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

April 17, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Apr-17 (PDF)

L131 - Thu 17 Apr 2014 / Jeu 17 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 17 April 2014 Jeudi 17 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER BUSINESS

CLIMATE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 VISANT

À INSTAURER UN CLIMAT

PLUS PROPICE AUX AFFAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

DRIVER EDUCATION

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GO TRANSIT

PAY EQUITY

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

POWER PLANTS

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

MUNICIPALITIES

UNEMPLOYMENT

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CYCLING POLICIES

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

PASSOVER

NORTHUMBERLAND CHILD

DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

RONCESVALLES POLISH FESTIVAL

ORGAN DONATION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

VETERANS

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

RALPH AND SUSAN SGRO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SAINT PAUL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2014

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINIMUM WAGE

CHARITABLE GAMING

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LYME DISEASE

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

TAXATION

TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

WINTER ROAD MAINTENANCE

AUDITOR GENERAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

ONTARIO BIKE MONTH ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA BICYCLETTE EN ONTARIO

WINTER ROAD MAINTENANCE

AUDITOR GENERAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

ONTARIO BIKE MONTH ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA BICYCLETTE EN ONTARIO

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER BUSINESS

CLIMATE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 VISANT

À INSTAURER UN CLIMAT

PLUS PROPICE AUX AFFAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 26, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 176,

An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014 / Projet de loi 176, Loi édictant la Loi de 2014 sur l’obligation de faire rapport concernant la réduction des fardeaux administratifs et la Loi de 2014 sur les partenariats pour la création d’emplois et la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item was last debated, we had completed questions and comments on Ms. Fife’s speech, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I will now call for further debate.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to say a few words about Bill 176,

An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014.

First of all, as the title says, it makes it really clear that there are really two parts to this bill. The first part of the bill has to do with the burdens that are put upon businesses in this province that are trying to grow their business, to bring prosperity, jobs etc. to different parts of our province. Under the first part of the act, the bill tries to address the burden—what people often refer to as red tape—that businesses have to go through.

The bill is rather interesting in the sense that it makes it clear that there is a lot of red tape for businesses in Ontario, but the way it goes about cutting that red tape is rather interesting. It is under the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, but the bill would not be solely for this ministry. The way I understand it is that it would apply to all of the ministries within the government. The way they would go at it is basically by removing one burden at a time. It feels like the intentions are good.

We want businesses to be able to prosper in our province, but when you look at the amount of it, and when you look at the steps that the bill is going to be taking, it seems like it’s going to take us a long time to get there. But, you know, 1,000 miles—you do a step at a time, and eventually you get there.

I’m not sure, from the business point of view, some businesses, that they will find that the plan from this government is really going at a pace that keeps pace with what business needs.

I want to give an example of something that happened in my riding. My riding is in and around Sudbury. In a little community just north of Sudbury called Chelmsford, there is the intersection of two big highways. Highway 144 is the highway that takes people from Sudbury north to Timmins. It’s a two-lane highway that goes straight north. If you go from Sudbury to Timmins, you have to go on Highway 144. As you leave Sudbury, you go through the beautiful little community of Chelmsford, which is in my riding. It’s also where there’s a bypass that goes around the city. If you go from west to north, you don’t have to come through Sudbury; you can use a bypass.

Right where those two highways meet, the northwest bypass and the highway going north, an entrepreneur in my riding in Nickel Belt built a beautiful water park with slides and pools, a big picnic area and all sorts of—right on the side of the highway. So every tourist who ever goes to camp up north or ever comes from the west to Sudbury or lives in and around Sudbury—I mean, there are 170,000 people who live in and around Sudbury—that was the perfect location. It’s located in a community that has lots of kids, lots of young families, and had great opportunity.

That was years ago, Speaker. Now this beautiful water park is there for all to see. It never got to open. The structures are still there. Everybody who drives by—and every year there are hundreds of thousands of people who will drive by—sees the slides are still there. Some pieces have been taken off to make them safer because kids had started to go and play. It never got to open. Why did it never open? Because of red tape; because a mismatch as to who had jurisdiction for health and safety for this, who could give the permission to access the water park from Highway 144 or from the northwest bypass.

It was just a mess of a tangle of nobody knowing who was responsible and who could give the okay. The entrepreneur tried. The chamber of commerce put their shoulder to the wheel and really tried to make this project go through. We could see the potential. I mean, this is one of the busiest highway intersections in my riding—tons of people going by.

Sudbury may be in the north, but we have very hot, dry summers. We have lots of lakes. We’re called the City of Lakes for a reason. We have lots of lakes. Lots of people like swimming. We don’t have a waterslide anywhere near in northern Ontario; that would have been the one and only. It stands there for everyone to see years and years later, and it never got the permission to open. Things like this should never happen. It was not through a lack of engineering, because all of the slides had been engineered by people who had put waterslides in many other parts of Ontario.

It was not through a lack of ingenuity from the investors and from the owners. But it never saw the light of day. That is, first of all, a real shame. But this is also one of the reasons why a bill like what we have in front of us today is something that has been needed for a long time.

I’ve talked about the chamber of commerce putting their shoulder to the wheel to try to help out, to try to make sure that this waterslide would see the light of day in my riding. But it didn’t matter. So people won’t be very surprised when I have the strategic plan from the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce in front of me.

The Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce is defined in my community as the voice of business, and they do that very well. They represent over 1,000 businesses of all sizes, and that includes Sudbury and Nickel Belt. I would say that, without a doubt, they are the most influential business association in this community. They do advocacy and communication, and they do this with good science behind it. It didn’t matter that they brought together everything they had; we couldn’t get this water park to open.

The mission of the chamber of commerce—I will read it: “As the voice of business, the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce advocates for business and community prosperity.” They are the “driving force behind community growth and economic prosperity.” They do this through a set of values that I think are worth noting. Our chamber of commerce’s values are, first of all, integrity, courage, trust, committed, and broad thinking.

I wanted to focus on some of them, one being broad thinking. Not only do they bring fairness to the members; their process for consideration, as to what they will support, is fair. They look at how issues affect the entire community and all of the businesses as well. So if it’s really good for business but really bad for our community, our chamber of commerce would not support something like this. They really take a broad look, but to no avail.

I’m sure every single one of us has experience in their riding that ends up in the exact same place as my experience, where the red tape was just so thick that good business opportunities, good people who invested their own hard-earned dollars to make something happen, end up in disaster through no fault of their own. Because of the system we have in place, because of the different ministries that couldn’t get along, because of the different levels—some of it had to do with municipal, regional, provincial and federal—nobody knew who was allowed to give permission to let this thing go forward or to let it collapse, and the latter happened.

I see that my time is running quick, so I’m going to talk about the second part of the bill. The second part of the bill has to do with the creation of clusters. Nobody will be surprised that, in my neck of the woods, we have a mining cluster. They’re called the Sudbury Area Mining Supply and Service Association. Their executive director in Mr. Dick DeStefano, and they have been in business for about 11 years. I talk about the Sudbury Area Mining Supply and Service Association, or mining cluster, in northern Ontario because I’m not sure how this bill, which talks about supporting business clusters, would affect a cluster that has been in place and has a track record of the last 11 years.

Eleven years ago, Mr. Dick DeStefano had the idea that there was more wealth and more business and more opportunity to be created by the supply and service to mining than the actual digging and extracting of the minerals that are in Nickel Belt. Don’t get me wrong: We still have thousands of people in Nickel Belt who go underground every day to extract minerals for the different mining giants that we have, and we have people who work in the mills and the smelter and the refinery and all of this.

But did you know, Speaker, that we have more people in Sudbury who work in supply and service to the mining giants than who actually work for the mining industry? This has happened in part because we had people like Mr. Dick DeStefano, who really looked at it. It was a hunch that he had that we could build more prosperity in making sure that we had the supporting environment for, basically, everything that a mine could need, and we did that.

My eldest son works for Herold Supply, which basically exists to supply the mines with some of the needs they have, and there are hundreds and hundreds of other businesses in Sudbury that do that. But they all did that independently, and, I would say, with a fair bit of—not fighting, but really battling it out for their own business.

With this idea, 11 years ago, to create a cluster, not only did they bring the people who were already supplying services and products to the mines; they brought in other parts. They brought in our educational institutions, Collège Boréal, Cambrian College, Laurentian University; they brought in business people who could help some of those businesses that were just starting up, and we created this wonderful mining cluster that has been in existence for 11 years and has never really had any type of relationship with government. They did all of that on their own, and everybody would tell you that they have a prosperous future. I see no reason why they wouldn’t.

What I do see is that we now have a bill that focuses on clusters, and that makes us a little bit nervous because, you see, things like raising money for mining—because mining is an expensive business—is not done in Sudbury; it is done in Toronto. So what if the people in the ministry—basically, if you work for the ministry, you work in Toronto—all of a sudden decided that, “Oh, no, the mining cluster should be in Toronto because Toronto is where we raise money for mining in Ontario”? That wouldn’t sit well with me, and that wouldn’t sit well with a lot of people. So how this relationship is going to work is troublesome.

Do I believe in clusters? Absolutely. We are the living proof that once we brought those different businesses together, once we brought the intellectuals together, once we brought the colleges and universities together, once we brought the people who know a thing or two about human resources recruiting and recruitment and all of this all together, all of those little businesses were able to flourish—not only flourish, but they were able to gain insight as to how you do exports.

Have no fear; the intellectual knowledge about mining services and support in Sudbury is beyond—I would say, one of the best in the world. We export our knowledge and skills worldwide. There are people who come to Sudbury from all over the world because they want to know what Penguin innovation in my riding in Naughton has to offer. They do all sorts of remote control and how you mine more safely etc. for the mining industry, but they have exported their knowledge, their skills and their know-how worldwide, and so have a lot of little businesses all around Nickel Belt.

I have quite a few industrial parks in my riding, and most of those industrial parks are packed to capacity with healthy businesses that have forged through the recession and kept on working because their knowledge and skills are recognized not only province-wide and country-wide but worldwide. And why is that? It was because of the good work of Mr. DeStefano and everybody else who put their heads together and said that we needed to form a cluster.

I see the value in this. What I fail to see is what the role of government is in that. Our experience in Sudbury is a very positive one, but not one that was guided or directed by the government. So the entrepreneurial spirit behind the seeds planted to grow this cluster—is this something that is easily married with a government? I’m not sure. I don’t want to put it down; I just want to better understand how those two will be put together.

Je vois que le temps qui m’a été donné est quasiment terminé. Je voulais donner quelques mots face au projet de loi 178. Le projet de loi s’appelle la Loi édictant la Loi de 2014 sur l’obligation de faire rapport concernant la réduction des fardeaux administratifs et la Loi de 2014 sur les partenariats pour la création d’emplois et la croissance.

La deuxième

partie du projet de loi, c’est pour la formation d’îlots où on met ensemble tous ceux qui travaillent dans la même direction, dans la même sorte d’industrie, pour que tout le monde en profite.

Il y a un très bel exemple de ça à Sudbury avec tout ce qui est du soutien et du service au secteur minier. Il y a plus de gens à Sudbury qui travaillent pour soutenir les mines qu’il y en a qui travaillent pour les compagnies minières, et ça, c’est grâce au travail de M. Dick DeStefano. Je vous remercie.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the helpful comments from the member from Nickel Belt. I want to address a couple of her concerns. I know that she ended with clusters, so perhaps I’ll begin there.

I was happy to know that her colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, my critic on economic development, spoke very positively about the cluster element of this bill. Of course, the mining sector—I was very happy to hear the history of how it has evolved over the last decade or so, including the hard work of Mr. DeStefano.

The great thing about clusters is that we bring together all partners. It’s not government trying to direct anything here. It’s recognizing that government does have a role in terms of encouraging job creation and economic growth, but the partners that are essential for cluster development are the private sector—of course—and labour, the academic institutions, the local levels of government and often not-for-profit organizations as well. So it’s really about bringing all of those partners together.

The government has an important convening role to play, but those partners together will guide the future development of clusters, including the important mining and forestry sectors in the northern part of the province.

With regard to burden reduction, I can’t emphasize enough just how important this proposed legislation is. We’ve already, in the last five years, reduced the number of regulations that apply to business by 17%. More than 80,000 regulations have been eliminated.

Going forward, this was a request made to us specifically by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who have said that as a result of this proposed legislation, Ontario’s going to be joining “the best in class in regulatory reform.” So it continues on our hard work to make it easier for business to do business in this province.

I thank, again, the member for Nickel Belt for her comments.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member from Nickel Belt. I’m very surprised and indeed impressed, because she recognizes something that Tim Hudak and our party have recognized for some time: that is the onerous burden of red tape and regulation.

This bill in itself is a fine example of a bill that’s creating red tape. I’d like the viewers to know that Bill 176 has two component parts to it; there are two sections. One is to require the government to report on the burden. Now, the burden has been defined as red tape. Let’s look at the actual definition of “burden.”

“Burden,” in this sense of a business case, is defined as a cost measured in money, time or resources and is considered unnecessary—that’s the burden part—to achieve the purpose of the cost being created. And they’re going to report on this. So that in itself, this bill, creates red tape. It is a shameful example of a government that simply cannot manage complex files.

I think they should look at the million-jobs plan by our leader, Tim Hudak, and our caucus—Monte McNaughton and a number of our members. I’m looking forward to one of our members this morning speaking on this: Mr. Leone. I hope he gets a chance to speak next. I’m looking for his riding name here. He’s from Cambridge. There’s an area that creates jobs. I’m sure he will have much to say about that important function.

The second part of the bill—and it’s a pleasure and it’s respectful that the minister is here this morning, and I do think he works hard. But working hard only means that you’re moving; it doesn’t mean you’re actually doing anything. I think, in all due respect, the cluster, for instance, that they’ve taken apart—the auto sector in Canada is in repair. What has happened to the mining sector? The Ring of Fire—they all picked up their tools and left. So I think you should take a second look at your plan. It’s simply not working. I don’t blame you entirely for all of this. Perhaps I blame the Premier herself. She has no interest in jobs and the economy. She’s never tabled a plan.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

M. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ça me fait tout le temps plaisir de suivre ma collègue de Nickel Belt. L’histoire qu’elle a partagée avec nous ce matin à propos d’un petit parc d’amusement qu’il y avait dans le coin de Chelmsford—je le connais très bien. Je suis souvent passé par le parc et j’ai tout le temps envisagé d’aller m’amuser à ce parc avec mes enfants. Ça a pris beaucoup de temps pour qu’on voie un avancement avec le parc. Tout d’un coup, quand c’est arrivé, le petit bout de la « slide » qui était là au parc et qui s’établit dans l’eau—ce n’est jamais arrivé. Je n’ai jamais eu la chance d’y aller.

Ça nous emporte à la discussion qu’on a aujourd’hui sur le problème des régulations qui sont mises en place sans savoir, à travers de la bureaucratie qui s’est développée pendant plusieurs années, ce que la main droite fait envers la main gauche.

I just highlighted some of the issues that the member from Nickel Belt brought from her area. There is a lot of burdensome bureaucracy out there. I can give you an example from my riding. In the community of White River, there’s a new sawmill—well, not a new sawmill; it’s a sawmill that had been idle for about seven years. A gentleman came in and invested a lot of his time and a lot of his own personal money to get that mill up and running. Just the bureaucracy to get that mill up and running—we’re talking about Ontario being open for business, and it takes over seven weeks to have the hydro switch turned on.

This is someone who was putting millions of dollars into a community, bringing in over 200 to 300 jobs, and you have to wait seven weeks, and we’re saying we’re open for business?

This is something that is a step in the right direction. It is a small step. But what we really need to do if we’re going to be removing regulations is we need to find out why they were there in the first place. By removing them, are we making sure that we’re actually going to benefit those who are looking to open businesses here in Ontario?

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

Mr. Monte Kwinter: Our government has a vision for economic growth which is focused on investing in people, building modern infrastructure and supporting a dynamic and innovative business climate. We’ve made great strides in overcoming the challenges posed by a constantly changing global economic system. The Better Business Climate Act, if passed, would build on those efforts. It would place new accountability measures on government to reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens. Modernizing administrative and compliance processes could save Ontario businesses millions of dollars while still protecting the public interest.

This legislation will make sure that reducing burden stays a government priority by mandating that the minister publish a report every year outlining what the government is doing to save businesses time and money. This reporting commitment is an important part of Ontario’s new burden reduction strategy, which will aim to save businesses and other stakeholders over $100 million by 2016-17.

The Better Business Climate Act, if passed, would also help us spur the growth of regional economic clusters and would help our government enhance partnerships with business, academia, labour, non-profits and other shareholders to accelerate regional economic development. It would put in place the tools the government needs to work in partnership with stakeholders to identify key policies to support cluster growth.

Mr. Speaker, whether we are saving businesses time and money or strengthening regional economic clusters, our government is proving that Ontario is strongest when everyone works together. By focusing on collaboration and partnership, by working together with industry leaders, municipalities, researchers, economic institutions, economic development associations and all of our stakeholders, we are creating a stronger economic climate that supports businesses, spurs innovation and provides good jobs for our citizens.

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

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Nickel Belt, you have two minutes for a response.

M me France Gélinas: I wasn’t sure if there was one more going on.

First, I’d like to thank the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment for being here while we talk about the bill. It is greatly appreciated. It does show respect, and I’m really happy that you shared with me information on some of the questions that I had. It is helpful in clarifying what the bill is trying to do, specifically with clusters, where the role of government—he defined it as a “convening” role. Frankly, I would have no problem with that.

To the member from Durham: Yes, the NDP does support business. We realize that in order for people to have jobs, you have to have businesses. It has always been there. It is not only the Tories who think that people work for different businesses. As I said, my son, my eldest, works in the mining cluster service industry. They are wonderful places to work. The member from Sudbury-Manitoulin—no.

Interjection: Algoma.

M me France Gélinas: Algoma–Manitoulin—sorry about that. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin has seen, like thousands of other people, what red tape does. What red does: A beautiful waterpark in Chelmsford, with all of the amenities that every kid would dream of in the summer, sits there, not allowed to open. This is what red tape does. If you ever want to convince people that we need to attack red tape, bring them to Chelmsford, at the corner of Highway 144 and the northwest bypass, and everybody will be convinced this is a real shame.

To the member from York Centre—a good overview of the bill. The bill has two parts; some of them are conflicted.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries township.

Before I begin, I just wanted to, for the first time, publicly express my condolences to the member for Whitby–Oshawa on the passing of Jim Flaherty, her husband. I think all members of the Legislature who took

part in the celebrations yesterday truly appreciated the extent of one great human being, one compassionate Conservative. We will surely miss him on this side of the House.

I remark about this, Mr. Speaker, because it’s just an opportunity for all of us to share in public service and the opportunities that we have. I had the opportunity of sitting among many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, in the Liberal caucus, yesterday, and heard some great stories. I didn’t know, for example, that the Minister of Transportation is actually Kim Campbell’s—the former Prime Minister’s—cousin. I didn’t know that. But it was a very fascinating story to hear the heritage of that.

We sat with the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Minister of Health. All of them were very interested in hearing about the redevelopment of the Albany Club in Toronto. We had some good times talking about that.

I also learned that the place to be in Peterborough is the East City café—I hope I got that right—where the Minister of Rural Affairs said that you have to go and have the western sandwich and then you’ll know everything about Peterborough for $6—$7 with a tip, he says. At one point in the future, I’m sure I’m going to have to visit to make sure that he’s actually right.

I want to, first of all, make several comments to this bill. I know that the minister, who is here—and I appreciate the fact that he is listening to debate today—has been going across the province to talk about economic development, trade and employment, which is his critic portfolio. He came to Cambridge as well, to do a round table with our local chamber of commerce. He must be hearing exactly what we’re hearing on this side of the House.

We obviously take the opportunity to visit and consult with businesses, particularly in the pre-budget season, to get a sense of where people are headed and where their minds are at when we talk about trying to improve the business climate. Certainly, one of the things that pops up time and time again is the reduction of red tape. This is something that has been long identified by our party, and certainly through the last election in 2011 we made a number of commitments to reduce red tape. We want to actually reduce red tape by a third. We want to set a target and try to achieve that target.

Simply acknowledging that red tape is a problem I think belies the underlying concerns that businesses have. For example, one of the things that we continually hear is that it’s just not the red tape that is plaguing our businesses in the province of Ontario; it’s the entire business climate—a business climate that is burdened by red tape. What red tape actually does to business is something that we have to focus on. We talk to those businesses.

They say, “Yes, reduce red tape.” But what they say is that the whole culture of government today is to put hurdle after hurdle after hurdle in front of a business in order for them to succeed and create jobs. Whether it’s a visit by a labour inspector or an environmental assessment that they have to do or, as the member for Algoma–Manitoulin had suggested, it’s about hydro problems and hydro policies—at every given step, at every given stage, these businesses are being burdened by red tape. It’s costing them time and it’s costing them money.

Later on today, I believe I’ll be joined by Robert Haas of Cambridge. He’s going to bring his son to learn a little bit more about our democracy here at Queen’s Park. Robert used to be the owner of a print shop in my riding.

I met with him a couple of years ago, and he sat me down and basically said, “Look, Rob, every time I have someone visit me, every time I have an inspector or a civil servant come to visit me, it ends up costing me days of my time which I don’t have, and the more time I’m spending on filling in reports and rectifying concerns, the less time I’m actually selling product and making a living.” He says that every time somebody comes, it’s not only a cost in the time that it takes that he has to deal with these issues, but the money—thousands of dollars at every turn, whether it’s a new guard that’s put on a machine or it’s an assessment that they have to do—because in the printing business obviously you have chemicals that you’re dealing with, and the regulations about where you put these sorts of things do impact the way businesses are able to thrive and succeed.

I’m sad to report that his print shop in Cambridge no longer exists. He no longer employs people. He’s out of business. This was a business owner who, time and again, would put his employees’ interests ahead of his own. He could probably translate and transmit to talk to you about how many times he avoided taking a paycheque for himself in order to make sure that his employees were actually making money.

Red tape was often a source of frustration for him, because it’s not like he had the capital to be able to pay, out of the blue, a $10,000 repair job, which requires engineering and parts that probably cost in the hundreds of dollars; once you get consultants involved and once you get the proper certifications, it ends up costing thousands, if not tens of thousands. These businesses that don’t have that capacity to pay those things—often these business owners are not taking an income themselves. This contributes to the malaise that we see in businesses.

Finally the burden was too tough and he had to close shop, and that cost jobs in my riding.

I want to pick up where—I realize that the member for Algoma–Manitoulin had two minutes for questions and comments, but he was talking about hydro. There are a couple of things that I want to talk about with respect to hydro, red tape and regulations.

First of all, I have a few businesses that have come to see me in my riding that are talking about the fact that they have to pay a deposit that’s the equivalent of three months of projected hydro use. What happens is that this business owner who recently came to me, probably within the last six months, came to me and said, “This business is in receivership. I’m buying it. I want to turn it around. But our hydro distributor, our local hydro utility, wants to have three months of projected hydro use.”

If they looked at the projected hydro use over the previous year before he purchased the business, it would actually be zero, because there was no business that was running. But that’s not what they calculate. They actually calculate the projected hydro use if the factory, the manufacturing facility, was at full capacity.

So this gentleman, who wants to employ people in my riding with his investment group, wants to come in and start a business, has to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars in projected hydro use, and this is a deposit. It’s not like the deposit is ever going to be used. It’s going to sit with this local hydro utility forever, until the business decides it can no longer operate.

We’re just sucking money out of entrepreneurs who want to actually create jobs in the province of Ontario. If you want to talk about red tape reduction, we have to look at these items. We have to be behind business, not standing in front of them.

This gentleman would say, “I’m okay if they want to make sure that I have good credit,” which he does; he owns other businesses, so he can demonstrate that. “And I’m okay with actually putting the deposit in. But I’d like to get that deposit back at some point. I’d like to use that money to create jobs,” at his facility in my riding.

It’s the business climate that is so vital and so important to nurturing; it’s not simply a commitment to reduce red tape, but it’s also about creating that climate that says, “We want you here, to make your investment, to create jobs in the province of Ontario.” Without that ethos, without that mentality, the business climate in Ontario will suffer. We have to do a serious job of addressing that concern, and I’m not sure this particular piece of legislation quite gets us there. I appreciate the fact that the government finally has understood that red tape is an issue, but we have other concerns that certainly have to be made as well.

Sticking to hydro, Mr. Speaker, I have a company in my riding called Integrated Packaging Films. It is a company that recycles plastics. I recently visited this company, probably within the last three months. Every time I go there, I get their hydro bill. This company employs less than 30 people. The wages, roughly, of the workers in that facility are between $30,000 and $40,000. And do you know what? They have used $12,000 in hydro. Their global adjustment alone: $30,557.76.

As this company would suggest, this is the average wage of what employees at Integrated Packaging Films earn in a year. In 12 months, that’s 12 people’s salaries going to this massive bill, this massive part of our hydro bill which is the global adjustment. Then if you factor in the $7,000—almost $8,000—in delivery, and you factor in the regulatory charges of $2,000 plus, and a debt retirement charge of almost $3,000, the $12,000 of hydro use turns out to be a bill before taxes of $55,000 and, after taxes, of $62,000. Mr. Speaker, this is just a one-month hydro bill for a company that employs just 20 people.

If we’re clearly interested in trying to help businesses succeed and create jobs, we actually have to look at these issues. It’s not simply enough to make a commitment to reduce red tape. We have to change the climate. We have to make Ontario open for business again, and I don’t see that coming from this particular government.

We have, in the past, committed to reducing red tape. We’ve suggested that we have to have a target of one third. We want to make a minister responsible for that red tape reduction and tie the pay to the performance of that minister responsible for reducing red tape. That is, Mr. Speaker, some accountability. We would put the Deputy Premier in charge of that specific red tape reduction.

We want to give an assurance to the business community that we want Ontario to be open for business. We don’t want business after business going to other jurisdictions, whether it’s in Canada, to our neighbouring Great Lake states, or south in the United States; we want to make sure that we have that climate here and that Ontario is open for business. We want to make sure that the investments that Canadians want to make in business aren’t being done abroad, but are being done right here.

Since this piece of legislation does talk about two separate schedules, I do want to take some time—because the first

schedule is talking about the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, so we actually have to report on the reduction of red tape, which, in itself, is interesting because by virtue of having a report you actually are creating red tape. I know the member for Durham, in his two minutes, actually stated that; that we are, in a sense, creating red tape by trying to reduce red tape, which is, in itself, very interesting.

The second part of this bill talks about something completely different, which is the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, which is in

schedule 2 of Bill 176,

An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take the bill—if we actually took some time to read the legislation—and point you to a few things that I’m pretty concerned about. As I just stated, the reality of it is, any time you actually have a planning and reporting mechanism and you are having to feed that plan and that reporting with information, in the process of doing that planning and reporting and feeding of information, you actually are creating more paperwork and more red tape.

If you look at the contents of the plan, this

schedule talks about economic clusters—and I will say that I’m a big fan of economic clusters. I think they have shown to work in various parts of the province, and particularly in my region down the road in Kitchener where a very successful cluster has developed and emerged. But it has developed and emerged not because of anything the government has done. Certainly, it has assisted in that, but by creating these plans and burdening that whole process with red tape, you are actually creating it.

section 3 of

schedule 2: “A plan with respect to the development of a cluster shall include the following:

“1. A description of the cluster.

“2. An assessment of challenges and opportunities with respect to the development of the cluster.” So we have to create that information, and that information is going to come from the partners who are going to be doing and taking

part in the cluster. Hopefully, that includes a mix of the municipalities, post-secondary institutions and businesses that are going to create that, but they have to feed that with information.

“3. The objectives and intended outcomes of the plan.”

And then we go into: “4. Performance measures to evaluate whether the objectives and intended outcomes of the plan are being achieved.

“5. A description of actions that could be taken by the minister, or the businesses or other entities that form the cluster, to assist in the achievement of the objectives and intended outcomes of the plan.”

And, “6. Such additional items as may be prescribed by the regulations.”

So, Mr. Speaker, it’s fine that we engage in a process like this, but now we are saying, “A description of actions that could be taken by ... businesses or other entities” in order to achieve the objectives of the cluster. What does that mean? It means that businesses are going to be dictated what they have to do. Maybe it’s reporting that they have to do, or maybe it’s an altering of their business plans or processes. This is being driven not organically by those businesses and by the clusters, but by a prescription of government regulation that I think could very well cripple the clusters and the economic development opportunities that these clusters could create.

I realize the minister is saying that somebody is asking for this, but the point remains here that in

schedule 1, we’re talking about the reduction of red tape, and in

schedule 2, we’re talking about adding more red tape to the business climate and business environment. They can say people are asking for that, but the businesses that I talk to don’t want more red tape. They don’t want more regulation; they want less. They want government to partner with them and not stand in their way. That is, in essence, where we differ.

I think that there are important clusters that can develop, but at the end of the day, when we have a bill that purports to reduce red tape, we are at the very same time adding to that burden. For us, what we want to see is an overall reduction of that burden. That is the point that I don’t think the members of the government who were trying to engage in a discussion with me—but I will continue to go through the Chair—about what we are supposed to do with this legislation. Again, I have concern when we are trying to tell businesses what to do. By doing that, we’re adding to their burden. Any time you do that, you’re adding to that burden.

Schedule 2 of this piece of legislation is doing exactly that.

There are great ideas that are happening right across the province of Ontario to develop these clusters. They’re doing it organically. They’re making partnerships where partnerships are going to prosper. We have to make sure that we are acting, as legislators, trying to add purposeful debate to what we are talking about, which is the overall business climate of Ontario, that we’re not adding to that burden and that we are taking steps, at every step of the way, to reduce it.

Overall, we have a piece of legislation that has at least an acknowledgment that red tape is a continuing issue in the province of Ontario. I’m happy to see that we’re actually debating this. What I’m disappointed in seeing is that, at the same time as trying to fix the problem of red tape, burden and regulation, we are actually adding to that burden. That’s where I see the disconnect in this particular piece of legislation: that

schedule 1 is not necessarily consistent with what’s happening in

schedule 2.

So I think we have to be careful when we’re talking about this legislation. I will continue to debate. I will listen with interest to the debate this morning about how we can improve the business climate of the province in Ontario. I think a lot has to be done in order to achieve our objectives, which are to have Ontario businesses grow and prosper and create jobs in this great province.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this house and, today, to be able to follow the comments of the member from Cambridge. Although we do disagree profoundly on some issues, on this bill he has raised some very good issues. One is the hurdles that government red tape causes businesses. We have some questions on whether this bill is going to solve it.

He brought up another issue that has to be brought forward. It’s not only the hurdles; it’s the culture of government. I will give you an example. I’m looking forward to having 10 or 20 minutes to speak on this further, but in my few minutes—we have several mines in my riding. One of their big shovels, their big backhoe, broke. They needed another shovel. Seemed simple enough. It had to be transported 300 miles. Seemed simple enough. They needed an oversize permit. Seemed simple enough.

Three weeks for an oversize permit: That’s what they were told. So we had to go and chase it. There’s the problem. The business owner called me. He said, “John, I’ve got a great idea for you guys. I’ll make you some money. Create an expedited oversize-permit service; charge $500 for same-day service. It will be cheap for me.” But that shouldn’t have to be. There’s nothing against getting oversize permits, but why does it have to be three weeks? Why?

Things like that: That’s what drives business people crazy. And I’m not sure that this bill is meant to address that, but someone has to.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the Better Business Climate Act this morning. Ontario’s new burden reduction strategy will save businesses and stakeholders over $100 million by 2016-17, which is fantastic.

I’m enjoying listening to the debate, but I do want to clarify and respond to something the member from Cambridge said, which is that Ontario is not competitive. In fact, Ontario has one of the most competitive climates for business in the world. That’s something we should all be very proud of.

As the Minister of Consumer Services, it’s very important to us at our ministry that we continue to do the work we do to strike a balance between protecting consumers and the public—whether it’s safety issues—and the impact on businesses, whether that’s direct or indirect. We work very hard to strike that balance and to ensure that businesses are not overly regulated.

My ministry is a high-regulation ministry, but we do keep in mind the impact of our programs and services on business. Whether it’s the Technical Standards and Safety Authority; TICO, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario; the Electrical Safety Authority; work we are doing on the Condominium Act; other things we’ve done on debt settlement companies, door-to-door sales, real estate transactions, much of our work is very mindful of the impact on business.

Many of our delegated authorities that fall under the auspices of my ministry already have or are moving to a risk-based assessment for inspections and reporting requirements. So I think our work at the Ministry of Consumer Services addresses the spirit and intent of what’s before us here. And as I said, Ontario is one of the most competitive areas for business in the world, and we should be very proud of that.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to offer a couple of comments on Bill 176. As we all know, this is a fairly short bill, but one that has a potentially huge impact. One of the things that I think is missing in this conversation is how this affects small business. I say that because of my experience through my own constituents. It seems to me that there’s an inverse ratio between the number of rules and regulations and the number of employees, and so very often an individual, who is a single proprietor or has three or four employees finds themselves tied up in incredible red tape.

I’ll give you two examples where even ministries can’t decide on the rules. In one instance, I have a constituent whose level of chlorine must meet the Ministry of Health standards and at the same time that contradicts the Ministry of the Environment restrictions. I have another one: a paint booth, obviously one that requires a great deal of regulation to make sure that it’s safe and all precautions are taken. We understand that, and so does the owner of the paint booth, but the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment couldn’t decide, or at least contradict each other, in the way that the door is hung.

It’s those kinds of things that simply drive small businesses crazy: the fact that ministries themselves can’t agree on what they should be suggesting to the public; just one example of how bad it is.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to try and touch on two issues from Algoma–Manitoulin on this. A small group—a contractor trucking business; what they do is they fill all the sand pits. They do some crushing for the province, as well as privately. They’re called Gilbertson trucking. They’re on St. Joseph Island.

Every year they go through this permitting process in regard to moving their equipment from site to site. In some instances, they can get a project permit. Their equipment doesn’t change. It’s the same loader; the same truck; the same equipment; the same ramp; the same, same, same. But every time, they have to go through a process of applying through the red tape and the bureaucracy.

A little while ago, all the permitting was done out of the Soo, which was a 24-hour permit most of the time. Then that shut down and got shifted over to North Bay. Then it went up from 24 hours to 72 hours, costing jobs. We’re not talking about a lot of jobs here, but for us in northern Ontario, 15 jobs is a lot of jobs.

They’d have to go through that process of applying for it, and then it went into a week by getting this permit. Then it moved from North Bay to St. Catharines, and the delays have come up again. So the impact that it’s having on small business is huge.

When I was first elected, there was another company, NRE—Northern Reliable Energy—out of Chapleau. Being a little eager beaver, a newly elected member, I talked to this gentlemen. He was telling me about the bureaucracy he was going through over the years of meeting with the MOE, the OPA, energy, and so on and so forth. We went through the process of doing it again. You know what? I got caught up in the whole bureaucracy along with him. So we did it twice. He has done it four times. We’ve done it a fifth time. We had a meeting this week on Tuesday, so we’re starting the cycle again of this bureaucracy.

These jobs that are potentially available for the community of Chapleau—we’re talking about 120 jobs. That’s the impact of what bureaucracy causes.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I want to thank the members for Timiskaming–Cochrane, York–Simcoe, Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of Consumer Services. My NDP colleagues from Algoma–Manitoulin and Timiskaming–Cochrane struck a chord with me with their discussions on the oversized permit, because, in Cambridge, we are a transportation superpower.

Mr. Bill Walker: A cluster.

Mr. Rob Leone: A cluster, even; that’s true.

We have a lot of transportation companies in my riding. We are situated in southern Ontario within close proximity to the rest of North America. This oversized permit issue is one that, actually, I hear about, too. The remarkable thing is that if you actually look at other jurisdictions, they do this far better than we do in Ontario. When I hear the Minister of Consumer Services talk about a competitive business climate in the province of Ontario, I have to ask questions about: Have you looked abroad about these oversized permits and what they’re doing in other states and other provinces to get these permits right away? I wonder that.

I also wonder if people on the other side were actually listening to my remarks, because if you think that having a $30,000-a-month global adjustment is encouraging a very competitive business climate, I would have serious reservations about the ability of that particular party to manage the economy in the province of Ontario.

These ideas—there are just two of them, Mr. Speaker, that we’ve expressed in these two minutes—are crippling the economy; are not encouraging economic growth. These are the kinds of things that we have to work through.

I’m encouraged to hear my colleagues to my left talk—both literally and figuratively—about these issues, because they are important to the people of the province of Ontario. We have to make sure that we’re not waiting three weeks or four weeks just to have someone go to work the next day, Mr. Speaker. That’s what is particularly troubling about what I’m hearing today from the government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to have an opportunity this morning to add some value to the debate on Bill 176. For the viewer, I’d like to—through you, Mr. Speaker. This is

An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014—a very well-sounded, well-intended title of the bill. Let’s have a look at it here this morning.

We’ve had a very good debate. The member from Nickel Belt spoke. I thought she raised some very good points with respect to a particular red tape issue in her riding, and gave voice to that, as well as our member who just spoke, Mr. Leone, the member from Cambridge. He also gave a tribute to concerns in his riding. I think every single MPP in this House would like to give voice to concerns in their ridings.

Just on a specific to Bill 176, it does have two parts, and one is self-explanatory. It’s burden reduction reporting. So there’s a requirement now, which is in itself red tape, to report on the reduction of red tape, the burden. Then you go into defining what a burden is. This is important to understand, because we’re going to have to report this. Companies are going to have to sit down and figure out what the burden is in their departments. I’m going to read the definition.

It says that a burden is defined as a cost that is measured by money, time and resources and considered unnecessary—that’s important; that’s the burden part, that it’s unnecessary—to achieve the purpose that was created in the first place and report on how many necessary regulations surround that reporting. So it sounds to me like this bill is the enactment or formalization of red tape itself.

Let’s say that you’re running a little mom-and-pop shop, a dry cleaners or whatever, and you’ve got to report on all these things, whether it’s the chemicals you use or don’t use, and how much. Actually, they’re probably going to have to hire somebody to fill out this report every month. Now, there are more important things here, Mr. Speaker. There’s a million people out of work in this province. Do you understand?

I want to keep on track. The second part of the bill—it’s a very small bill. Actually, respectfully, the minister was here earlier this morning. This second part of the bill is even more interesting. What that part of the bill does—and I’ll just read it here from the explanatory notes. It enacts a Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act. If they only had a plan for jobs. What they have in Ontario right now is a plan that everybody is going to work for the government. I’m pretty sure you’re either going to be a policeman, a fireman, a nurse, a teacher, a doctor. Wait a minute—everybody can’t work for the government.

I want a report. I would support this bill on the condition that they have a report every month on the actual jobs they’ve created or at least worked in partnership with business—to not put them out of business because of the price of electricity, the high cost of regulation and red tape. That’s what we hear from the CFIB—the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—relentlessly, every month. These are small businesses that mortgage their house to rent a shop, to set up a restaurant or to set up selling paint, cutting hair or whatever they’re doing. They are buying their own jobs. We should be supporting those families.

Now, I’m going to break away for a minute. Last week, I had to go and get my hair cut, in preparation for Easter probably. I went in to see my barber, Dave Bryant, and his daughter, and they were telling me—I’m not making this up—they were talking about the College of Trades. The guy has been barbering for 30 years. He does a wonderful job, I’m sure you’d all agree, and I see Mr. Arnott has had his hair cut here this morning, but I wonder if they’re down inspecting that barber downstairs.

Now, that’s red tape. They’ve got this inspector parked outside in the car, the white car with a trillium on it, a company car—you taxpayers are paying for it—he’s wearing a suit—

Interjection: A brand new car.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, a brand new car. He went and had it washed first thing in the morning. That cost another $5 or $10. Where’s that money coming from? The taxpayers of Ontario.

He’s not creating a job—no, no, no; he’s going to kill a job. He walks in to Dave Bryant’s and says, “Where is your certificate with a seal on it?” The guy has been cutting hair for 30 years. That’s red tape. My one suggestion this morning is, eliminate the College of Trades. That’s just one example.

Now, part B of this says—partnerships—what it does is, it goes on to talk about “prepare plans with respect to the development of clusters.” Now, that’s a very fancy term: “cluster.” A cluster would be determined to be industries with related functions and/or support or ancillary services. That’s kind of what it would be.

Let’s see. I worked for the auto sector for 31 years, and in that sector in Oshawa—my colleague Jerry Ouellette, representing Oshawa for almost 19 years and before that; an excellent member, a tremendous member. In fact, he got elected in that riding because he represents the working person, as do I. My riding has more farmers than auto workers.

I would say, though, that the story here is that the cluster idea is a good idea. We have working clusters in Ontario, and I will be respectful of that: Kitchener–Waterloo with the centre for excellence there, the University of Waterloo and Laurier—very good; Oshawa, and our region, Durham. My riding is called Durham but it really includes Uxbridge, Scugog and Clarington. Uxbridge is very highly mobile; they all work in Toronto and have good jobs, I’m sure—a lot of agriculture there, too.

But the cluster in Durham was all focused around the most important single investment in the history of Durham region, made by, respectfully, Jim Flaherty. Jim Flaherty created the environment for the government to work with the other partners to create the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. That has provided the human infrastructure of knowledge and skills, along with Durham College, to train young people in the skills, whether it’s trades or academic problem-solving, to invest in adding value to materials, like taking steel, glass and rubber and making it into a car. These engineering and technical support skills are all as a result.

Now, what’s our specialty in Durham? We’re the centre of energy for the entire country. We have the two largest nuclear plants: Pickering, as well as Darlington nuclear plants. Those are highly technical, high-paying jobs, and I suspect that the university and college play a very important role in creating jobs.

That’s what I should see in this bill. If you’re talking back to the cluster thing, I would want you to recognize the UOIT as a centre of excellence for energy, and the college, as well, for trades.

Now, if you get into the whole issue of clusters, when you look around Ontario, one of the most important areas for the future, certainly for sustainability—and I define sustainability as enough for everyone forever. That’s the real definition of sustainability: enough for everyone forever. What are the most important things so that we have enough for everyone forever in sustainability, in the economy and in the universe that we share? Food and water.

Food and food production is a highly technical area. It’s very capital-intensive. You have to have a land base; you have to have very sophisticated equipment—tractors and GPS and all of these things; then you need a quota of some sort, generally. If it’s livestock, you’d definitely need a quota; otherwise, you have issues on seeds that you either own the right to plant or not.

The issue here is that just recently they’ve closed two colleges dealing with agriculture in eastern Ontario, so what they are doing in action doesn’t support the goals. I look at this bill trying to create clusters. Eastern Ontario is almost entirely dependent on a kind of fragile, rural economy. What have they done? They’ve taken the two colleges and threatened to close them, and there are students who would learn practical skills to advance the value in agriculture, whether it’s on the livestock side or on the field crop side. That’s important for Ontario, it’s important for eastern Ontario and it is important for Canada. Those are just a couple of comments with respect to the clusters.

Another example of a failure—and I don’t blame entirely the Premier or even the minister, for that matter. We have the Ring of Fire; it has the most potential of any area in Canada, next to the tar sands or the oil resources in Alberta. The largest single investor—they’ve been monkeying around up there for four or five years. There are no roads in there; you can’t get in there. There needs to be an investment to create jobs. They’ve got these economic development funds for eastern Ontario and southern Ontario—mostly political stuff, really.

They fire in a couple hundred thousand dollars and claim that they’ve created all of these jobs; I’m not sure they have or not. But this cluster in northern Ontario would be a good example.

The Ring of Fire has the highest-value resources. It’s already been discovered and defined and kind of outlined what the value of this thing is: billions of dollars. There will be highly technical jobs, high-paid jobs, and they should be focusing on putting in place the infrastructure instead of wasting a billion-plus on gas plants and needless other waste that I don’t even want to talk about—these investigations going on, on the role that the Premier did or didn’t have, and lawyers and all this stuff—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome some family who are here in attendance: my cousin-in-law and uncle-in-law, Adrian LeCoyte, who lives in Pickering, and his father, David LeCoyte, who is here from Swindon, England, and who’s visiting Canada. I welcome them.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to introduce a very good friend, a long-time friend of mine, Colonel Robert O’Brien, who’s here with his family. He’s the grandfather of page Isabella.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to welcome to the public gallery the mother and father of our fabulous page, Eli Park—I saw them walk in: Joanne Oxley and John Park.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I would like to introduce the parents of my page, Mira Donaldson—her parents are Kelly Spicer and Guy Donaldson—as well as their family friends Wendell Spicer and Bunny Spicer.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome the family of page Caroline Falkner. Her mother, Julia Martin, is here in the House. Her father, Matt Falkner, is visiting for the first time. Other members of the family have been here before. Amy Falkner was a page in the previous rotation, I believe; so, Amy, welcome back to Queen’s Park. Brothers Benjamin Falkner and Christopher Falkner and cousin Kathy Lacroix are in the House. I welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of page Kathryn Nicol, I’d like to introduce, in the galleries today, her mother—is it McRver?—Janet McRver; her father, Jason Nicol; and her brother, Liam Nicol. They’re joining us in the gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to welcome Karen Laffrenier, the mother of our great page Callista, on Callista’s last day here.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Isabella O’Brien, who’s the page from my riding, is joined today by her mother, Angela Ceccato; her father, Robert O’Brien; her uncle, Ivan Ceccato; her grandmother, Gerri O’Brien; and her grandfather, Bert O’Brien. They’re in the members’ galley, with almost enough of them together to have Thanksgiving dinner right here.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know that all members will join me in thanking and giving them our wonderful reception of how great the pages have been. This is their last day.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their reception of these wonderful pages. I have told them that during this week they have been the best pages of that week that I’ve ever seen.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to correct my record. My eyes were not deceiving me: The spelling was incorrect on my sheet, and I want to correct my record. Page Kathryn Nicol is joined by, of course, as I said, her father, Jason Nicol; her brother, Liam Nicol; and her mother, Janet McRuer. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member does have a point of order. It’s always in order for a member to correct their record.

VISITORS

Ms. Laurie Scott: Megan Barkey has been my page from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for the last five weeks. Her mother, Angelie; father, David; and sister, Madeline, are here again today in the public gallery somewhere. Welcome. There you are, behind me.

Mr. Rob Leone: My guests have not yet arrived, but I’d like to welcome Michael and Robert Haas. Robert is bringing his son Michael to learn a bit more about our democracy here in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Acting Premier: I rise today, obviously, on the news of an increase to the hydro rates here in the province of Ontario yet again making it more unaffordable, which brings me to my next point. As the minister responsible for energy cavalierly suggests that the cancelled gas plants are a mere cup of coffee a year, I find that profound sense of entitlement has expanded into the rest of the government.

After rereading the Premier’s answers from question period yesterday, I am left with far more questions. In fact, the closer the questions probed into what the Premier knew about the deleted hard drives and when she knew it, she decided to wave off to the government House leader.

Specifically, it is unclear to us why the Premier does not want to detail conversations that the chair of transition, Monique Smith, had either with her or with David Livingston.

Will the Premier offer her co-operation today and ensure the former McGuinty government House leader, chair of her transition team and envoy to Washington, Monique Smith, will return to this—

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The Premier has been extremely co-operative when it comes to the issue of the gas plants. I can tell you as House leader that it was the new Premier who directed me to work with the opposition to establish the justice committee with a broad mandate. It can, as members know, meet at the call of the Chair, meaning it has absolute freedom when to meet. And like any committee of this Legislature, it can call forward witnesses. There’s a process in place to

schedule them, and they have certain powers and authorities if people do not want to be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that in terms of this government, the Minister of Energy has been there several times, I’ve been in front of the committee, other ministers have been, and most importantly, the Premier has been twice in front of the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I asked the Acting Premier if Monique Smith would appear before our committee and if she would recall her from Washington. I did not hear an answer. But I did hear the government House leader tell us that they have expanded the role of the committee.

Right now, the committee is trying to do its work and government members are filibustering. Therefore, after my leads, I will have to go back down to that committee, because they refuse to allow us to sit next week. That’s what is going on in their committee.

Yesterday, Peter Wallace said, “I indicated that for the successful Premier, there would be a series of challenges, and these challenges were already ... known.”

A little later he said, “With reference to the gas plants, we would distinguish and we would talk to them about the records of which the Ontario public service was particularly concerned, which is the requests made by legislative committees.”

I ask the Acting Premier: When did Monique Smith tell the Premier about David Livingston’s plan to delete the hard drives so that these records would not be made available?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member needs to be very, very careful. There is an active OPP investigation. Coming in here and throwing as much mud as possible and seeing what sticks is not an advisable strategy.

We have co-operated fully with the committee. Members of the government who have been called have made themselves available. I am certain that Monique Smith, as an employee of this government, will make herself available and work with the committee to

schedule an appearance.

But if the honourable member wants to talk about the committee, we are still waiting for the Conservative candidates to come before the committee. I’ll have to check my notes, but I believe one candidate has been asked 16 times to come forward, and refused. We have a number of questions for him about the Progressive Conservatives’ promise to cancel the gas plants in the last election.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would remind the government House leader: It is not the Progressive Conservative Party under OPP investigation; it is members of his party that are under an OPP investigation for deleted emails and the destruction of documents with respect to a $1.1-billion gas plant cancellation scandal that saved their finance minister’s seat and four other seats in a minority Parliament, that struck to the very heart of our democracy in this province.

If he wants to talk about co-operating in the justice committee, he should have his members who are filibustering as I speak in this place to stand down, allow us to sit next week and bring Monique Smith into—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton will come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. I’m keeping track.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like you to stop. Thank you.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member has been here for many years. She still hasn’t learned that saying it louder doesn’t make it more true.

The fact of the matter was, it was her party that had robocalls in the last election saying, “The only way to get rid of the gas plants is to vote Progressive Conservative.” It was her party that was putting out tweets and press releases. And the pièce de résistance: It was her leader who went on YouTube to say that if he was elected Premier of this province, that gas plant—and he pointed to it, with a dramatic flourish—would be “done, done, done.”

Every party of this House made the same promise. All we want to hear from their candidates is: What was their costing and what was—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

DRIVER EDUCATION

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Bonne Pâques to everyone in the Legislature.

My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, in six years now, my daughter will be learning how to drive. I can tell you, as for any parent, that will be a most frightening day. From the moment our kids are born, we all go to great lengths to ensure their health and safety, and the prospect of any child getting on the road for the first time, with all the dangers present, is a difficult reality for any parent to face. So many parents enrol their children in driver’s ed to help them prepare.

However, the Star revealed today that the transportation ministry won’t let the public know about unfit driving instructors who have had their licences revoked. Minister, since the Ministry of Transportation won’t, will you stand up and act to ensure the safety of our young drivers?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Murray is not here. I’m actually pleased to try and respond to this question.

I think it’s important to note that the Minister of Transportation takes the issue very seriously. There obviously is an issue related to the privacy commissioner, and there is a process under way which cannot be circumvented; it is before the commissioner. It’s difficult to comment in a more substantial way. As we all do, we respect the people’s right to privacy as well as the public’s right to information.

A number of things are clear. A driving school must be licensed by the ministry in order to offer beginner driver education. It is the school’s responsibility to ensure that the instructors they employ are being properly licensed. There is very close monitoring of the schools, and changes are made as necessary to keep the schools in line with provincial standards. It’s important for consumers to make an informed choice.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There is a list—thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: This is typical of the government; you ask a question about transportation and protecting consumer rights, and we get the Minister of Northern Mines answering the question. My next question for the Minister of Health will probably go to the Minister of Natural Resources to get an answer. It’s ridiculous, this government.

Minister, our children are learning to drive. We put their safety in the hands of our driving instructors—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, you can heckle me, but why don’t you answer the question next time?

Minister, we expect our children to learn to drive from someone who is professional and licensed by the government. Therefore, every parent puts their trust in the Minister of Transportation to ensure that people teaching our young drivers adhere to standards of conduct and bad instructors are removed.

The Toronto Star, for over a year, has been trying to obtain the names of roughly 300 instructors who have lost their licences. These instructors have lost their licences for reasons ranging from sexist and obscene language with students to selling alcohol and contraband cigarettes. The ministry will not act to protect our people.

Minister, why can’t a parent find out which instructor has lost their licence because they visited a strip club during an in-car lesson?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, the member should understand that the issue is in front of the privacy commissioner. It’s certainly not appropriate for anybody to circumvent the process of the privacy commissioner. You would understand that, and obviously we need to respect that process.

The fact is, there is a list of approved drivers’ education schools, as well as those whose status has been revoked, that is posted on the MTO website. That is there for all to see. Choosing a school from that list is the safest way, I think it’s fair to say, to ensure that young drivers are being taught by approved schools and by licensed instructors.

This is an important issue, one that is taken seriously by the minister and, again, a process that’s in front of the privacy commissioner.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I don’t know why the minister herself could not read those notes to me and had to pass it off to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Minister, I understand why your government isn’t transparent when it comes to the gas plants. You’re looking out for your own skin. However, we’re talking about the safety of our young drivers. At the very least, we expect the government to be open about that. In the world of the Internet, how is it possible there’s not an online ministry database where parents can find out if their child’s instructor is licensed or not?

It stuns me that this simple, common-sense approach eludes the ministry and this government.

Minister, does your ministry continue to fail our children?

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

Minister.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, this is an issue that I think everyone takes seriously, and there is a process under way with the privacy commissioner. Minister Murray, were he here, would very much want to affirm the fact that we monitor driver education schools very closely and make changes, as necessary, to keep those schools in line with provincial standards.

Consumers are in a position to make an informed choice. There is a list of approved drivers’ education schools, as well as those whose status has been revoked on the MTO website. Certainly, choosing a school from that list is the best way to ensure that young drivers are being taught by approved schools and licensed instructors.

Again, this is something that is under the purview and being looked at by the privacy commissioner.

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

As innocent as it was, and to be consistent, I would ask and remind all members that you do not reference anyone’s attendance in this House.

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Last summer, on the advice of Shawn Truax, the forensic coordinator for the province of Ontario, computers were seized from an off-site government office in Ottawa at 180 Elgin Street. When did the government learn of this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I can speak only for myself, as Minister of Government Services. I learned of this particular incident, or the details of it, this morning from the justice committee hearings. At the same time, I think members are aware there have been some media reports about the OPP undertaking their investigation.

I would remind the member again that, as minister, I have made sure that I have stayed out of the OPP investigation, and I would advise her to do the same thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, these were the government’s own experts who feared that a computer was being accessed and potentially wiped clean. So this is not the OPP that I’m asking about. I’m asking about the government’s own internal people. Surely the government’s own experts briefed the minister responsible. Can the minister confirm that a briefing happened, and when?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, there is and there was an active OPP investigation. I have been very forthcoming that, last summer, I had a discussion with my then deputy minister. He has since retired from the public service. He said, “As you know, there’s an OPP investigation going on, and our ministry will be co-operating and doing some work with them. Do you wish to be brought up to speed? Do you wish to be briefed, what have you, on it?” I said, “Absolutely not. Myself and members of my staff want to stay out of the OPP investigation. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to know any of the details of that.”

But I did ask the deputy minister to make sure the ministry co-operated fully with the Ontario Provincial Police, as is appropriate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Can the Acting Premier tell us whether any staff from the Premier’s office were using those computers in Ottawa?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I kind of anticipate this Perry Mason route that she’s going down.

I know there was reference made to the member from Ottawa South today at committee. I would like to put on the record that the court document makes very clear that the ministry, in co-operating with the OPP, looked at a total of 52 hard drives, and, of those, they found that 24 of them had been accessed through these codes, which are, of course, the topic of this investigation. I can assure the leader of the third party that the member from Ottawa South, at that point, who was working in Ottawa for the Premier—his computer was not accessed using these codes.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Acting Premier—but I can tell you that the mocking of the opposition in the job they’re trying to do to hold this government to account on a $1.1-billion scandal looks very bad on the government House leader; looks very bad.

Can the Acting Premier tell us who was accessing those computers in Ottawa?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: What looks really bad, Mr. Speaker, is a leader of a political party who seems to be counselling the government to interfere in an OPP investigation and seems disappointed that we decided not to interfere in an OPP investigation.

The fact of the matter—

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: The fact of the matter is that the OPP identified 24 computers that had been accessed. If the honourable member wants to consult the court document that was released, the list of the individuals who used those computers is right there. I understand that the committee was asked to confirm whether the member from Ottawa South’s computer was one that had been accessed, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I consulted with officials, and it was not.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I don’t know about you, but I think there’s a real duty that’s called “ministerial responsibility” for a minister to know what is happening within his own ministry. There’s a dereliction of duty when it come to this minister.

Can the Acting Premier tell us what sort of information might have been found on those computers in Ottawa?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I think what looks bad is the leader of the third party, who is trying to conduct an OPP investigation here on the floor of the House.

What also looks bad is the leader of the NDP, who decides that playing these OPP games is more important than asking about health or about education or about transportation, or asking about the issues of the day.

The fact of the matter is that the court document is clear. There were a number of computers that were accessed through these codes, which are at the centre of the investigation. It even lists who they were. As to the details of the investigation, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to leave that to the Ontario Provincial Police, as is appropriate. I’m going to allow them to do their work, and I’m going to allow them to reach their own conclusions and not interfere, as the leader of the third party is suggesting I do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, only the Liberals could be so arrogant and out of touch as to consider the work the opposition is doing as being a game. It is not a game; it is our responsibility to do this work—our responsibility—and we take it seriously.

This government’s story gets more remarkable by the day. They claim they don’t know anything about the investigation that their own staff are running. They claim they hardly even know Dalton McGuinty anymore, and the other Liberals that they worked with for a decade.

And, if we’re keeping track, they’re also so surprised that cancelling the gas plants is going to cost $1.1 billion, and I imagine they had no idea that Kathleen Wynne’s signature was going to be ending up on that final deal. The people stuck paying the higher and higher hydro bills in this province aren’t surprised at all.

When is this government going to start answering questions?

Hon. John Milloy: You know, maybe it’s time the leader of the New Democratic Party got a little bit off her high horse. The advice to not interfere in an OPP investigation is not coming from me. It is coming from the Ontario Provincial Police, the same Ontario Provincial Police who recently appeared in front of the justice committee and said that the type of interference we’re seeing here in this Legislature could in fact jeopardize the investigation.

The leader of the New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. She cannot ask for the police to look into it and reach conclusions, and then come in here and interfere through inappropriate questions, by not dealing with the facts, and dealing with this issue the way she has. If anyone needs to apologize, Mr. Speaker, it’s the leader of the New Democratic Party.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the finance minister. Yesterday, the Bank of Canada revised its growth outlook downward from 2.5% to 2.3%. It comes on the heels of a Fraser Institute report that concludes that Ontario is dragging down the rest of Canada’s economy.

We know our revenues are down and will continue to go down. We also know you have a $4.5-billion gap in the budget, the one that you kept secret from the financial community. Knowing all these shortfalls, your response is to go on a $5.7-billion spending spree, just like the BLT document we exposed said you would.

Minister, Ontarians have figured it out: Your math simply does not add up. When are you going to come clean and admit to this Legislature that you have no plan to save Ontario from the trouble you got us into?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a budget that we presented last year that illustrated we had exceeded our targets year over year. In fact, last year, we not only did that, but we became the lowest-cost government because of the efforts that we’ve taken in terms of austerity. We’ve been very disciplined and determined in doing so.

I just provided a report at the fall economic update, telling the world as to where we stand, relative to our numbers, and again, we’re on track to balance by 2017-18.

We then came forward with a long-term plan illustrating the very challenges before us, all the while recognizing that what we must do is invest in our future to ensure we have economic growth and greater prosperity.

The opposition members on the other side would rather we cut investments in health care and education, at the expense of the Ontario public, for their own personal gain. That is not what we’re going to do. It’s not about the fortunes of that political party. It’s the fortunes of Ontario that we’re most concerned about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We have already heard from the government’s Minister of Transportation that they will be cutting health and education, so we already know where those cuts are coming from—as well as seeing a flagrant disregard that this government has for taxpayers’ money, and of course, Minister, by that I mean the $1.1-billion gas plant scandal, spent to save your very seat—all this when Ontario’s per-person GDP is 5.6% lower than the rest of Canada.

We now have the third-lowest rate of private sector job creation in the country. Our annual growth in business investment is barely half of the rest of Canada’s. And your answer? You go on a spending spree while raising hydro rates and raising taxes.

All the experts tell us that if Ontario adopts smarter policies—that’s lower hydro rates and lower taxes—we could improve our economy.

Minister, will your budget reverse the disastrous path you’ve been leading us down?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ontario has actually had 180% of jobs return to this province since the depths of the recession. We have taken steps necessary to grow our economy and create jobs.

Our budget coming forward on May 1 at 4 o’clock, in this very Legislature, will talk specifically about those measures, measures which the opposition fail to recognize. They fail to recognize that what we must do now is continue to invest in our economy, ensure that we have an open and dynamic business climate to attract those investments, because the companies, especially small businesses, are the job creators. We are talking about more opportunity for all Ontarians, and our government will continue to do just that.

Furthermore, as we grow and invest in our economy, contrary to what they would prefer on that side, which is to do across-the-board cuts and put in jeopardy that recovery, we will continue to stand behind those businesses and the Ontario public.

GO TRANSIT

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Liberals have a long record of promising everything and delivering nothing. It’s happening again on transit for Kitchener-Waterloo. On March 18, the Liberals promised all-day, two-way GO service, but gave us no timeline. Then, they changed their mind and told us that GO express rail won’t serve Kitchener at all. Instead, the minister cooked up a new scheme to build high-speed rail in 10 years. And now, a senior vice-president with GO tells us that we are lucky to have just four trains a day.

Two-way, all-day GO? High-speed rail? Or just four trains for the people of Kitchener-Waterloo?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’m very out of breath but very happy to be here.

We are moving right now on track acquisition, as the member knows—very advanced. We’re in the final stages. We will soon own 80% of the track to Kitchener-Waterloo. These have been very difficult negotiations. I’m very excited.

We are moving on two-way, all-day GO, in spite of the federal government cutting back Via at the same time that we’re increasing it. And we’re going to have high-speed rail to Kitchener, running at 320 kilometres—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Not just Kitchener.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: London and Kitchener.

And we are, over the next decade, going to transform the transportation system in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Perhaps the problem is that the minister doesn’t understand what two-way, all-day means. It means that 10,000 people who live in Toronto can get to Kitchener-Waterloo in the morning, because that’s where there are jobs. And then the people from Kitchener-Waterloo can actually get to Toronto all day long. Right now, there are four trains.

It’s clear the Liberals have lost their way. They’ll promise everything and deliver nothing, because they focus on keeping their own jobs rather than creating jobs for Ontarians. The cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Guelph have been clear. They’re calling for full-day, two-way GO train service on the Kitchener line. Even the government admits all-day GO will create 33,000 jobs. But instead of working with our community to fund the local plan, the Liberals are busy promising everything else to distract from their own record of waste—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Education will come to order. The member from Eglinton–Lawrence will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. You’re not helping.

Wrap up, please.

Ms. Catherine Fife: There are 33,000 jobs at play, but instead of working with our community to fund the local plan, the Liberals are busy promising everything else to distract from their own record of waste, delay and mismanagement. Why are you refusing—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for the friendly question, and I want to ask her if she can take yes for an answer.

I’m going to be very clear. We are doing all-day, two-way GO. That’s already under way. We already have trains running that will be—

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Yes, it is happening. Expenditures have been made for years. They’re accelerating. I meet with Carl Zehr, Ken Seiling, Mayor Fontana and Mayor Farbridge. My friends John Milloy, Liz Sandals, Deb Matthews—we have been working with these community and business leaders for a year—not just consulting; working with them. They want high-speed rail. They’re getting four stations; access to Pearson Airport in under half an hour; about an hour and 10 minutes from London, downtown to Pearson—320-kilometre-an-hour trains, Canadian technology. We’re kicking butt. We’re getting it done.

PAY EQUITY

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Minister of Labour. For many community groups and organizations, April 16 marks—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order—second time—and the member from Trinity–Spadina.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence can just—I don’t need your help.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Equal Pay Day is recognized in countries around the world, including the United States, Australia and member states of the European Union. Yesterday we became the first province in Canada to recognize this important reminder of the gender pay gap.

As you may know, this date was chosen by community groups to represent the amount of extra days per year, on average, that women must work annually to match the annual earnings of men.

Through you, Speaker, can the minister tell this House, and women in my riding and across Ontario, what your ministry is doing to improve the position of women in the workplace and to improve pay equity in the province?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thanks to the fine member from Scarborough–Guildwood for the great question. Our government recognizes the valuable contribution that women make in making a more equal, a more just and a more prosperous society right here in Ontario.

I know that in the supplementary, the minister responsible for women’s issues can speak more broadly to the investments that have been made to improve the status of women in Ontario. But let me say I’m very proud that my ministry is taking action to improve the status quo of all workers, including women, by proposing changes to labour legislation to help vulnerable workers and by increasing the minimum wage.

I would also like to commend our employees at the Pay Equity Office for the hard work they have undertaken in investigating, settling and resolving complaints related to the compensation of employees in what are traditionally female-dominated occupations.

There is always more to be done. That’s why we have asked the Pay Equity Office to hold a round table to discuss ways to address the gender wage gap, and I was really happy to be part of that discussion. I look forward to some excellent advice from them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I know that our government has taken a very important step by increasing the minimum wage. With the majority of minimum wage earners being women, this increase has a direct impact.

I am also proud that we are helping women in the workplace by strengthening workplace protections. I know that the Pay Equity Office, as the minister said, is working very hard when it comes to advising employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities. However, even with all of these important initiatives, the gender wage gap still exists.

Through you, Speaker, will the minister share what our government is doing to address this wage disparity and ensure that women can participate fully in the economy?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you for allowing me the second part to the question, and thank you to the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for the question on this issue as well.

I would like to first thank the Pay Equity Commission for the round table that they hosted yesterday that myself and the Minister of Labour attended. We look forward to the recommendations that come from that.

Our government has taken action. We have taken concrete actions to improve women’s economic status and help close the gender wage gap—a lot more than has been done in the past. We have demonstrated this commitment by helping women access better jobs, through major investments in education, training programs and the Pay Equity Commission. Thousands of women have been provided with training and education for better jobs.

Our government is also investing significantly in child care and full-day kindergarten. We will continue to work hard to break down all of these barriers for the women of today and the leaders of tomorrow.

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, since you have been in power, the Auditor General has released special reports investigating Ornge air ambulance, the Mississauga gas plant and the Oakville gas plant. In all three of these cases, the flow of public funds to indirect recipients and third party service providers was outside the current mandate of the Provincial Auditor.

Acting Premier, do you agree that the Auditor General should be given the tools to do their job and ensure that taxpayers are getting fair value for their money?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I know that the honourable member has a private member’s bill which is before the Legislature this afternoon, and I think all of us look forward to the debate and the discussion.

I think all of us recognize the important role that is played by the Auditor General. We also anticipate a very important role by the Financial Accountability Officer. At the same time, we do have to balance that with the appropriateness of going too far when it comes to those who are merely dealing with the government and not part of the government. That is the balance, I think, that will be the topic of debate of this afternoon. I can certainly say that on our side of the Legislature we’re looking forward to hearing the debate and the presentation from the member, as well as participating in it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again, to the Acting Premier: A number of audits are currently in progress, including a review of the community care access centres, smart-meter usage and the winter roads maintenance program. These investigations all involve public money flowing to third party organizations.

Acting Premier, my private member’s bill will allow the Auditor General to follow the money to third party recipients to help complete these audits and make sure taxpayers are getting good value for their money.

Acting Premier, will you support Bill 190 when it is debated for second reading this afternoon and give the Auditor General the tools to do the job?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, it’s important that we all recognize the need for greater transparency and greater accountability. It’s one of the reasons that we, in this House—on this side of the House—have taken numerous steps to do so.

In fact, C.D. Howe Institute has recognized that the government of Ontario has become one of the most transparent and one of the most accountable governments anywhere in Canada. We have been rated top in the country because of the integrity of our numbers.

We recognize the important work that the Auditor General does. It’s one of the reasons we brought forward the Financial Accountability Officer to ensure that we get not only an Auditor General looking at the past results, but also making certain that going forward we institute proper systems to ensure that integrity continues. We’re doing that in treasury board. We’re doing that with our sub-treasury board committee. We will continue to act responsibly for the benefit of the public good, and taxpayers’ value will be protected.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Liberals continue to insist that they want openness and transparency in the waste of the $1.1-billion gas plant scandal and in the deletion and wiping of emails and hard drives. But today their actions tell a different story. Today they tried to stop the justice committee from sitting. Ontarians deserve answers, and they did not let this happen today. Why did the Liberal members spend the morning trying to stop the justice committee from sitting?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to bring the honourable member and, in fact, all members of the Legislature up to speed. The fact of the matter is that the justice committee has decided to sit next week, Wednesday morning and afternoon and Thursday afternoon.

What members may find a little bit curious, and perhaps members of the press or the public, is: How could the committee meet during question period? The fact of the matter is that the committee has that power and authority. The reason why it has that power and authority is because I, as House leader, negotiated with the opposition on the direction of the Premier, who said she wanted the committee to have that sort of responsibility to undertake to sit when it felt it was in the best interest, and we are going to see it hold a number of hearings next week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Well, just to inform the government House leader, I was actually in the committee, and members of the Liberal Party voted against sitting an additional week. They voted against that. So their actions tell a different story.

They talk about getting answers on the gas plants, but they said no to a public inquiry. They talked about being transparent and open, but they voted against sitting additional days in the justice committee.

Why is the government saying one thing about accountability and transparency but doing another? Why are they voting against transparency? Why are they against accountability?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, we have a justice committee—and it may sound arcane, but it meets at the call of the Chair. What that means is that it is up to the committee to decide when it meets. I would also advise members of the Legislature, if they haven’t noticed: There are more of the opposition than the government—more of them than us—which essentially means the opposition is helping to drive the agenda of this committee.

But, at the same time, I think all of us would agree, let’s let the committee undertake its own work. I would ask the honourable member, as this is question period—I’m very, very surprised that he has no issues about education or health care or a variety of issues that he wants to raise in the House today. But I’m always happy to answer questions about committee procedure.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour la procureure générale, M me la ministre Madeleine Meilleur.

I believe that aboriginal representation and access to justice are important issues across Ontario. As you will know, Speaker, and as former Speaker Peters will know, Mr. Frank Iacobucci released a report recently that outlines important recommendations lighting the path to increased aboriginal representation in the justice system. I understand that the Ministry of the Attorney General has established an implementation committee to address Mr. Iacobucci’s recommendations and has announced the co-chairs of the justice advisory group to provide advice to the Attorney General on broader justice issues affecting First Nations.

My question is this: Will the Attorney General inform this chamber about the steps we are taking to fortify, solidify and strengthen the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the justice system?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for his question. Mr. Yakabuski’s report has helped the ministry build on its ongoing efforts to improve participation of First Nations individuals on jury rolls and strengthen our province’s justice system overall.

We have created a position of assistant deputy Attorney General for aboriginal justice, and this individual will be recruited through an open, merit-based process beginning this month. This is the first recommendation to be implemented in consultation with the jury review implementation committee formed in September 2013 to oversee the implementation of recommendations in Mr. Yakabuski’s report. I want to take this opportunity to thank Judge Yakabuski’s for his wonderful report.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Merci, madame la Ministre, pour votre réponse sur la contribution de M. Iacobucci.

I sense that our government is taking meaningful steps towards effecting real, positive change in the way that First Nations participate in Ontario’s justice system, specifically in enhancing participation on juries. We know, for example, that throughout Ontario, First Nations peoples are significantly underrepresented, not just on juries but among all those who work in the administration of justice: court officials, prosecutors, defence counsel and judges. Can the minister expand on how moving forward on these particular recommendations will help build inclusive and respectful relationships with our partners in the aboriginal communities?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: The addition of an assistant deputy Attorney General, aboriginal justice, is a critical step in addressing the aboriginal justice issues. It fulfills a key recommendation of the Justice Iacobucci report. It will do three things, this new position:

(1) The position will strengthen the relationships between aboriginal communities and government.

(2) It will improve trust and understanding amongst aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and communities.

(3) It will lead to new supports and programs for aboriginal peoples.

As a part of the effort to find the best possible candidate for this position, the recruitment process will include extensive outreach to aboriginal organizations and communities across Canada. My colleague the Attorney General and I will continue to move forward in implementing the recommendations of the report. We will continue to work to ensure that First Nations are adequately represented in Ontario’s justice system.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Attorney General. My private member’s resolution called on the government to implement a comprehensive, long-term solution to reform joint and several liability insurance for municipalities, and to do it by this June. It received overwhelming support from AMO, from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, from insurers in Perth–Wellington and beyond, and from over 200 municipalities. Support continues to pour in. It was debated and it received overwhelming support from MPPs from all parties.

That was almost two months ago. Since you became Attorney General, what action have you taken on this file and when will you get it done?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Legal liability reform is an important and complex issue. I understand that this issue has been a significant concern of municipalities for some time.

AMO has asked the government to consider the impact of the law of joint and several liability on municipal insurance. The Ministry of the Attorney General has worked with AMO to develop possible ways to address municipal concerns. MAG is in the process of consulting with AMO and the legal community on two options under consideration.

The consultation period has been extended. It’s expected to be concluded on Thursday, April 16, 2014.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: With all due respect, that’s the same answer I heard four years ago when I was a councillor in North Perth. That hasn’t changed.

Speaker, I know this minister is new to the job, but we need to know when she will make this happen. Her government has been promising reform for years, but they have never made it a priority. I hope she will do better.

AMO and many municipalities are—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister without portfolio, you can’t hopscotch-heckle. I hear you wherever you are.

Finish, please.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: AMO and many municipalities are supporting a combined model, which would place reasonable limits on the damages that could be recovered from a municipality. In Perth–Wellington, municipalities, including Stratford and the county of Wellington, are asking you to support this.

Minister, the time for consultations is over. When will you respect the will of the House? Time is running out.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: As the member said, there are some municipalities who are supporting it and some who are not supporting it.

We have been examining models used in other jurisdictions. We have examined a model used in the United States in particular. They have a wide range of approaches. Proportionate liability, in which each defendant is only liable for the proportion of damage he or she has caused, is controversial, because it can mean that a seriously injured plaintiff has to absorb a significant loss. We have looked at what is done in Saskatchewan.

As I said, we are consulting, we are working with the officials in my ministry. We will inform the member later on.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Niagara region has one of the highest unemployment rates in Ontario. City councillors in St. Catharines unanimously passed a motion to develop a jobs and investment strategy by co-operating with the Niagara region, other municipalities and the Niagara Industrial Association. We met with Niagara businesses that support the NDP’s plan of a targeted tax credit to create jobs.

Niagara regional leaders are taking their own measures to do what this government should be doing: creating a jobs plan that works. Will this government finally admit that its across-the-board corporate tax cuts aren’t creating jobs, and tell regional leaders in Niagara how it will support their jobs strategy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. It’s important to understand that Niagara is facing challenges unique to that region partly because of dependence, in the past and the present, on the manufacturing sector. It’s refreshing as well to see the hard work being done by the citizens there and political and business leaders. In fact, the economic development corporations for the region as a whole have recently, quite exceptionally, increased their coordination. They understand that by collaborating, they can actually compete even better as a region.

Although the unemployment rate in the Niagara region, I acknowledge, is unacceptably high, it has come down considerably over the past year, and certainly since the height of the recession. It is benefiting from the job-creating initiatives this government is making, as we see that unemployment rate come down and we see the growth in manufacturing jobs once again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Manufacturers in Niagara are saying they are in danger of being poached by the states across the border. Low power costs in New York state generated by Hydro One and sold at an enormous loss are being used to lure Niagara companies away. An industrial consumer in New York can purchase electricity from Ontario 30% to 45% lower than a competing company in our province.

Will this government fix its broken hydro system that is increasing hydro bills for Ontarians and, more importantly, driving manufacturing jobs out of Niagara and into the States?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member needs to get his facts up to speed. We had a broken system. We now have a system that creates a surplus. We are now using that strong position in the electricity system to create a program called the IEI Program. That creates energy for people who are creating jobs at about 50% of the regular rate. We’ve just announced seven across the province, including in Welland, Pembroke and Renfrew. We’ve created 140 jobs by using this program to restart a paper plant that had been stopped.

We’re across-the-board competitive with our industrial programs, and we’re going to continue to evolve them. We’re competitive with northern States; we’re competitive with other provinces in the industrial sector.

I invite the member to come to my office, and we’ll review all the programs for him and the benefits for the industrial sector.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. For many seniors, physiotherapy can be the key to a full and active life. Whether it’s getting out of the house to get groceries, taking

part in exercise and sports or simply taking a stroll with their grandchildren, thousands of older Ontarians benefit from the hard work and attentive care of our physiotherapists.

That’s why so many people in Vaughan were concerned about the changes that our government made to the delivery of physiotherapy this past summer. Many spoke to me and wondered what this would mean for them. Would it interrupt their care? Would it make it harder for them to access services?

Yesterday, I had the distinct pleasure of announcing that our government will be investing $800,000 to support the addition of four new publicly funded physiotherapy clinics in my riding of Vaughan. I know how important this will be for so many living in my community.

Could the minister please tell the House just how this investment will benefit seniors in Vaughan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for Vaughan. I tell you: He is a passionate advocate for seniors in his community. I agree with the member that physiotherapy does help ensure that older Ontarians lead healthy, active lives.

Before we moved forward with our plan to improve physiotherapy for Ontarians, seniors in many communities simply had no access to publicly funded clinic-based physiotherapy services, and waiting lists for home-based physiotherapy were far too long. Now, we’re more than doubling the number of publicly funded physiotherapy clinics in the province. That means 90,000 more Ontarians will be able to receive clinic-based physiotherapy in their communities.

In Vaughan, our investment will provide access to physiotherapy services to over 2,000 individuals. At the same time, we’re funding community care access centres to provide in-home physiotherapy to 60,000 more people across the province. This will help increase access—

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

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for her answer, and I thank her for acknowledging the work that takes place in my community of Vaughan, regarding supporting seniors.

Just a couple of Fridays ago, the minister responsible for seniors and the Premier of Ontario were in my riding at the Healthy Seniors Roundtable discussing issues of importance to seniors in my community. More than 700 showed up for that event, and I think they were delighted to hear about the work we’re doing through the minister responsible and the Premier.

There’s a growing aging population in Vaughan, as there is in communities across the province. Ontario’s aging population will put an increasing strain on health care resources in years to come. I know that the Minister of Health has taken very strong and meaningful steps to ensure the successful delivery of the Mackenzie Vaughan Hospital, something that’s very important to me and to my community, but there is a growing recognition that health promotion is vital to helping prevent people from going to the hospital in the first place or being readmitted after discharge.

Could the minister please speak about other investments being made in Vaughan to help keep our seniors out of the emergency room?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member is absolutely right in saying that the Mackenzie Vaughan Hospital will be delivered on time, and I can tell you that he has been pushing that project forward. But I think we all agree that we must do all we can to keep people out of the hospital in the first place. That’s why, this year, we increased our investment in home and community care by 6% to ensure that seniors can get high-quality care close to home. We’re creating community health links to provide collaborative care for the most complex patients.

As part of our physiotherapy reforms, we’re expanding community exercise and falls prevention classes to more locations across Ontario. We will be able to offer this free, publicly funded service to 130,000 seniors, including 10,000 in the Central LHIN, in the member’s area.

We will continue to work hard to ensure that older Ontarians are able to lead healthy, active and independent lives in their own homes.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a question for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, as you are well aware, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology was first established on the basis of a new model with Durham College, utilizing a shared-services aspect for their facilities and operations.

This worked well at the start; however, subsequent leadership at UOIT did not have the desire to allow the shared-services model to continue. The end result is the splitting of the services, and Durham College had to pay over $3.2 million in additional unbudgeted costs, only to have UOIT rehire Durham’s severed staff. Minister, it’s happening again, and this time the taxpayers and Durham College are anticipating paying an additional half a million dollars or more.

Minister, can you commit to review the Durham College/UOIT operations and have all players act in the best interests of the taxpayers and in the original intent of the agreement?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question from the member. This is one of those questions I’m actually happy to get in this Legislature, unlike many others that we often get. The reason why I’m happy to get it is that it gives me an opportunity to say, through the Legislature, to both Durham College and UOIT that it’s really important that they do everything they can to work together and ensure that that partnership—which actually is a fantastic model for the rest of the province—remains successful.

My job isn’t to micromanage these partnerships or micromanage these arrangements, but my job is to put forward an expectation to all parties that they’re going to do everything they can to work in the best interests of students.

The member has raised the issue with me in the past. I’ve been to Durham College just recently and met with Don Lovisa there and did a tour of the college. It is a fantastic partnership; it’s a great model. It appears that there might be some more work to do, and I think both of us need to make sure that they do the work they need to, to make the partnership work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, the process is continuing on, and quite frankly, there is a lot of