leader of the third party’s question is that somehow everything was fine under the previous regime, that the Slots at Racetracks Program was fine, that it was good public policy. That’s just not the case, Mr. Speaker, and Fort Erie was struggling under that plan as well.

The reality is that we have worked very hard with all of the tracks in the province to put in place a plan that’s going to allow them to have a future. My hope is that the people at Fort Erie will work with the Ontario Racing Commission. I want Fort Erie to have a future, not because that’s the politically expedient thing to do, but because people’s jobs rely on it and because horse racing is an important part of our culture. That’s why we’re putting the plan in place.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health. Kimm Fletcher, a Milton mother with two young children, is asking for more time, more time with her nine-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter. After being diagnosed with stage 4 terminal glioblastoma multiforme, she has been told that she has only two months to live.

Kimm’s doctors have told her that Avastin will give her more time—in fact, up to 18 months more time. Minister, you and your ministry have denied funding for Avastin for uses other than for colorectal cancer, but, in fact, studies show that the use of Avastin with both colorectal cancer and brain cancer is the same: It gives patients more time.

If Ms. Fletcher lived in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, Avastin would be covered. Will you commit today to giving Kimm Fletcher more time, and commit to funding Avastin for her care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is a very heartbreaking story. I have followed this particular patient. I have been on the website. I have seen the pictures of Kimm Fletcher, her husband and her two gorgeous little children. I cannot help but imagine if they were my own children. It is a heartbreaking story.

We have passed a law in this Legislature that takes the politics out of drug funding. It would be against the law for me to intervene in a particular case for a particular drug.

We do have in place the Committee to Evaluate Drugs. It has twice reviewed the evidence on using Avastin for this particular condition, and twice it has rejected it for lack of evidence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I respectfully disagree with the minister. There are several programs under which there is an ability to fund drugs for compassionate purposes, either the Exceptional Access Program or the Case-by-Case Review Program under Cancer Care Ontario. Surely, you have to agree that Kimm Fletcher’s case is one of those cases where compassion should be administered.

In fact, this is why we pay taxes in the province of Ontario. Unlike some other expenditures that have been made by this government, people want their tax money to be used for their fellow Ontarians in their time of need.

Minister, Kimm Fletcher and her husband are here with us today. Will you do the right thing, extend compassion to this family, and extend Avastin for her care?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is a family going through an absolutely heartbreaking event in their life. All of us want nothing but the very, very best for this family and for this individual.

I do have the Committee to Evaluate Drugs report. These reports are publicly available on their website. As I say, it has been reviewed twice for this condition, in July 2010 and June 2011. The recommendation is that it not be funded for the treatment of this disease, on the basis that treatment has not been proven to improve survival. I will happily pass this over.

The Committee to Evaluate Drugs will always review new evidence. As a result of their work, we’ve added 300 new drugs to the formulary. They do hard work. These are very difficult decisions. These are not political decisions.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Some 30% to 50% of operating costs for the mining sector is the price of electricity, and the threshold for the global adjustment program still stands at one megawatt, which penalizes mid-sized producers.

In Thunder Bay, the government doesn’t even realize that the electricity supply is not sufficient to support new mining developments. Will the government commit to a real plan for mining development in Ontario by coming up with a plan to increase electricity supply and to deal with the sky-high price of electricity, so that mining companies can create good jobs?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have just received, in the last couple of days, the report from the task force for northwestern Ontario, based out of Thunder Bay. They’re responding to a plan that’s on the OPA website to invest billions of dollars, literally, over the foreseeable future in northwestern Ontario for electricity and transmission. From the mining industry point of view, they will have power when they need it. We’ve given that commitment. We’re talking to the people from northwest Ontario, in particular, on that particular issue.

In addition to that, we have introduced supports for energy prices in the north. We have the Northern Ontario Energy Credit, the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program and a number of other programs. We are going to deliver. We are delivering for northwest Ontario. That includes Thunder Bay. I’m happy to talk to the member personally—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, my question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Ontario’s mining sector has created 27,500 direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs. The development of the Ring of Fire and numerous other projects in the northwest will require a skilled workforce by 2020, yet this government refuses to play a role in training programs. Mining companies can create jobs, but they need the right competitive factor, including a trained workforce.

Why is this Liberal government not investing in a training program so that the people of Ontario can benefit from the immense economic opportunity that mining can create?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’m really pleased to respond to this, particularly in light of the fact that we have invested so many millions of dollars in terms of skills training and upgrading related to the great potential of the Ring of Fire. We recognize that there are many components to the development of this plan.

Clearly, our work with the First Nations—we’ve recognized how important that is, and it’s ongoing in a positive way.

As the member points out, quite accurately, we have a mining sector in the province of Ontario that is employing more people than it ever has. We are the leading jurisdiction for exploration and for production in our mining sector in all of Canada, and one of the top 10 investment jurisdictions in the world.

Certainly, in terms of the training aspects, through a number of programs, through a number of investments, we are preparing the workforce in northwestern Ontario—in fact, in all of Ontario—to be prepared and ready for when the Ring of Fire development moves forward. We’re continuing to be committed to that. That’s one of the aspects that’s so crucial. We certainly agree, and we’re all on the same page in that regard.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation, and it deals with the importance of supporting new, thriving companies.

In my riding of York South–Weston, my constituents strive for quality and well-paying jobs so that they can provide for their families. They also want their children to have a good university or college education so that they can be ready to be the leaders of our future.

Ontario’s capacity to compete in the global knowledge-based economy depends on how well we can utilize our research strengths and provide the support that our entrepreneurs and their businesses need to prosper. We need to ensure that Ontario benefits to the full extent from our knowledge-based economy because our future success and that of our children depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: How is our government helping new, upcoming companies thrive and succeed?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank the member from York South–Weston for that important question.

Our government recognizes the importance of assisting new companies. Actually, my ministry has helped many new start-up companies to compete in the global market. For example, we helped Client Outlook. This is a Waterloo-based software company that allows hospitals to share digital X-rays and save some money instead of spending money on setting up workstations. In Ancaster, we helped a company called Fibracast, which harnesses its technology for purifying drinking water and the treatment of waste water. Fibracast now employs 70 people in the region.

I’m proud of our government’s track record in helping small, innovative companies develop products and services that are helping Ontario and also helping people’s lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister. The backbone of any strong economy starts with providing the necessary support that small and local companies need to thrive. Small companies across our great province provide the most jobs to Ontarians, and our ability to help them turn great ideas into successful businesses and new employment opportunities is of paramount importance to our economy. When Ontarians have well-paying jobs to support their families, they can take comfort in knowing that future generations are well-positioned to prosper and succeed.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could you speak to the initiatives that our government is taking to help small, local and innovative businesses thrive?

Hon. Reza Moridi: I want to thank again the member from York South–Weston for that question.

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking strong action to ensure that Ontario companies remain globally competitive and have the necessary tools to succeed. For example, Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, is one of the very many steps that our government is taking to help small businesses. This will aim to help small businesses in Ontario, but much to their detriment, it’s being delayed in this House.

I urge the opposition to stop stalling the passing of Bill 105 so that we can move forward in helping the small businesses in this province. When innovative businesses succeed in our province, our local economies are going to succeed. We can make this happen by letting this bill proceed to the committee in order to help our small businesses across the province of Ontario.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: To the Premier: Premier, yesterday, US Steel announced that the massive blast furnaces of the former Stelco plant in Hamilton will shut down permanently by year-end. It will be the end of an era in Canadian industrial history.

At peak in the 1980s, more than 14,000 people earned a good living at Stelco. They built a proud city and helped make our economy strong.

This spring, you insisted that the jobs crisis in Ontario’s manufacturing sector was a myth. Do you still believe that today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Of course, we in the government are disappointed that US Steel has made this decision, unfortunately, to end certain operations that have, in fact, been idle since 2010.

We understand that Hamilton Works’s coke-making and finishing operations will continue to operate. It’s important to note as well that no immediate layoffs will or have occurred. We understand that the company plans to reassign the 47 individual employees that are impacted by this regrettable decision.

Mr. Speaker, over 80% of Canada’s steelmaking happens in this province. We’re very proud of that. In fact, the sector employs more than 17,000 people across the province, and indirectly more than 50,000 more. But we will continue to work proactively with the entire sector to spur innovation and attract investment and create jobs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before I call on the member from Burlington, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Supplementary, please?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I didn’t get my answer, so, anyway, I’ll continue on.

Premier, across the bay from my riding, skilled workers have been making steel for over a century. Your party has been in office for a decade. In that time, Ontario has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs.

The manufacturing crisis is no myth, Premier; it is real. Your government has a role to play, and that role is strong leadership. Could we have changed headlines with a plan that offered more affordable industrial power rates? Would a tax deduction for investments in plant and equipment have saved jobs? We believe it would and truly wish you would take our plan.

Premier, if we have to wait until the 2014 budget to hear your jobs plan, will there be any manufacturing jobs left?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I agree with the member opposite that the steel sector worldwide is facing challenges right now. In fact, the economy, as we know, in this province is facing challenges. But it’s important to remember that since the bottom of the recession, we have created almost 500,000 net new jobs, many of them in the manufacturing sector, 95% of them full-time jobs and the overwhelming majority of them in the private sector as well.

When you compare it to other jurisdictions around us, the pace of job creation in this province far exceeds that in United States. In fact, it exceeds that substantially among our competitors in the Great Lake states as well.

We have a plan going forward. We’re creating jobs, and that includes in the steel industry. We will work hard to make sure that those workers who are displaced have the support they need.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Steeltown got its name from the iron works and steelworks that defined Hamilton for more than a century. Yesterday, US Steel announced the permanent shutdown of their iron- and steelmaking operations.

Since 2010, US Steel has said they could restart their operations if the economy turned around. In that time, New Democrats have proposed a job-creator tax credit, getting sky-high electricity rates under control, and an industrial investment tax credit, which could have helped to add a hot strip mill—

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Glad to see the Tories now actually accept our ideas. The problem is, the Liberals have stuck with the status quo.

New Democrats believe that Hamilton can come out of this stronger, so why is this government simply throwing up its hands?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the leader of the third party agrees with me in saying that I’m so proud of Hamilton and the work that they’ve been doing over the past years to actually reach the stage where they are the number one jurisdiction in all of Canada for investment in commercial, residential and industrial activity. The work that is being done and the leadership that’s being demonstrated by that city is nothing short of remarkable.

I want to mention as well that we’ve been working closely with Hamilton Works for a number of years, with US Steel, to support those workers who unfortunately have faced layoffs in that difficult sector of steel right now. In fact, the colleague behind me, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, since 2011 has supported an action centre with the Hamilton steelworkers to make sure that those laid-off employees are getting the support that they need. We’ll continue to do that.

I’m proud of the work that Hamilton has done. I have no doubt they are going to be able to overcome—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the minister’s facile boosterism isn’t enough. The government can try and pass the buck or they can stand up for Hamiltonians. Mayor Bratina talked about—and this is his words—his “worst fears come true.”

The government is standing on the sidelines and watching as those fears come true. They can waste a billion dollars on cancelling gas plants to save a few Liberal seats in the GTA, but they won’t fund a manufacturing investment tax credit that could help businesses across Ontario invest and grow.

Hamilton is filled with smart, dedicated, hard-working people who can come out of this stronger. Is the Premier going to stop standing by and watching as Steeltown loses its steelmaking works, or will she start listening to New Democrats and focus on job creation instead of her own political self-interest?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: You know, we are investing in Hamilton. We are supporting the leadership in Hamilton as they work their way through transitions, including the likes of what we’re hearing in the steelworks. But I want to say that we are investing in manufacturing right across this province. In fact, we’ve committed nearly a billion dollars to support 170 projects in the province’s manufacturing sector since 2007.

We’ve been providing tax relief, as well, to our manufacturers. Of course, we paralleled the federal government in the budget earlier this year to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance. That is a value of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars over the next several years. Of course, through the Southwestern Ontario Development Fund and other mechanisms, we’re investing in the manufacturing and other sectors throughout that region of Ontario. We’re proud to work with the local leadership to do that.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and has to do with the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. Minister, one of the chronic, constant complaints we hear, as northerners, from our political opponents is that northern Ontario doesn’t have a voice and that their voice is not heard. Obviously, as a northerner, I emphatically reject that premise.

Our investments through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund and our increases in funding—it’s important to note that taking that fund from $60 million to $100 million annually is just one very clear indication that in fact the north is being heard and that northern members continue to deliver for their ridings.

I know that very recently, Minister, you made an announcement on a bit of a renew, relook and refresh of the programming within the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. I’m wondering, Minister, if you could share with the House exactly what this programming is going to do to continue that wonderful trend in northern Ontario.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you so much to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan. We’re so very proud of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. in terms of the jobs that it has created: 22,000 jobs created or retained over the last 10 years, and thousands abroad; $890 million in investment.

Two weeks ago, we decided we needed to look and say, “Can we make the program even stronger?” We had the opportunity to announce five new programs to basically enhance how the heritage fund works. What we recognize is that we want to tie it into the priorities that were identified in the northern Ontario growth plan—existing and emerging sectors in the economy, the ones that are the real priorities for the north.

What we’ve done is, with the new programs, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. has aligned programs with those sectors that will maximize benefits for northerners and even work better than it has in the past. We’ve been working with northern municipalities, aboriginal communities, certainly industries and the private sector to get a stronger, more diverse and sustainable northern economy. I’ll look forward in my supplementary to perhaps providing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’m going to ask the minister: Next time, wait for me to acknowledge you before you start; your microphone won’t be on.

Carry on. Supplementary.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Minister, thank you for that response. As mentioned, since October 2003—over $860 million towards more than 5,800 projects, leveraging over $3 billion in investment. I can tell you that in my riding alone, there has been tens of millions of dollars of investment through hundreds of projects, creating or maintaining close to 1,700 jobs.

Here are a few examples in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. Nu-Tech Metals: $300,000 to expand a fabrication shop for a high-definition plasma table, allowing them to bid on jobs they previously couldn’t and to hire more people. Rubin Business Park in Murillo and Olive Paipoonge: over $500,000 for an expansion of their industrial park with serviced lots. Thunder Bay International Airport Authority, the third-busiest airport in all of Ontario: $1 million to continue the great trend that we see there on the business expansion of Thunder Bay International Airport.

Minister, can you please share with the House the new programming—specifically how we’re going to see that continue what has been a great trend through NOHFC all across northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you so much again. This is why aligning the programs with the growth plan is so important, because the growth plan calls on us to strengthen the north’s competitive advantage. Our program changes are focusing investment on existing and emerging sectors that have strong potential for significant growth across the north.

As part of our government’s plan to strengthen the economy and support a dynamic and innovative business climate that attracts investment and helps create jobs, the NOHFC wants to continue to partner with northerners. The five new programs at the heritage fund are building the themes of private sector job creation, supporting northern community infrastructure, enhancing economic development capacity, stimulating commercialization, innovation and productivity, and, of course, attracting and retaining talent.

We look forward to continuing to work with all of our northern organizations to keep building jobs, creating jobs, in northern Ontario.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. As you’re aware, Premier, your government has managed to pass just four pieces of legislation since your Liberal coronation. Of course, my Bill 74, on which you flipped and flopped by first supporting and then opposing and then just outright hiding, was defeated yesterday. Premier, you demonstrated cowardly, weak leadership.

This morning, though—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to accept that. It’s not what I would call elevating the debate, so the member will withdraw.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I withdraw.

Premier, you demonstrated weak leadership.

This morning, I’d like to ask you about Bill 69, the Prompt Payment Act. Bill 69 is an important bill that has broad support from all three parties in this House. The Prompt Payment Act is also supported by industry stakeholders such as the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and the Ontario Road Builders’ Association.

Premier, is Bill 69 a priority for your Liberal government? And if so, when do you expect to move forward on this important piece of legislation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Vaughan for his efforts in this area. I realize there’s interest in this piece of legislation on both sides of the House. The bill will move through the normal course of the process in the Legislature. There will be an opportunity for debate and a vote.

I’m focused on making sure that we make the investments in people and in infrastructure and in a business climate that’s going to bring business to this province and is going to work with the private sector to create jobs. This piece of legislation will have its day in the House, and I look forward to the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Premier, enough with the song and dance. You’re delaying this legislation.

The construction industry employs over 400,000 men and women, approximately 6.5% of Ontario’s total workforce. Prompt payment legislation will correct the existing inequity, so that small and medium-sized construction firms have the ability to invest, grow and create jobs.

Premier, prompt payment legislation already exists around the world, in the majority of US states, the UK, the EU, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. One month ago I questioned you about this important piece of legislation, and last week I wrote to your office, urging you to move forward with Bill 69.

Premier, it’s obvious that you have no desire to move forward on prompt payment legislation. Have you told your MPP from Vaughan that his Bill 69 isn’t going anywhere in your Liberal government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The member is being a little mischievous. He understands more than anyone that this is a private member’s bill. It is right now before committee, and there will be an opportunity for discussion at committee. He knows that for private members’ bills there is a tradition that their movement to third reading, when it does happen, happens after a discussion between the parties. As a result of agreements, his particular one came forward due to a programming motion that was put forward. There are others that have come from a consensus between the House leaders. He knows that that’s the process to follow.

But if he wants to talk about support for small businesses, maybe he wants to stand up and explain why the Conservative Party is filibustering Bill 105, which would cut taxes for small business, and not allowing it to proceed to committee so that it can have the positive economic effects we know that it will bring.

CATARACT SURGERY

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday Londoners learned that your ministry is cutting cataract surgeries to save money. In London, the wait time for cataract surgery is nearly 200 days and rising, which, as we know, affects seniors the most.

This government didn’t listen to the Eye Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario when they said that these cuts will “have dire consequences for patients requiring cataract surgery.” Why is this Liberal government cutting back cataract surgeries for seniors who need it to be able to see?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When it comes to cataract surgery, this government has a remarkable record. Across the province, wait times for cataract surgeries have been cut in half. As of August 2013, 93% of cataract surgeries were being completed within our targets.

Province-wide—and I’ll need my glasses for this—we’ve cut 163 days off cataract surgery. We’ve more than cut in half the wait times. The member opposite might remember this: At St. Joseph’s Health Care, when we started measuring cataract surgeries, it was 495 days—a year and a half. We have reduced that by 60%, and we are almost at the target.

We have a great success story. I would love to talk about it more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciate the minister’s response. However, Shirley Hazelwood is 77 years old and lives in my riding of London West. She is on a wait-list and won’t have cataract surgery until September 2014. That’s a wait time of almost one year, more than double the target this government promised. Shirley can no longer read or watch TV, and is now considering going to the US to have surgery.

Shirley and seniors in this province need cataract surgery to be able to see. They shouldn’t have to leave the country to get their vision corrected.

Is this Liberal government trying to make up the $1.1 billion wasted on the gas plants scandal by forcing seniors with cataracts to wait longer as their eyesight deteriorates?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important to acknowledge that ours was the government that started to measure wait times. We are the government that p