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

May 28, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-May-28 (PDF)

L089 - Thu 28 May 2015 / Jeu 28 mai 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 May 2015 Jeudi 28 mai 2015

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Teachers’ labour disputes

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Hydro One

Privatization of public assets

Community services

Human trafficking

Teachers’ labour disputes

Off-road vehicles

Vaccinations

Pan Am Games

Condominium legislation

Employment supports

Employment supports

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario

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

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Pesticides

School dress codes

Kitchener Public Library

Community colleges

High school students

Rich Griffin

Hydro One

Asian and South Asian Heritage Month

Angelman syndrome

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Introduction of Bills

Listening to Ontarians Act (Hydro One and Other Electricity Assets), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la nécessité d’être à l’écoute des Ontariens (Hydro One et autres éléments d’actif liés à l’électricité)

Angelman Syndrome Day Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Jour du syndrome d’Angelman

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

Motions

Appointment of Ombudsman

Appointment of temporary Environmental Commissioner

Order of business

Order of business

Petitions

Pesticides

Hospital funding

Legal aid

Taxation

Lyme disease

Legal aid

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Privatization of public assets

Credit unions

Alcohol sales

Prix de l’essence

Credit unions

Pesticides

Private Members’ Public Business

Financial literacy

Empowering Home Care Patients Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 donnant plus de pouvoir aux personnes recevant des soins à domicile

Multiculturalism

Financial literacy

Empowering Home Care Patients Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 donnant plus de pouvoir aux personnes recevant des soins à domicile

Multiculturalism

Visitors

Orders of the Day

Protecting the School Year Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection de l’année scolaire

Protecting the School Year Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection de l’année scolaire

Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le transport (accroître la sécurité routière en Ontario)

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 27, 2015, on the motion to apply a timetable to certain business of the House.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I just want to acknowledge that I’ll be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I also want to correct my record from yesterday. In my enthusiasm about dissecting this bill, I had a bit of confusion between invasive species and endangered species. I wanted to acknowledge that I did make an error.

Actually, there is a parallel with this four-page programming motion, because there are some endangered species here at Queen’s Park. One of them is a travelling committee, a committee that actually has province-wide hearings. In the old days, you would have a bill that would travel extensively around the province. You would go to all corners of the province to actually ask citizens what they thought of a particular piece of legislation. But I have to tell you, Speaker, since this Parliament began, that is all but an endangered species in this area.

What is also an endangered species is the words that this government said in its throne speech, the fact that they would put partnership above partisanship. Over and over and over we’ve seen motions similar to this; we’ve had a plentiful crop of closure motions—time allocation motions.

So there are endangered species in this Legislature: the rights of individual MPPs to represent their ridings, to be able to have meaningful input at the committee process and to be able to have meaningful input to provide amendments to bills that actually reflect what our constituents and the province of Ontario want in legislation. It’s all but extinct, to use a phrase from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change when he talks about the planet and extinction. Our rights as members are increasingly being diminished by this government.

Again, this four-page substantive motion that programs bills is the icing on the cake of this government saying one thing and doing something completely different.

As opposition House leaders, we sit at meetings every Thursday at lunchtime—myself and the third party opposition House leader—and we talk about trying to co-operate. We talk about bills that the government would like to move forward. There are some bills in this substantive motion that we’ve agreed could have a few days of hearings and move forward. But there are some bills that we require, because of the constituents we represent, that they have a far more substantive opportunity to go around the province and get input from people in all corners of Ontario.

Yesterday, I talked about the leader of my party, Patrick Brown, and the fact that, right after he was elected leader, he decided that the north was a priority and decided to go up with the member from Nipissing to look at the Ring of Fire. Not one—not one—of these bills that are part of this substantive motion is going anywhere north of the committee room on the first floor. None of them are going north of that, Speaker.

Again, this bill—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Actually, they’ve been to the legislative library; that’s a little further north.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you for that geography lesson for the Legislature.

This is just not the way we discussed that a bill should be dealt with in this place. Time after time, we’ve had negotiations where all of a sudden the government stops talking to us and presents bills that will either choke off debate or move bills through quickly without hearing from constituents.

It’s interesting: Many times I have quoted the chair of caucus, the member for St. Catharines. There are miles and miles of speeches that the member has made about his concern about time allocation. But there are many other members—many distinguished members of the Wynne government—who have said the same thing. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr. McMeekin, said on December 9, 2002: “We use closure so often around this place, one would almost be led to the belief that everyone has sort of sanitized views on everything”—“sanitized views on everything.” That’s what this government has now adopted after that member expressed those concerns back in 2002.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Do they have a minister of sanitation?

Mr. Steve Clark: You know, that was something we found out with the Ombudsman’s report. The Ombudsman had his report on Hydro One. He talked about the fact that Hydro One employees were sanitizing emails and communications to the Ombudsman. Speaker, that was so concerning to myself and members of the Ontario PC Party, Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, that I actually wrote to Commissioner Vince Hawkes yesterday and asked the OPP to investigate the allegations that are in that report, because I’m tired of Hydro’s—I’m tired of them trying to deceive this House. I stood up and made a point of privilege; I hope that the Speaker will rule on it soon.

There are other members of this government that I want to get on the record. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Mr. Gravelle, said on November 19, 2001: “It’s just stunning that the way they choose to deal with it at the end of the day is to put time allocation on debate. It’s wrong, I think everybody knows it’s wrong and I think even the government members themselves know that it’s the wrong way to approach it. It’s certainly something we resist and that we’ll argue against, but I guess as long as they have the power to do so, they’ll continue to do it that way.”

Wow. Those are Michael Gravelle’s words from November 19, 2001.

You see, Speaker, over and over again this government has tried to pledge that they want to co-operate with the opposition, that they want to work with us, that they want to hear the other side. But again, what happens is that after the negotiations are done, after the meeting is over, the government walks over to the table and they file their motions; they file their time allocation motion.

In this motion, they deal with this bill and put it forward. It’s interesting that there are no dates on this bill. It’s very, very interesting that it’s all programmed in succession without a starting date.

The parliamentary calendar is published well in advance. Anybody can go onto the Ontario Legislature website and look at the parliamentary calendar for 2015 and 2016. But there are some rumblings around this place that this government may not bring back this Legislature until after the federal election on October 19. I don’t know whether part of the time that these members opposite want to acknowledge whether that rumour is true or not, but it’s just passing strange when you start looking at this substantive motion and see that it’s one bill after the other after the other with no dates, with no information; it’s just a little strange.

I hope, as part of this substantive debate, that someone over there can stand up and actually tell the people of Ontario what your plan is. Are you going to prorogue Parliament? Are you going to walk away until halfway through the legislative calendar? It’s just a little interesting, when you start looking at this motion, to see that there’s no information on whether these committees are going to meet in September, whether they’re going to meet in October, November, December or maybe in February. Who knows? Who knows with this government? They operate by substantive motion; they operate by time allocation. Even their own members, when they’re allowed to speak freely—

Mr. John Yakabuski: They’re never allowed to speak freely.

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, I’m quoting Mr. Gravelle.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, but that was when they were in opposition.

Mr. Steve Clark: Here’s one from Mr. Colle, Eglinton–Lawrence, June 20, 2001. Here’s what Mr. Colle said: “For people out there who perhaps don’t understand the jargon of the Legislature, a closure motion basically means that this government is trying to cut off debate.... It has a habit of ensuring that the public doesn’t get the chance to find out what’s going on in major pieces of legislation.” That was June 20, 2001. I can say the same thing today.

Here is a government that will table a four-page motion—a four-page motion—to program all these bills with minimal debate. I went through some of it yesterday.

Bill 37,

An Act respecting Invasive Species. It basically says that “the Standing Committee on Social Policy shall, on its next four regularly scheduled meeting days commencing in the week following the passage of second reading of the bill, meet for up to two days of public hearings for up to two days of clause-by-clause” on the bill. There you go: four days, that’s it.

I talked about this last night. How did they market this bill? How did they let people know? Well, do you know what, Speaker? They’re pulling out all the stops. This government is pulling out all the stops. They are going to put a notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel. There you go, right there. That’s part of the—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We should send it out on Glen Murray’s Twitter site.

Mr. Steve Clark: They are also going to put it on our website and Canada NewsWire. Do you know what? I can appreciate that the people up north, the people in southwestern Ontario and back where I come from in eastern Ontario—that’s just going to run like wildfire through Leeds and Grenville.

Again, one of the things that I mentioned yesterday, and I’ll mention it again today, is the fact that for every single bill they have talked about allowing people to come on a first-come, first-served basis. So let’s face it, the minute this bill was tabled this government, all the ministries that are affected, put out notices to all their supporters to have them say that they want to submit to this bill.

I contend that there needs to be an amendment that does it based on a rotational basis, which has been our practice. Bill 80, which was debated yesterday—there will be a vote after question period today. That’s what we ended up getting between the government and the New Democrats, that we would go on a rotational basis, that the government would pick a witness, we would pick a witness and the third party would. None of that is reflected in this bill.

I want to go through (

c) and (

d) just quickly before I pass it over to my colleague. Bill 52, the anti-SLAPP bill: The government has tried several times to put this on the order paper. I’ll just read from the motion:

“That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy shall, on its next four regularly scheduled meeting days commencing in the week following the passage of second reading of the bill, meet for up to two days for public hearings and two days for clause-by-clause....”

This is a bill that stakeholders all across Ontario, especially up in northern Ontario, want to get on the record about. Again, all the government cares about is inside this place, inside this bubble of Queen’s Park. They don’t care about other voices being heard.

Finally, Bill 66,

An act to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin: “The Standing Committee on General Government shall, on its next four regularly scheduled meeting days commencing in the week following the passage of second reading of the bill, meet for up to two days for public hearings and ... two days of clause-by-clause....”

This was a bill that was part of the House leaders’ meeting where I believe Mr. Bisson, the member for Timmins–James Bay, talked about the fact that there were—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Your buddy.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Some days.

Mr. Steve Clark: That’s right, some days.

That was a bill he wanted to meet on across the province. He wanted to meet on this bill not just in this place. He was very clear, and every time this meeting was brought up by the government House leader, Mr. Bisson reiterated that he wanted this bill to travel. That’s not reflected.

We’ve had several House leaders’ meetings that never seem to get reflected in this government’s guillotine-style substantive programming motion. It’s shameful.

I picked up the quotes from the members; I was going to do a couple more quotes, but anyway. What we’ll do is, I will put this amendment on the floor regarding the committee hearings.

Speaker, I move that the motion presented be amended as follows:

In each section—(a), (b), (

c) and (d)—that bullet number two be struck out and replaced with the following:

“—That the deadline for requests to appear be 2 p.m. on the Thursday of the week that the bill receives second reading; and

“—That following the deadline, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear; and

“—That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list by 6 p.m. on the same date; and

“—That the Clerk of the Committee

schedule witnesses from these prioritized lists.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Mr. Clark has moved an amendment as follows:

In each section—(a), (b), (

c) and (d)—that bullet number two be struck out and replaced with the following:

“—That the deadline for requests to appear be 2 p.m. on the Thursday of the week that the bill receives second reading; and

“—That following the deadline, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear; and

“—That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list by 6 p.m. on the same date, and;

“—That the Clerk of the Committee

schedule witnesses from these prioritized lists.”

Mr. Clark.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m going to defer debate. As I said, I share my time with the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I recognize the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank my colleague our House leader, Mr. Clark, from Leeds–Grenville, for opening up this debate on our behalf.

I see a number of the folks on the other side who were elected in 2014. It’s good to see them here. They worked hard in their campaigns, and it’s nice to see them. But they’ve never had the opportunity to see this House work under different circumstances like we did in a minority Parliament prior to the election of 2014. I can just picture the conversation that went on in the Premier’s office after the election of 2014.

It would have been all of these high-powered folks like the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change sitting around the table and saying, “We lived through that minority, and it was painful to have to put up with the opposition and the third party, and having to give in sometimes and actually make this place work representatively for all of Ontario. It really was painful. So you know what we’re going to do?

Here’s the plan: We’re going to say all of these nice, flowery things in the throne speech, and we’re going to talk about how we’re going to have partnership as opposed to partisanship and co-operation as opposed to coercion.

“So what we’re going to have is all of this nice talk in our speeches, and we’re going to say how much we love those folks on the other side, and then we’re going to bring the hammer down. Then, when push comes to shove, we’re going to shut this place down.”

In fact, I was a little curious when the cabinet was named and the long-standing member from St. Catharines was named a minister without portfolio. You see, even that part of it was somewhat sanitized, because he should have been called the minister of sanitation, based on the quotes from the now Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he was a backbench member of the Liberal opposition, talking about how closure on debate and time allocation motions amounted to the sanitation of Parliament.

Well, the member for St. Catharines, the minister without portfolio—they’ve even sanitized that part of it, because he has been the champion of sanitation of this Parliament, if you take the words of his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs into account, because closure is the order of the day.

But now we’ve even got something—they’ve progressed, even for Liberals. They’ve taken it to another level. Now we have omnibus closure—omnibus closure. It’s not enough for them to bring closure on one bill. They bring motions on a multitude of bills, shutting down debate in this Parliament.

Everybody here, when they ran for election—and I guarantee you, everybody in this House, when they were out campaigning or when they were talking to the people on the street or when they were in debates—I guarantee you that at some point—do you know what word was used by everybody, because we respect the system we have so much? The word “democracy.” I guarantee you that every one of you over there uttered that word more than once. Unfortunately, you forgot what it means, because in this chamber, you have shut down democracy. You have decided that debate is not necessary, that public hearings are not necessary, that travelling across Ontario is not necessary.

The programming motion that we have here is more than substantive. It is more than substantive. It covers four bills: Bill 9, Bill 37, Bill 52 and Bill 66, all bills that are important to the people of Ontario. I’m just going to focus on Bill 66 for the time being, the Great Lakes Protection Act.

We are so fortunate in this part of the world. We probably have the greatest natural resource that exists, and that is the Great Lakes. Nowhere else in this world will you find a source of fresh water that even comes close to the Great Lakes. What has that meant to our country, to our continent—and, in fact, to the world—sitting in the middle of the two greatest democracies in the world, in my opinion? Democracies: Remember that word. I know it’s hard for you to think of it from time to time over there: democracies.

I’ve got to believe—listen, I’m not always right—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have got to believe that the people in Huron–Bruce would like to have something to say about Bill 66. I’ve got to believe that those folks in Leeds–Grenville, where the St. Lawrence River runs right by Brockville, they would like to talk about Bill 66. I’ve got to believe that the folks up in Prince Edward–Hastings and in the Bay of Quinte would like to talk about Bill 66.

Mr. Steve Clark: Simcoe North.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Simcoe North.

Mr. Steve Clark: Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sarnia–Lambton. I could go on and on and on.

But the way they’ve decided who gets to speak to Bill 66—it’s really going to be the same people who speak to every bill, because they’re the people that follow that massively read—what do we call it? The Ontario whatever? Parliamentary programming—there must be “programming” in it somewhere. So the notice for these—

Mr. Steve Clark: Ontario parliamentary channel.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Ontario parliamentary channel—oh my God, it’s one of my favourites, you know. I just push the button, turn on the TV and it automatically comes on, like everybody else in Ontario, millions of people. It’s the number one favourite channel on the—

Interjection: PVR list.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —PVR list or whatever. They’ve got to document everything. So I’m sure that all of those people—and even if they are watching that channel—I think it’s a fair question to the minister of sanitation. Do you think it’s fair—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to withdraw. We should show a little respect to our own colleagues.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw, but was I referring to anyone in particular?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): We don’t have a minister of sanitation. Again, I ask for respect to your own colleagues.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, okay. I withdraw. Perhaps we have a minister of thin skin. I don’t know; we’ve got ministers—everybody’s—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Now you’re showing disrespect to the Speaker. I just asked you to refrain from showing disrespect, and you say now we have a minister of thin skin.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Is that what I said?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’d ask you to withdraw.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw. As soon as you asked me, I withdraw.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I’ll let what’s going on here speak for itself, Speaker. I don’t even have to.

I’ve got to believe that people across this province would like to have their say on these bills, but this government is ensuring that they don’t. This government is ensuring that they control not only what happens in this chamber, but essentially they’re controlling the airwaves as well because they’re limiting access to the public to even know what’s going on. On top of that, even if they do find out what’s going on, their ability to actually get involved is extremely limited. In the case of some, it’s one day of hearings and one day of clause-by-clause, and in the case of one bill—

Mr. Steve Clark: No, two bills.

Mr. John Yakabuski: In the case of two bills, it’s two days of hearings and two days of clause-by-clause. But that’s all taking place right here—according to what the Liberal government believes is the only place that matters—in the city of Toronto, right here at the Legislative building.

All of those people that would like to speak to this bill—if you’re living up in Timmins–James Bay, it’s really easy to get here, isn’t it, sir?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It is—Porter Airlines.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, Porter. And they fly out of where? Timmins?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Timmins.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Okay. But is that the whole riding?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh. When I’m thinking about up in the James Bay end of it—does Porter come and pick you up? Do they have a shuttle—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member for Timmins–James Bay to come to order, and I would ask the member that is speaking to address the Chair.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Okay; sorry. Maybe I could ask you, Speaker, then: Do you think it’s very easy to get here from the northern reaches of the riding of Timmins–James Bay? Or is it easy to get here from the northern reaches of Kenora–Rainy River? Is it even easy—I can tell you, it’s not that easy to get here from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. The people in my riding would like to have a say on some of these bills as well. There is no plane service to Toronto from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. There is no train service to Toronto from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. You’ve got to get into your vehicle and drive. You’ve got to get on the road and drive. Now, wouldn’t it be nice and wouldn’t it be—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member for Ottawa–Orléans is asking me how many people live there. Is this how we now decide whether people have a voice? We have to do a count? Are those 100,000 people in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke not important? I say to the member from Ottawa–Orléans: Please apologize to my people. They are important. They are every bit as important as the people in Toronto.

Now, on top of all that—and I’m so glad that my colleague had a chance to speak to this ahead of time—no dates have even been established. So not only are we coming closer and closer to a dictatorship here, it’s an open-ended dictatorship. They don’t even tell you what day they’re going to rule with an iron fist. They don’t even tell you what day they’re going to shut down democracy. They just say, “We’ll let you know when it’s coming”—no dates for any of these hearings on these bills. At no time does it talk about a date.

“That the Standing Committee on General Government shall, on its next four regularly scheduled meeting days commencing in the week following the passage of second reading of the bill, meet for up to two days of public hearings and for up to two days of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”—no dates.

We know what the legislative calendar says when we’re coming back. The government knows that. I think it would be quite easy for them to establish a couple of dates for each of these bills as to when we’re going to debate them next and as to when clause-by-clause hearings will take place. But no, they just want to keep it open-ended.

The member from St. Catharines—minister without portfolio and deputy House leader—has been here longer than anybody. The mortar on this building has been rechinked twice since he’s been here. He loves to bring in closure motions and time allocation motions, but in the past he and his colleagues, when they were in opposition, thought that they were the worst thing that could ever be done.

I know that the member for Ottawa South was waving his arms there earlier—I don’t know if there were mosquitos in here or what, or if he was trying to get my attention—and he implied that somehow I was here when the previous government used time allocation. But I was not here, I say to the member. I was not here; I only got here in 2003. I’ve only had to sit through the painful years of Liberal government here. But I look forward to the day when the tables have turned and the people of Ontario say, “Trop, c’est trop. Enough is enough,” and they throw this Liberal government out on its ear, and bring back true democracy to this chamber.

But let’s hear Mike Colle—the member for Eglinton–Lawrence; pardon me. So, you have to ask, “Why all the closures? Why do they always want to stifle debate? Here they’re pretending”—well, I wonder if the member from Eglinton–Lawrence would say the same thing about what’s happening today. Or would he simply push the programming button that each one of those members has installed directly from the Premier’s office, so that every time they stand up in debate, they just say exactly what they’ve been told to say from the Premier’s office?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the member for Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, there are few members whose discourse I enjoy more than my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke’s, but I must insist that he reread standing orders 23(h), (i), (

j) and (k), which, among other things, prohibit him from imputing a motive or making an allegation against a member, including the member for Don Valley West. He was doing just fine until he strayed into that. I would ask that the Speaker enforce standing orders 23(h), (i), (

j) and (k).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you for that point of order. I return to the member, and I would ask you to refrain from those comments. I’ve requested that of you twice.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you. Apparently, nothing requires withdrawal, so I’m not really sure what I said that was wrong. But I will say this to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville: I will pledge to reread those sections of the standing orders, as requested.

Let me put things another way. It would appear, to most casual observers and also to those people who religiously watch the proceedings of this House, that the utterances of the backbench members of the government seem to be eerily similar whenever talking about pieces of government legislation. It would almost appear that the speeches have been somewhat vetted and/or perhaps even written by persons receiving directions from the Premier’s office.

That is only my humble view, based on what I hear from real Ontarians out there. They’ll say to me sometimes, “Yak, I watch that channel sometimes. I see you get up and speak, and nobody possibly could have written that stuff”—because they wonder sometimes where it comes from; I wonder myself.

But they listen to some of the speeches from the government members, and they say, “Wow, it’s funny: They all say exactly the same thing. They’ve rephrased it slightly differently, but they say exactly the same thing. Are they being told what to say?”

I say, “You know what? I’ve never sat in government. I can’t believe that it works that way. But I share your concerns that it seems they just do whatever they’re told.” They just do whatever they’re told. And I say that respectfully to the members. They’re fine people; I don’t fault them. I want to make that very clear: I would never impugn the motives of a member of this House. I want to make that perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. I would never do that, because I’ve gotten to know some of these people on a personal basis a little bit. They’re fine people. I’m going to say this in general: It is the control that we see too much in government.

I remember when my father was a member of this Legislature, elected in 1963. A lot of folks in this Legislature weren’t even born yet.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: When?

Mr. John Yakabuski: In 1963. You were, because you were born in 1957; May 14, if I recall.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s right. June 14 for you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But there is concern all across Legislatures and jurisdictions across this great country of ours, Canada, that governments exercise way too much control over their members, that the members themselves don’t really get to speak for their own constituents sometimes because the government message overrules even those local concerns. Those are not my words. You can read many political analysts who are saying the same thing.

Back in the day of my father being a member of this Legislature, things were different. Members came here and made sure that they were fighting tooth and nail for their constituents. I know that there are members on that Liberal side who have to support legislation even though they believe it is not in the best interests of their constituents.

I understand that for a government to be electorally successful, it needs to have a certain amount of control. But is that the only thing they care about over there, retaining power? Is that the only thing that matters to the people on the other side, power at all costs? My goodness gracious, whatever happened to government of the people, by the people, for the people, as Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address? Whatever happened to that? That’s something I think the Liberals need to pay more attention to when they’re running the show here now that they’ve got their majority back.

I heard the government House leader yesterday. Oh gosh, it was wonderful when he started talking about this motion; he just couldn’t get it out quick enough. “The people of Ontario gave us a tremendous mandate last June re-electing our government to a majority; therefore, everybody loves us. Everybody thinks it’s right, and they want us to run this”—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, my goodness. Have I got the floor? I’ve lost control. I don’t even have the floor anymore. Speaker, give me a hand.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): If I could have a little quiet, I may be able to hear the speaker. If I could ask the folks on the right-hand side not to indulge in crosstalk.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I know where you’re coming from, Speaker. Sometimes in this place I have a hard time hearing myself. It just gets way too noisy.

I did enjoy that little exchange between the member from Timmins–James Bay and the member from Sudbury over the last provincial election. It would stand to reason that the member from Sudbury, at the time of the last provincial election, wasn’t knocking on many doors for Andrew Olivier.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: You might want to check that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, I’m sure we can check that, but I’m pretty confident that there might have been an NDP member running up in that riding.

Anyway, I don’t want to get away from the matter at hand, the programming motion. It’s very important.

Hon. Liz Sandals: You’re straying.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I did stray a little bit. The odd time, I do stray from the topic here. What happens is people get heckling me, and I stray from the bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can you speak through the Chair? Then you won’t worry about the heckling.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Okay, but do I always have to look at you?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): It would be a good idea.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Okay. I have a hard time standing still, Speaker. I’m not suggesting that it’s hard to look at you, okay?

We’ve got four bills that they brought in a huge programming motion for, a huge programming motion so that we will be dictated to come the fall. This is not going to happen before we leave here next week; this is going to happen in the fall. We know that come September or October—or when? Could we get a straight answer from the Liberals as to whether there’s any truth—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs just gave me the first straight answer I’ve gotten from a minister in this House, and do you know what he said to me? He said, “Never count on us for straight answers.”

Hon. David Zimmer: No, that’s not what I said.

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s the first straight answer that I’ve got.

Hon. David Zimmer: I said you can always count on us.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, I heard “never.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, come to order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But if he wants to stand and correct his record, go right ahead.

Anyway, come the fall—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Stop the clock. Point of order.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’ve been invited to correct my record, and I would like to correct my record—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re not on the record.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, wrap up.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, could I request more time?

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Come September—we’ve seen some low days in this Legislature since June 12 of last year, and July 2, when we came back, but we’re going to see some low days here in the fall, because now we have gone from closure to omnibus closure—omnibus closure, coming in September, coming to a Legislature near you. That might be the movie ads this summer: You know, “Blockbuster coming in September.” Democracy-buster, coming in possibly September, possibly October, possibly November, or whenever Justin Trudeau tells you you can come back to work here. That’s scary.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve just got to say this is a bit of an odd motion that the government is bringing forward. I’m waiting for the clerks to send me some information that I’ve asked them to bring here, so as soon as they can get it, I can go through the other part of what I want to raise in this debate.

The government is moving, by way of a substantive motion, four bills together, in order to be able, after six and a half hours, to move a time allocation motion that will allow the time allocation motion that’s contained within the substantive motion to be passed. So it’s a time allocation motion that’s leading to a time allocation motion that’s going to pass a time allocation motion. I believe you don’t see that very often. They’ve put it under the guise of a programming motion, and I just want to speak to that, first of all.

A programming motion is when the parties agree. The three parties get together and they agree on whatever a program is, as far as being able to pass legislation through the House. We have done that here before—not a lot, but it has happened at times. It’s an agreement amongst the three parties that you sign off on. Normally, it’s done by unanimous consent, so you don’t have to have a substantive motion. It is a substantive motion that is passed with unanimous consent, so that you don’t have to have a full debate on the substantive motion.

In this particular case, the government is calling it a substantive motion, but this is not a substantive motion, because I, as the New Democratic House leader for our team and for our leader, Andrea Horwath, have not agreed to this. I know that Mr. Clark, the House leader for the Conservative Party, has not agreed to this either. So you can’t call this a substantive motion, because in fact, the two opposition parties have not agreed.

So this, by any other name, is a time allocation motion. It’s an omnibus time allocation motion, to be specific. Let’s put that out there, right at the beginning.

What’s interesting is that what’s contained in this substantive motion are bills that you don’t even have to time-allocate. This is really, really silly. For example, last night, here in the House, we had a bill before us which had had two or three hours of debate in regard to third reading for the immigration act. There was an agreement amongst the parties that we all agreed, and we allowed the bill to pass to third reading within about three hours.

The night before, on Monday night, we were debating what?

Mr. John Vanthof: Ag insurance.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Ag insurance, which eventually passed, right? Was that at third? That was at third, yes, because we have to have the vote on it.

We had the Agriculture Insurance Act, which had got to third reading—naturally, through the second reading stage, through committee, and back in to third reading. The parties supported that, and there was some minimal debate. I think there were about six or seven hours of debate at second reading, and there were probably about six or seven hours at third reading. But that’s because a number of members happen to represent rural constituencies and—surprise—guess what? People wanted to be on the record, having to do with an issue that is related to their riding. That’s what this place is all about.

The government seems to think that we’re somehow being dilatory. People watching back home, if you wonder what “dilatory” means, it’s that we’re being silly buggers trying to muck things up by debating bills that we want to be on the record on—not the case.

It is normal for a bill at second reading to get anywhere from two hours to eight hours of debate. If you go back and look at all of the Hansards dating back to when I got here in 1990, there are some bills that have had far more debate than that. But on average, I would say between two and eight hours. On second reading, normally that’s what gets done.

If the government is wise—and this government at times has chosen to do this and I give them some credit for that—you allow bills to go through the House in their natural progression. That allows for members of the assembly on all sides to put on the record the issues they’re interested in, representing their constituency and putting their thoughts, thinking about what it is that has to happen once the bill gets to committee, and just let the bill go through its natural process by which it’s going to get into committee. That’s normally what happens.

In this particular case, we have a substantive omnibus motion that’s going to time-allocate four bills.

Bill 9 is the act in regard to the cessation of the use of coal. That’s a bill we all agreed to, which passed second reading. I believe it went naturally; I don’t think it was time-allocated. Maybe the Clerks can clarify that for me. We ended up going through committee and now we’re here. The bill is at six hours and 32 minutes of debate time.

Guess what’s going to happen, guys? You don’t need to time-allocate this thing. Actually, we’re at second on this one. It’s six hours and 32 minutes. Let me rephrase that: We’re at Bill 9, cessation of coal; we’re at second reading, we’re at six hours and 32 minutes.

The three parties agree and I would imagine we’re probably almost done debate on that particular bill. If the government was to call that bill on one of those long midnight sittings, my guess is you’d probably get it.

Let’s look at the other one: Bill 37, invasive species. I’ve given my lead. We’re at second reading; we’re at six hours and 50 minutes. I don’t think there’s a lot more debate to be done on that one. I think we’re going to be pretty well done. I’m not sure how many more members of the House want to speak to it but I can’t imagine there are all that many.

Then Bill 52, which is the anti-SLAPP legislation. We’re again at second reading; we have six hours and 50 minutes. Again, I don’t think there’s all that much more debate left in this one. The government is putting this in an omnibus bill in order to move it out of second reading and into committee.

And Bill 66, which is the Great Lakes Protection Act, which is at almost four hours of debate.

My point is, when you look at these four bills, they’re on the cusp of going into committee without even having the time allocated. Here’s the other thing: If the government decided to time-allocate all four bills, you would probably get those four bills faster just by calling the time allocation motion because the time allocation motion is two hours. Four bills times two hours is eight, so it’s eight hours of debate.

Guess what’s going to happen with this substantive motion? I’ll tell you now, we will talk this out because there are a number of amendments we want to be able to make. We believe that the way this thing was written was in such a way that leaves a little bit to be desired when it comes to hearings. You’ll be hearing from us a little bit later on that. You’re going to have six and a half hours of debate minimum on this substantive motion, plus a two-hour debate at time allocation for eight and a half hours. So you’re actually slower using a substantive motion to move these bills through the House than you would be—thank you Monsieur Clerk—if you just did it naturally.

I don’t even think that most of these bills would be time-allocated. I think there’s a number of these bills that will probably go into the House pretty darn quick without having to go through a lot of debate in regards to going into time allocation.

You’ve got to ask yourself: Why is the government doing this? It’s kind of bizarre, isn’t it?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Because they can.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Because they can, my good friend from Niagara—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Welland.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Welland says, because they can.

I think it’s one of those things where the government says, “We’re going to show you. We’re the government and, by God, we got a majority in the last election and we’re going to show that we’ve got the authority to put our business through.”

But who are you really serving when you do that? Are you serving the public? Limited time for public hearings, limited time for members to be able to put on the record their concerns or their support on those particular pieces of legislation: You’re not serving the purpose of the public. You’re only serving your own purpose, and I don’t think this is what this place should be all about.

Ms. Cindy Forster: They’re not serving their own constituents.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: So I just say—well, they’re not even serving their own constituents; I think you’re right.

The point is that I don’t think the government, quite frankly, is well served when it does what it’s doing.

If you look at what’s happened in the House up to now since the beginning of this session, there’s a number of bills which the government has worked with the opposition on. We’ve gotten agreements to pass bills without even having to do time allocation to put bills into committee.

There are 25 bills that have gone through processes of second and third reading—at least second reading, and some at third. From the count, about half of those 25 bills have been time-allocated. In other words, the other half have gone the natural process.

I’m just saying to the government across the way that I’m a little bit perplexed as to why you’ve brought this particular motion forward. What you end up doing is doing an omnibus bill to time-allocate a bunch of bills that normally would be accepted by the assembly by the natural process of debate and the natural process through the committee.

For example, on the issue of cessation of coal: Please, is anybody opposed to the cessation of coal? Stand up; I’d like to know who you are. Each political party has had in their platform that we would phase out coal for over 15 years now. I know that we as New Democrats did. The Conservatives did for sure, and I know the Liberals did. We all agree that the use of coal is something that had to stop. We didn’t stop it in the timelines we all wanted to, as far as what the government finally ended up doing, but we’ve actually reached the goal we had all set ourselves in our electoral platforms.

So why is the government time-allocating a bill that, quite frankly, everybody in this House agrees on, that already has six hours and 32 minutes and probably is going to pass not too much further beyond at 6:32?

If you look at the Invasive Species Act, again, it’s the same story. We’re at six hours and 50 minutes on invasive species. I spoke to this bill. I thought I was clear. Maybe the government didn’t understand what I was saying during my lead, and maybe they didn’t understand what our members were saying, but we support the bill. We never said we’re going to hold up the bill. We never said that we’re not going to allow the bill to go forward. We agree that something needs to be done in regard to invasive species. It’s a problem in this province, and we need to be able to deal with it.

Nobody has indicated from the Conservative caucus, like New Democrats, that they want to hold this up. We’re fine.

But you know what members are doing? Members are putting their views and their constituents’ views on the record. That’s what this Legislature is about.

I think part of the problem we get into is because we now have this tool called “time allocation” in our standing orders, the government, more and more, moves away from what the intent of the Legislature is supposing to be all about; that is, to be able to voice our concerns or to voice our support on particular bills and to suggest what we think is lacking in the bill so that when it gets to committee, those items can be looked at but, more importantly, to give the public the ability to have their say when it comes to what the bill looks like and what it should be doing by way of amendment for it to go back to third reading.

So it’s penalizing members in the public to do what it is that we’re supposed to do within our rights as members and the rights of the public to be able to come and present to committee. Why are you penalizing the public? What has the public ever done to you that you need to time-allocate a bill that naturally is going to pass anyway, and all that the public wants is their ability to have their say?

For example, the government is moving on the privatization of Hydro through the budget bill. What have you got against the public that you don’t want to allow them to have their say on Hydro privatization? Are you afraid they may say something that you’re going to take offence to? If somebody does, well, welcome to politics, and welcome to government. The minute you get elected, 50% of the people are going to be opposed—maybe not opposed, but may not be onside with whatever you’re trying to do. That’s just the nature of things.

What governments try to do and what members try to do individually is to do the best we can to represent the needs of our constituents and the needs of the province. But this government is saying, “No, no. Let’s not do public hearings on the road over the privatization of Hydro. We know best as a government because Kathleen Wynne, the Premier of Ontario, is real smart, and she knows what’s best for everybody. We don’t need to listen the public. Oh, God, no, because the public may have something to say, and we don’t need to take that into consequence.”

We’re not giving the public their due, and the due of the public in all of these bills that are contained within this particular omnibus bill, the substantive motion—the public should have an ability to have its say.

When I first got here in 1990, we didn’t have time allocation. Here’s what used to happen: Let’s say there were 20 bills on the order paper. The parties would get together—because an opposition party or an individual member could hold up a bill as long as they wanted. I hearken back to the days of Peter Kormos.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Seventeen hours.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There was a 17-hour debate by Mr. Kormos over a period of two days when he held up this Legislature on auto insurance—which was his right. I’m sure that the government wasn’t happy. I can tell you that Bob Rae wasn’t, because I heard the story. Bob was trying to shut him down, which is a whole other story. But Mr. Kormos had the right to try to slow that bill down to make the point that he was trying to make. That’s what a Legislature is all about. But do you know what? Even though the government of the day did not have time allocation—and the member from St.

Catharines was here at the time—there was a process entirely within our caucus by which our leader, the future Premier of Ontario, Mr. Rae, dealt with Mr. Kormos and got some kind of an agreement in regard to hearings that travelled, that went on the road, where Mr. Kormos was able to get constituents to come and speak to the bill.

Who got the short end of that deal? Certainly not the public; the public actually got their say. And that’s what this Legislature should be all about. It shouldn’t be about a private club called the Liberal club of Ontario or the Conservative club of Ontario or the NDP club of Ontario when it comes to whoever sits on the other side of the House and they only do what it is that they want. This is about the people. This is the people’s chamber. This is where legislators gather in order to be able to debate issues, try to represent our constituencies and, more importantly, give the public the opportunity to come to committee to be able to speak to bills.

When I got here in the 1990s, when there was no time allocation, there were some bills that travelled for two and three weeks in the intersessions, either winter or summer. Do you know what? It allowed members to go out across Ontario to get to know this province a little bit better, to get to know each other a little bit better as members and to get to know the issue a lot more. We got members who got to be quite expert on particular subject matters as a result of the work they were doing on committee.

Here is the beautiful part about it: The public got a chance to have its say. So you would go to Kenora; you would go to Sioux Lookout; you’d go to Cornwall and Ottawa and London and other places around Ontario, and the public would gather at these hearings. They would come because they knew that the Legislature was listening. And guess what we did when we listened, Mr. Speaker? We used to amend the legislation, because we used to say, “You know what? The public came forward. We’ve had four or five presentations where they pointed out that this particular clause in the bill doesn’t make a lot of sense for the following reasons,” and we would amend.

I’ll give you a good example. Michael Harris—do you remember him? He was Premier of Ontario for some time here. I was an opponent of Mr. Harris. I thought most of what he did—I was completely on the opposite side of it. But we had a bill in order to allow snowmobile clubs to charge a licence to ride on trails, and it became mandatory. It was a bill that most members of the House accepted; I certainly supported it, and I know that the Liberals at the time—Mr. Bartolucci was on committee with me; he accepted it. But we went out and we travelled the bill.

I remember that we ended up in some community somewhere in northern Ontario; I forget where it was. Somebody came forward and pointed out something in the bill that didn’t work. There was a

section of the bill, the way it was written, that would completely stymie the ability for snowmobile clubs to get agreements to do their trails on crown land—when they had to go across a hydro right-of-way or whatever they were trying to go through. And this person came before the committee and said, “I’ve been reading this—and I’m not an expert; I’m just a lawyer and I love my snowmobile. When I read this, as a member of the snowmobile club of” whatever town, “this

section does completely the opposite of what it is that you’re trying to do.”

I remember that the government person who was taking lead on the bill—I forget who it was—said, “No, no, no. You’re wrong. We’ve done this,” and he challenged the person in the presentation. But then, even the Conservative members started going, “Hang on. We’ve got a problem here.”

Guess what we did? We amended the bill. The service that that individual brought to this Legislature by coming before the committee to point out that there was an error with the bill, which we then amended and fixed—he did us a service, not a disservice, because we now have legislation that works. That’s what this place should be all about.

What the government does when they do omnibus time-allocation motions or individual time-allocation motions and don’t allow bills to go through the natural process—you’re shutting the public out, let alone my right as a member to speak; you’re shutting the public out. People have views. People want to know that when they have a view, they can express it, and if it’s on a bill, that they can come to committee and say what they have to say.

Like I said, when I got here in 1990 and there was no time allocation, if there were 20 or 25 bills on the order paper, there were probably only about four to five bills that got a lot of hearings—a week or two or three weeks of travel in the province. Most other bills went through the House fairly quickly, but the rule was always that you would allow the bill to go to committee, in order to give the public an opportunity to have its say. Why? Because the bills that were like the ending coal bill and the invasive species bill and others were bills that everybody agreed on. They tended to go through a lot more quickly.

On other bills that were more controversial and more substantive, yes, there would probably be 10, 12 or 14 hours of debate, because they were more substantive and they demanded more time. But that was an agreement that was done with the House leaders. You would say, “Okay, we’re fine on invasive species. We’re only going to put up two speakers”—one party would say. The other party would say, “I’ll put up two or three, and that’s all we’ll do, but we’re going to put up more people on this other bill.” That’s the way this place worked.

The government, by doing this omnibus bill—by which they’re bringing forward four bills in one in this omnibus time-allocation motion—I believe are not helping themselves, because it’s going to take them longer to pass it this way than it would to do it naturally.

If these were controversial bills, like the budget, like privatizing hydro—serious bills that the opposition has opposition to, like the Tories, for that fact, on the Ontario pension plan bill—then I would understand why they’re trying to time-allocate. I still wouldn’t agree, but I’d understand: because there would be substantive resistance in the House to having that bill go through. But these four bills are hardly bills that the opposition has a problem with. Bill 66, Great Lakes Protection Act, is at second reading with almost four hours of debate.

Bill 83, the anti-SLAPP bill; Bill 37, the Invasive Species Act; Bill 9, ending the use of coal: They’re all bills that the opposition in both parties support. So why are we time-allocating stuff when, quite frankly, there’s an agreement in the House?

It tells me there are a couple of things going on. One is that the government doesn’t want to listen to the public in a meaningful way. Yes, there are going to be some hearings in this time allocation motion. I see we’re going to allow witnesses to come forward for a day here or two days there, depending on what the bill is, but we’re not going to travel any of these bills. For example, on the use of coal—it would be kind of interesting to go up to Thunder Bay–Atikokan. We shut down a coal plant there; maybe the people of Thunder Bay–Atikokan would like to have their say. Guess what?

The people of Sarnia–Lambton want to have a say as well about what this has meant to their communities. So why are we not at least travelling the bills to the communities that are affected? “No, we’re only going to do it here in Toronto.”

With regard to the Invasive Species Act, there’s hardly a community in Ontario that is not affected. Now, I’m not arguing we should have to travel the Invasive Species Act for weeks and weeks to a hundred communities, but there are a number of people across Ontario who want to speak to it, and what I’m saying is that this motion is going to limit the ability for the public to have their say. The only place they’re going to be able to come to do that is the mother ship called Toronto.

I just want to point out to members of the assembly that I love Toronto. I think Toronto is a great city. It has been voted the number one city in the world, and I’m quite proud of that as an Ontarian. But you know what? There’s Timmins, there’s Welland, there’s Ottawa. There are all kinds of communities around Ontario that are just as important—

Interjection: Sudbury.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sudbury—and hearings—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Niagara Falls.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I said Welland, so I’m going to give you one, not two. All right, we’ll give you Niagara. We’ll do Niagara. You’re welcome.

But my point is, those communities are just as important as Toronto. Why are we only doing hearings here? It’s not as if we’ve never had a practice of travelling bills.

The first thing you’re doing by this time allocation motion, this omnibus time allocation motion, is you’re in fact selling the public shy. You’re actually not respecting the public. You’re actually not respecting the various regions of this province, to have their say. I think that is disrespect, and I think, eventually, that’s the type of thing that’s going to come up to bite the government. They say it’s not opposition parties that defeat governments; it’s governments that defeat themselves.

I think the government, by doing what they’re doing, is actually writing their own demise, because at some point the public says, “You know what? They’re not listening to me. If somebody is prepared to listen to me, maybe I’ll vote for them.”

It’s a little bit like what happened with the NDP in Alberta, with Rachel Notley and Mr. Prentice. What happened in Alberta wasn’t just a question of how the NDP ran a great campaign—which they did; it was a question of how Mr. Prentice defeated himself. Mr. Prentice made a number of errors going into that election, where the public said, “You know what? We’ve had these guys for 44 years, and these guys just don’t get it. So whoever out there who is prepared to speak to how I feel and counter what Mr. Prentice and the Tories are doing, I’m prepared to vote for it.” And Rachel Notley ran a very strong campaign.

She’s an amazing leader in the sense that she’s very charismatic, very dynamic, and in the end she basically won a majority government in Alberta, a place that you would never have thought the NDP would actually form the government, let alone get a dozen seats.

What I’m saying is that the government here, by doing what you’re doing with these time allocation motions, is doing the same kinds of stuff that quite frankly defeats governments. I will argue that there’s probably a darned good chance that Mr. Harper is going to lose the next election federally, and I think there’s a good chance he’s going to lose it to Thomas Mulcair. Why? Because that government is forgetting what they’re there for. At the end of the day, it’s about the public.

The problem with governments, after they’re there for a long time—of all stripes; I’m not going to sit here holier than thou and say that doesn’t happen to the NDP as well—is that they tend to forget what they’re there for. They become an institution unto themselves, and they say, “Oh my God, I’ve got to get my legislative agenda through.” It doesn’t matter who stands in the way. The public—who are they? And they do time allocation in the way that they’re doing now. So I just say to my colleagues across the way that it is not the way to do things.

On the Great Lakes Protection Act, Bill 66, I know there are people who want to speak to that in and around places like southern Ontario, along Lake Ontario, the various Great Lakes, Niagara Falls—

Ms. Cindy Forster: St. Catharines.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: St. Catharines. I know there are people who want to speak to that. Again—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Port Colborne.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Port Colborne. Again, do we need to send the committee to every community in that area? Absolutely not, but we can pick some communities so that the public can have their say, and guess what? The government might learn a few things. You might actually get into a situation where you’re told things and you start to open your ears and hear what the public has to say, and you might make a better bill. But again, I just say and I—

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s the Great Lakes basin; that goes right up to the Arctic watershed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, it goes right up to the Arctic watershed, which is in your riding and mine.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s the Great Lakes basin—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The watershed is where?

Mr. John Vanthof: In my riding.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s actually in your riding. Actually, it’s not in my riding; it’s in your riding. That’s right.

Mr. John Vanthof: Not everything is in your riding. You’ve got whales; I’ve got the watershed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know, I’ve got whales and you’ve got the watershed. Okay, let’s get that straight.

I just say to the government that I think you’re really not helping your own cause by doing this, and you’re certainly not helping the cause of the public. We, the opposition, will survive. We’ll live to fight on another bill. You know, it’s not as if the government is never going to bring another bill forward, so who are you fooling?

Again, in the last two or three minutes that I have, I just want to make the point that you’re going to have a six-and-a-half-hour debate on an omnibus motion to time-allocate four bills for which you’re probably going to time-allocate the omnibus substantive motion for another two hours. It’s actually going to take you longer to time-allocate this stuff than if you just let it go naturally. Even if you wanted to time-allocate the bills individually, it still would be faster just to time-allocate individually.

I don’t understand the House management strategy in the government House leader’s office, because if I was the government House leader, first of all, I think and I hope I wouldn’t use time allocation. I hope, but who knows? Anything is possible in this place. That’s the one thing that I’ve learned. But I would hope I wouldn’t.

But if I did have to use time allocation, I’d be looking at these bills and I’d be saying, “Listen, I can probably make a deal on all four of these bills somehow to allow them to go forward in exchange for something with the opposition,” like more hearings on some of these bills or other bills; or, in the case of New Democrats, severing out the Hydro portion of the budget bill and allowing the Hydro portion to travel out in committee. If the government wants to do that, I’ll pass all of these bills today.

I’ll put it on the record here today: If the government is prepared to travel out the Hydro portion of this bill, we’ll agree to the terms of these time allocation motions for travel without any difficulty.

But again, will the government do that? No, because I believe the government is locked into this process where they think they know better than the public, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that’s just not the way to do things.

I’m watching the clock. You want me to go for another minute? Okay, well, let me just say this because I’m trying to keep some time for the next time we come. I’ll have about 30 minutes, which is good. I just want to say again, it’s just not the way to do things. I look at these types of approaches—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What’s that?

Mr. Wayne Gates: What’s wrong with listening to the public?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, there we go; there’s 30 seconds of debate anyway. What’s wrong with listening to the public? You’re never wrong. Can you imagine—think of it this way: We all get phone calls from constituents, on all sides of the House. Imagine if we took the policy that we’re not going to return the calls? How long would we hold on to our seats? Not very long. So I decided that I think the government should be listening to the public and answering these calls when it comes to committee.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m very pleased to welcome page captain Jessica Terry’s family here today to the Legislature. They’re in the members’ west gallery. Her mother, Shena Terry; father, Dean Terry; and brother Josh Terry are all here to see page captain Jessica Terry.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I ask all members to welcome representatives of CUPE’s 55,000 education workers, including members of their bargaining team: Bonnie Dineen, Sue Hanson, Rod McGee, Sylvain Piché, Heather Skolly and Laura Walton.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, please help me welcome to the House today two guests from York region: Hilary Jacob and her son, Matthew Merrick.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my delight to introduce to the House today grade 5 and 6 students from Annette public school who instituted an anti-bullying program for LGBTQ kids—on their own. It wasn’t their teacher who did it. They did it on their own.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my OLIP intern, Clare Devereux, and her mother, visiting from BC, Katherine Meredith. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m honoured to welcome two friends to Queen’s Park today who are CUPE educational workers: Tracey Newman, an educational assistant who supports the learning of children with special needs; and Susy Viana-Azevedo, who is a designated early childhood educator teaching in the full-day kindergarten program. I want to welcome them here to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’d like to welcome high school students who participated in the World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championship held in Hong Kong last month: Martine Duffy, who finished third in overall competition; Olivia Railton, from my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, who claimed top slot in the debating category; and Sarah Hick, who finished fifth in the overall competition. Welcome to them and their families here today.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to introduce a friend from Oshawa, Arnaldo Beni, who has made his way to Queen’s Park to take it all in today.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I have the pleasure of welcoming two groups of people here today.

First of all, we have page captain Luke Woolcock’s family here today in the members’ east gallery. We have his mother, Vita Peri; his father, Mike Woolcock; his sister, Michaela Woolcock; and his brother Christopher Woolcock. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to acknowledge the CUPE education workers who are here from my riding of Etobicoke Centre and from across the province: Bonnie Dineen and the rest of the team. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome Hope Robertson. She is marketing and PR manager for Wightman Telecom, which is located in Clifford, in my riding.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Ann and Peter Walters, who are joining us today from Oakville.

I’d also like to introduce the girls from St. Mildred’s-Lightbourn School. They’re the members of the robotics team that just won the world championship down in St. Louis. Their names are Ria Kalra, Michelle Dhar, Vicky Wang, Marie Jolicoeur-Becotte, Ayra Kathuria and Amy Li. Their teachers and mentors are Nathan Chow, James Chaykowski, Ken Rogerson and Sarah Sils.

Speaker, please give them the congratulations they deserve for making Ontario proud.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It gives me great pleasure to stand up again to welcome my page, Robert Heckbert, a student from Henry Larsen Elementary School in Ottawa–Orléans. But most of all, I would like to re-welcome his mother, Susan Bellamy, a very dedicated mother who spent a week with him at Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to introduce the secondary school Glendale High School. The teachers and students are arriving as we speak.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I know that they’re arriving here in the next couple of minutes. I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today delegates from the Sporting Clube de Portugal, the very club that Cristiano Ronaldo started his career with. They are here today to join us for part of question period.

We have board member and head of Sporting Clube de Portugal, Mr. Bruno de Mascarenhas; youth technical director, Mr. Virgilio Lopes; the head of grassroots, Mr. Luis Dias; technical director of sporting academies, Mr. Nuno Figueiredo; as well as technical director of Sporting Football Club of Toronto, Mr. Pedro Dias. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would like to welcome individuals from CJPAC, the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, to question period this morning. Joining us today are Jaime Reich, director of outreach and programming, and their summer interns, Michelle Naftalis, Jonathan Glustein, Kelly Bryant and Lorne Geller. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I wanted to congratulate the curious, intelligent, well-mannered and a little shy page Abby Deschene, who was page captain yesterday. I forgot to honour her, so I thought I would do it today.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Speaker, it’s almost like it’s Oakville day. In the gallery today, we’ve got a young man who has just got an incredible voice. He came to sing for the Premier today. His name is Colin Brennan, standing right there in the pink shirt, with his dad, Gordon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My colleague introduced Sarah Hick and Martine Duffy, who we’re enormously proud of, but the whole family’s here: Simone, her sister; John Duffy; and Jill Presser—very impressive family, great policy minds, great lawyer, great kids. Congratulations there, dear friends and constituents.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, I’d like to welcome members of CUPE here today, especially CUPE Local 1022.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I don’t have a list of names, so I’m just going to try to welcome all the CUPE members who haven’t already been welcomed by a member in the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s one of my old tricks.

Oral Questions

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, your back-to-work legislation isn’t going to fix the chaos you’ve created in Ontario’s classrooms. Yesterday, your Minister of Education said she thought a sense of urgency is really important. She said you had a sense of urgency when you asked the Education Relations Commission for a ruling. I’m not sure, and we’re not sure, how waiting 10 days for the ERC to tell you the school year was in jeopardy was showing a sense of urgency, especially since the official opposition gave you the same ruling weeks ago.

Premier, will you finally show a sense of urgency and get a deal done so grade 8 students can receive the proper transition they deserve?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Education will want to comment on the specifics, but our primary objective has been to get kids back into the classroom. That’s why we have been working at the table. There are negotiations going on right now. As we speak, there are conversations at various tables to try to get deals. We will continue to work to get that central deal.

The Education Relations Commission is the body that has been in place for decades that rules on jeopardy in a school year. I know the party opposite doesn’t necessarily like to follow due process, doesn’t necessarily believe in the process, whether it’s around collective bargaining or otherwise, but we do. We think it’s important, when there is a process in place, that we follow that process. That’s what we’ve done. The kids are back in school, and that’s where they need to stay.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: The government has already damaged one school year, and we’ve been told, just a little while ago, that it won’t be business as usual in Ontario Catholic schools in September. Along with the 800,000 elementary school students, Catholic school students will be without any activities outside of regular class this fall. We know there will be a full-blown strike by the end of September. That isn’t a leak. That isn’t speculation. That is what the four unions have said.

Premier, will you get a deal done before the end of this school year, or will you leave the parents and children wondering if the classroom doors will be locked next fall?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Education.

Memos go out and statements get made in the media, but the important thing is what actually happens at the table, because the only place we can get—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: Premier, you’ve had three of 72 school boards go on strike this past month. Now you have all four unions threatening to strike in the fall. Parents need to prepare, and children don’t need this uncertainty.

Come September, we will have over two million students not receiving the education they deserve, at the rate things are going. Your minister hasn’t been able to do the job, and you’ve shown no sense of urgency.

So may I suggest, Premier, as an incentive, that you say today that you will fire your Minister of Education if there are any strikes this fall and put a minister in place that will get the job done?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Actually, what I’d like to do is get a little bit of clarity on their plan for the rest of the day, because what I heard Tuesday night from the official opposition was that they didn’t think that we needed to pass the Protecting the School Year Act, that it was an irrelevant bill. It will be coming up for second and third reading, I expect, this afternoon. I’d like to know what their position is going to be when that act comes up, because that act is standing between 72,000 students and a strike that will start on June 10 if we don’t pass the act. So I want to know if they still think that act is irrelevant.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, we will be supporting Bill 103 at second and third reading, okay? Today, with the passage of Bill 103, we will only put a finger in the dam. It’s simply a band-aid, and you know that.

Since last September, the two-tiered disaster Bill 122 has seen virtually no bargaining take place with any results. It has simply been a process of finger pointing with no leadership taking place at your ministry.

September 8 is only 102 days away, and that’s when the kids go back to school. Turmoil is about to break out. Since September 1, 2014, 268 days have passed, and all we can say is that back-to-work legislation will pass today. That’s all we’ve got.

Minister, do you believe Bill 122 is good legislation for the education sector in our province?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Yes, I do. It’s interesting: The party opposite was against Bill 122 in the first place. The Labour Relations Board actually said that the

interpretation that the government had of the legislation was the correct

interpretation all along. But what I find really surprising is this party, which campaigned on getting rid of 10,000 education workers—22,000, actually, if you did the math carefully—thought they’d just get rid of people. Is that their solution for how you handle the issues quickly? Because I think the way is to use those 102 days or 103 days and make sure that we get agreements in place before we go back to the school year—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Back to the minister: Patrick Brown and the PC caucus believe that Bill 122 is nothing more than a tool for you to avoid transparent bargaining. With only 102 days before turmoil breaks out in all 72 boards in Ontario—

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: We simply cannot see almost two million students being faced with education disruptions this September. With all the teacher federations and school boards unanimous in the fact that no bargaining is actually taking place, we are heading for an education tsunami.

Will you fix Bill 122 now so that our students, parents, teachers and boards can do what is best for education, and that is simply to teach?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I find it quite fascinating. I followed their leadership campaign pretty closely, and I don’t remember Patrick Brown ever having a single thing to say about what education policy would be in Ontario if he happened to be the Premier—other than, of course, on sex ed. We know what he thinks about that—nothing else.

But what I really want to say is that the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good thought.

Finish, please.

Hon. Liz Sandals: What I really want to talk about is what has happened in the schools this week. The party opposite wants to talk about chaos—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You want us to solve all your problems.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew—second time.

Hon. Liz Sandals: —which they presume will break out in the fall. I presume we’re going to negotiate. But I want to talk a little bit more about what went on in the schools this week.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, the education turmoil is growing. There are many people very disgusted with the fact that Bill 122 has been a disaster.

Here’s an email I got this morning: “All the teachers, janitors and secretaries, and even the rats and mice, are on the verge of walking out in September of this year if this continues to go on.”

You think a summer of bargaining under the current legislation will result in all boards and federations coming to agreements. Patrick Brown and the PC caucus believe that next fall will be spent with one back-to-work legislation being introduced after another.

Minister, will you show—

Interjections.

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

Please wrap up. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, will you show leadership, admit the two-tiered system is a complete failure, and bring in new legislation that will allow everyone in the education system to bargain in good faith, and not disrupt the education of two million students next fall?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I don’t believe we have a central table for rats and mice, so we won’t be bargaining with them—everybody else, yes. But I want to talk about what happened in the schools yesterday.

What happened in the schools yesterday was that the teachers came back to work. I had a conversation with all three school boards this morning. What each and every one of them reported is that our professional teachers were happy to be back in the classroom, our students were happy to be back in the classroom, and the teachers were delighted to be able to get back to learning and teaching students. There is a lot of commitment in each and every classroom to making this school year a success. Passing the legislation this afternoon will ensure that happens.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier believe that Ontarians deserve a right to have a say on whether their Hydro One is sold off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I do, and in fact, it’s why we were very, very clear in our platform and in our budget about what our plan was. We were very clear that—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just go through some of the public statements, Mr. Speaker. In an April 11 news release before the 2014 election, Hydro One was in the headline. The quote was, “The Ontario government has appointed a council to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and optimize the full value of Hydro One....”

The 2014 platform, our platform: “Our Moving Ontario Forward plan includes a balanced and responsible approach to paying for these investments. The funds will be from dedicated sources of revenue ... asset optimization....”

Hydro One is mentioned three times in our budget in reference to asset modernization. It was fully public that we were going to be looking at our assets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Not a single Ontarian voted to sell off Hydro One last year, because as the Premier has just admitted, the Liberals did not run on it. For months they denied that it was even their plan. They stood in this House—in fact, that Premier stood in this House and promised that she wasn’t going to sell off and privatize Hydro One. But here we are: The Premier is selling off Hydro One.

Will she stop this sell-off and give Ontarians a chance to have their say through a referendum?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just continue. In our budget: “The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.”

Page 164 of the budget: “The province’s valuable assets include large and complex government business enterprises ... such as the LCBO, Hydro One and OPG. To identify opportunities to optimize the full value and performance of these core assets, the government will launch an in‐depth review process.”

Page 257: “Exploring options to unlock the full value of a wide range of valuable provincial assets, including those of large and complex government business enterprises ... specifically, the LCBO, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation.”

We made it very clear that we were looking at our assets and that we were going to be reviewing them in order to optimize their value.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians own Hydro One and they deserve a say as to whether or not it gets sold off.

They also deserve honesty from their government. The Premier, just six months ago, said that she was not selling off Hydro One. She said this in this very chamber. It is in Hansard; it is in black and white. That’s what she said in this chamber. Yet, lo and behold, six, seven months later Hydro One is on the auction block.

Will this Premier do the right thing and take this question to the people of Ontario, and let them have a referendum on whether their hydro utility is sold off to Bay Street?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to read a quote from Hansard from the leader of the third party, but Mr. Speaker, just remember that what we are talking about here, what the leader of the third party is talking about is not having the funds to pay for the transportation infrastructure around the province that she knows is critical. She knows the Hamilton LRT is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek come to order—second time for the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She knows that those investments are critical but she does not have a plan to pay for them.

Here is what the NDP leader said just days after the last election. It was so clear that we were optimizing, that we were looking at our assets and all options were on the table. Here’s what she said: “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.’” NDP leader, July 9, 2014.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. You know what? That’s because I was saying to the people of Ontario, “Your Premier is about to sell off all of your assets.” Thank you for letting them know that I told them about that back in June.

Speaker, once this Premier sells off Hydro One there will be no going back. Bills will skyrocket. We will lose control of an asset that supports education, that puts money into health care, that helps support our investments in infrastructure each and every single year.

Does this Premier really think that she has the right to sell off Hydro One without ever asking the permission of Ontarians who own it? Will she do the right thing by the people: Will she actually take a step back and give them their say and hold a referendum on this sell-off?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that we will retain 40% ownership. The people of Ontario will retain 40% ownership of Hydro One and control of the board. She knows that. She knows full well that the regulatory protections that are in place now will continue to be in place in terms of where assets will be built around the province and the price controls. She knows all of that.

She also knows that in a role of responsibility and leadership, there are difficult decisions. We made a decision that we were going to invest in infrastructure in this province. The leader of the third party does not and has not supported that, which in my opinion, is irresponsible. In order for this province to grow, we must invest in infrastructure: in roads and bridges and transit. She doesn’t want to do that. She has no plan to do that. We do. We ran on it, and that’s the plan that we’re implementing.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nobody believes this Premier’s rhetoric. The bottom line is, I have been talking to Ontarians. I’ve been listening at town hall meetings across this province to what Ontarians have to say, and I can inform the Premier that Ontarians across the province have been saying that they don’t want their Hydro One to be sold off.

The Premier and every one of her backbenchers know that Ontarians cannot afford to pay the price of the sell-off of Hydro One because they have been getting thousands upon thousands of emails from Ontarians. If the Premier is so sure of Ontarians’ support for her sell-off, then she has no reason whatsoever not to have a referendum.

Will this Premier agree to ask Ontarians whether they believe in public control of Hydro One or a scheme to sell it off to energy speculators, to foreign owners and to Liberal friends?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I do believe in public control, and that’s why we’re retaining 40% ownership.

A year ago, the NDP asked us to take our plan to the people of Ontario. We did that a year ago, and this is why we are here implementing our plan.

Here’s the rhetoric that the leader of the third party is pointing to: the rhetoric of the Barrie GO line electrified, weekly trips that will move from 70 to 200; the rhetoric of a Kitchener line, weekly trips of 80 to 250; the rhetoric of a Hamilton LRT; the rhetoric for connecting links being built around the province; the rhetoric of building bridges in communities across the province. That’s what she’s calling rhetoric.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The conversation between members on one side and the other is going to stop while the question is being put and the answer.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is not rhetoric to invest $230 million in rural and northern gas expansion. It’s not rhetoric to invest $15 million—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Find another source.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Finish—one sentence.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —fifteen million dollars a year in Connecting Links. That’s not rhetoric. That’s action, and that’s what we’re doing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, $8.2 billion is what the AG criticized this government for wasting—eHealth, Ornge air ambulance, the gas plants. This is the most wasteful government in the history of Ontario. That money should have gone into infrastructure.

Not only that, this government continues to give new tax loopholes and other giveaways to the corporate sector that are going to cost us $1 billion each and every year, Speaker. On top of that, we’re going to lose $300 million at the very least in revenues from the sell-off of Hydro One.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This does not belong to the Premier in terms of a decision. It does not belong to the cabinet. It does not belong to the Liberal Party. It belongs to Ontarians. It’s their decision to make, and selling Hydro One without listening to the people of Ontario—who own it—is completely undemocratic.

Will she do the right thing? Will this Premier ask the people of Ontario their opinion through a referendum?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been very clear. In April 2014, we produced and delivered a budget that talked very clearly about the need to reinvest in our economy, to grow our economy and protect the interests of the public.

The NDP chose not to even show up to the lock-up and deliberate over this budget. Instead, they copied parts of that budget—most of it, in fact—and used it in their platform, talking about optimizing assets, talking about how do we cut various—we didn’t cut.

We’re doing everything possible to reinvest in our economy. In fact, in July, I got a chance to reintroduce that same budget. In October 2014, we introduced a fall economic statement again reaffirming what we were doing. Then, in April 2015, we put forward a tremendous budget, which talks about investing in our economy, growing the economy, reinvesting and improving our returns for the people of Ontario.

Hydro One

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, we’ve asked you questions about the Ombudsman’s report into the shameful billing practices at Hydro One.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He’s been on Twitter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. John Yakabuski: So far, you’ve only paid lipservice to the pain and suffering this disaster has caused hundreds of thousands of Ontarians.

As the energy critic for the PC caucus, my office was frequently copied on emails to you from Ontarians in crisis because of Hydro One’s disastrous billing practices. This went on for months and months and months. Yet, it was the Ombudsman who had to step in because you didn’t care.

Minister, is the reason why your response to this crisis has been so unsympathetic—and I should say pathetic—that the people who have suffered are largely from rural Ontario and not represented by your Liberal caucus?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The response to the problems with the IT billing system have been dealt with over the course of time. There were serious issues that created serious inconvenience with customers across the province.

The reality is the Ombudsman did an investigation at the request, I think, of the critic, and he received 10,000 complaints, which is a lot. Some 3,500 of them were referred to Hydro One. Of those 3,500 referred to Hydro One, 98% of them have been resolved.

Yes, there was inconvenience, which Hydro One has apologized for, the government has apologized for, but there has been no financial loss to any of the customers affected. They have been reinstated and the money has been refunded to them. They have been given time to pay it if they didn’t receive their bills—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It was the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, but it certainly didn’t come from you, the request to the Ombudsman.

Minister, no one believes for a second that if over 10,000 complaints had been made to the Ombudsman about Hydro Ottawa or Toronto Hydro that your ministry wouldn’t have responded with lightning speed to the crisis with all the resources you have at your disposal.

Now the situation for Hydro One customers in rural Ontario is about to get even worse. When your budget bill passes, no officer of this Legislature will be able to serve the interests of Hydro One customers because you are removing oversight.

Minister, Hydro One customers deserve a whole lot better than what you’ve been giving them. It brings your whole plan for selling Hydro One into question. Will you commit today to this Legislature to remove the sale of Hydro One from your budget bill?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: What we’re committing to today is to leave in the legislation the provision that we’ve put there that requires Hydro One to have an ombudsman. Not only do we require Hydro One to have an ombudsman, but we have retained the services of former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, to oversee the implementation of an ombudsman in Hydro One to ensure accountability and transparency. That is more than any other Toronto Stock Exchange company will have, and it will be meaningful, it will be accountable and it will be a responsible response.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. The Premier might not know this, but I spend many evenings and weekends going door to door talking to my constituents. Whether they follow politics, whether they’re Liberals or PCs or NDP, they’re telling me they didn’t get a say on the Premier’s plan to sell Hydro One. They don’t want the Premier to sell Hydro One.

Will the Premier agree to a referendum on her scheme to sell our Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hope that the member opposite, when he is walking around Toronto–Danforth and he’s talking about our plan to broaden the ownership of Hydro One, mentions that we are retaining 40% ownership. I hope he mentions that no entity or individual can own more than 10%, that the government will continue to own 40%. I hope he mentions that the regulatory protections that are in place now will remain in place.

I hope he also mentions—because Toronto–Danforth is a very urban riding—that this was a difficult decision that was made because there is a need to invest in transit and transportation infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, and that, without that decision, we wouldn’t be able to make those investments. I hope he mentions all that as he walks around Toronto–Danforth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I do let them know that bankers in Tokyo, New York and Frankfurt will get an opportunity to own their hydro system, absolutely. But Hydro One belongs to the people of Ontario, and selling it will affect every single one of them. They deserve a say. Will the Premier agree to listen to the people and hold a referendum before the Premier sells off Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think it’s important that we actually look at the record. Here’s what the NDP leader said just days after the last election: “The budget says in black and white that the government is looking at the sale of assets, ‘including ... crown corporations, such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.’” That was July 9, 2014.

That was a budget that we introduced before the election and one that we campaigned on, Mr. Speaker. That budget was introduced before the election and afterwards. So the people of Ontario and the leader of the third party knew exactly what we were looking at, exactly what we were contemplating, and it’s disingenuous for her to stand up and make the accusations that she’s making here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Withdraw.

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

Community services

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you have made it clear that your ministry is pursuing a mandate of transformation for the services it offers people living with disabilities. With these efforts, last week you were in my riding of Durham at Vos’ Independent Grocers, announcing more resources for people with disabilities to achieve their employment goals. Vos’ is known for their community stewardship and the opportunities they provide for persons with developmental disabilities.

During your visit, you announced that your ministry is contributing $800,000 to help create a new Centre for Excellence in Employment Services, which will provide local community employers across the province with training and resources to find best practices, share information and create environments where individuals with disabilities can fully participate in the workforce. Minister, Durham was glad to hear it, but could you please provide the House with more details on how this new centre will assist individuals and employers?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: I want to thank the member from Durham for his question. I think all members know that he’s a very strong advocate for people with special needs.

An initiative like the Centre for Excellence in Employment Services is an example of the work that we are doing to create an inclusive society which allows for meaningful, competitive employment for those with developmental disabilities.

The centre for excellence will become a hub of knowledge and expertise in this province on the best ways to match the abilities of individuals to different types of employment. This is a critical factor for success.

The Centre for Excellence in Employment Services is one of 38 projects receiving funding from the employment and modernization fund. This fund is set to deliver $15 million over three years and is part of our $810-million investment in developmental services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you, Minister. This new employment and modernization fund is a strong example of the way our government is using the innovative leaders in the developmental services sector to make a tangible difference for people with developmental disabilities and their families.

However, this was not your only announcement. Last week, on your travels, you made a very significant investment in the violence-against-women sector. Our government is helping create a new women’s shelter to serve Elgin county. Your ministry is investing more money to replace the existing shelter, to better meet the need for services. Their current location is a 98-year-old single-family home which has reached its capacity and has minimal outdoor space for children to play.

Minister, can you please explain to the House how this investment is supporting the government’s commitment towards the reduction of violence against women?

Hon. Helena Jaczek: Our investment of $1.93 million is something that I’m very proud to speak about.

I want to acknowledge the amazing contribution of individuals from Elgin county who raised over a million dollars towards this project. The new Women’s Place emergency shelter will provide a range of services to women and children who have experienced abuse. The new shelter will be almost five times the size of the existing shelter, with bedrooms for families and a large secured yard where children can play safely.

Protecting women and children from domestic violence is part of our government’s plan to provide more security, protection and equal opportunity for all Ontarians. Currently, my ministry funds more than 2,000 beds annually, dedicated for use by women who experience abuse and their children.

This particular investment will help ensure that more women experiencing violence can live in safety, free from threat, fear or experience of violence and harassment.

Human trafficking

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Premier. The Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment has heard from a number of witnesses on the devastating impacts of human trafficking. There is a very clear consensus from witnesses, who consistently said there is a severe lack of resources and support for women who want to leave the sex trade. One witness from Rising Angels stated that there needs to be a plan in place to offer these women a way out.

Premier, it is clear that human trafficking is a serious problem in Ontario. This is why I tabled a motion on May 14, which was unanimously supported, that called for the creation of a provincial task force that would offer a coordinated team of officers, crown attorneys and support services for victims. Premier, will you immediately strike the task force?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member for the question as well as for her work on the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment—all the members who participate on that.

I think we all agree that human trafficking is a deplorable, deplorable activity. It’s one I take extremely seriously, as the minister responsible for women’s issues.

As I talked about in the House last week, we’ve already taken action on this issue, along with my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We invested over $9 million over the next three years in our language interpreter service, so we can expand service to victims of sexual violence, including human trafficking. Last year, we provided $225,000 in funding to the White Ribbon Campaign to help develop and promote resources to help end human trafficking.

We know there’s more work to do, and I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Based on debate on my resolution in the chamber two weeks ago—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Unanimously.

Ms. Laurie Scott: We need a task force. It was passed unanimously. I’m asking you today: Will you take the necessary action by creating a provincial task force to combat human trafficking here in Ontario?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I couldn’t agree more that addressing this very serious issue of human trafficking indeed requires a coordination across government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —so, a whole-government approach—the Attorney General, the minister of safety and corrections and the Ontario Women’s Directorate. We are working together to help eliminate human trafficking.

I congratulate you on receiving unanimous consent on your motion on human trafficking issues. I’m looking forward to working with all parties on this.

As you know, we have a permanent round table on sexual violence and harassment. That involves representation from the entire sector around sexual violence. The issue of human trafficking, I’m sure, will be addressed there, as it is in your select committee. I really look forward to more work in this area.

Teachers’ labour disputes

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Our schools have been thrown into chaos because of this Liberal government’s chronic underfunding of our children’s education. The chaos is only growing as the Premier’s hand-picked Minister of Education fails to do her job and negotiate a deal with teachers.

Instead of protecting our schools by getting a deal done, the minister is more focused on cutting funding for our kids. She cut $250 million last year. She’s cutting $36 million from textbooks and supplies this year. She’s planning even deeper cuts to come. Now the minister is repeating her mistakes by dragging her feet on talks with education support workers, who have wanted to negotiate since last June. That’s almost a year, Premier.

When will the Premier ask the Minister of Education to resign and appoint a minister who knows how to do the job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just say to the member opposite that there has been negotiating going on. I understand that there are some discussions that haven’t taken place yet, but they will. As I said, we are engaged in negotiating right now.

It’s important that we have that collective bargaining process, that we find those deals at the table with the education workers. Whether they’re teachers or whether they’re support workers, they are all critical to the education of our children. The Minister of Education is actively engaged in those negotiations right now.

What I would say to the third party is that there’s a piece of legislation in front of us that will make sure that kids stay in school. It’s very clear that that piece of legislation needs to pass in order for kids to be in school. I hope that they will be lending their support to that legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Premier: It was your mess that created where we are now, so you guys can fix it.

The Minister of Education is creating more chaos in our children’s schools by failing to do her job. Rather than negotiating a deal with teachers, she’s cutting what matters most: $250 million cut last year; 88 schools closed since 2011; and millions cut from special education in schools right across this province.

Now, we know that this Liberal government has put class size caps on the table, and families know that means one thing. It means even bigger class sizes and even less support for the students who need it most.

The Minister of Education is creating chaos for students, and she needs to be fired today. When will the Premier do the right thing and fire the Minister of Education?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We had 72,000 students who were out of school. I agree: That was chaotic. But it was this party that didn’t want to pass the legislation to end that strike. Fortunately, the Ontario Labour Relations—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: Fortunately, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that it was an unlawful strike. I’m delighted to report that yesterday we had 72,000 students back in schools. Their very professional teachers were back there in the classrooms doing their job teaching.

My question is, are we going to allow that strike to resume on June 10, or are we going to pass the legislation that keeps—

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

Off-road vehicles

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In November 2013, not only was I proud but I was also delighted to represent rural Ontario when I introduced a motion that sought to update Ontario’s regulatory framework for off-road vehicles, specifically regulation 316/03. I want to thank all members of this House for the unanimous support they gave me on this particular initiative.

But as it stands, only single-rider ATVs may travel along certain roads in Ontario, as determined by the province and our municipal partners. This outdated regulation does not consider new models of off-road vehicles such as two-ups and side-by-sides, which are used by many of my constituents in Glengarry–Prescott-Russell and across the province.

I understand the minister has conducted consultations. I’m asking the minister this morning, could he please update—

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for his question, but also I want to say that that member has been an exceptionally strong advocate for his community. That’s why he was the first person to introduce a motion on this very important issue. That member understood that those living in northern and rural municipalities depend on ATVs and ORVs for tourism and local travel.

When I became minister, I committed to a collaborative approach to developing solutions for this issue. That’s why MTO’s been consulting with both the public and stakeholders on updates to the regulatory framework for ORVs. In-person consultations were held on January 15 and 16, and over 30 different stakeholder groups took part. In addition, proposals were posted to both the regulatory registry and the Environmental Registry until April 13, 2015.

I want to assure the member that the stakeholder feedback has been incredibly positive, and I appreciate the member’s continued advocacy on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: I want to thank the minister for his solid and unwavering support on moving Bill 31 through this House. I’m very happy to hear we’ve received a lot of positive feedback throughout the consultation process.

But as I indicated earlier, many of my constituents in Glengarry–Prescott–Russell rely on ATVs and ORVs for tourism, travel and recreation. I’d like to take this opportunity to officially invite the minister to my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell to see exactly how useful these vehicles are to those in my riding and across Ontario.

While it’s important that we update the existing regulations, Bill 31, Making Ontario’s Roads Safer, also contains provisions relating to off-road vehicles. Could the minister please tell the members of this House more about the off-road vehicle provisions within our government and our road safety regulations?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Once again, I want to thank that member not only for his advocacy but also for his eloquence in the House here today.

Many members of this House have already contributed to debate on Bill 31. This bill not only serves to protect drivers on our roads, it also introduces a number of provisions that will help keep pedestrians and cyclists safe in Ontario. Bill 31, if passed, will also eliminate the prescriptive definition of low pressure bearing tires that could affect the future of off-road vehicles bylaw authorities in municipalities.

As I’ve said many times in the House, my number one priority is road safety. The provisions in Bill 31 are a key step forward on this issue. However, I hope to be able to provide further updates on off-road vehicles soon.

I should add that members on this side, including those from Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Northumberland–Quinte West, Sudbury and others, have long been champions with that member on this important issue.

Vaccinations

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last month, I spoke to you about one of my constituents who was looking for help regarding her son’s vaccination for meningitis. Peel Public Health told Ms. May that her son would have to get a second shot because he was vaccinated one day before his first birthday—one day, Minister.

There comes a point when common sense trumps memos and directives. Will you intervene with Peel Public Health to ensure Ms. May’s child doesn’t have to get a second shot?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate this question. It’s unfortunate that an error was made by the practising primary care provider in this case where that vaccination, I understand—I think there were two that were delivered prematurely.

The law requires certain vaccinations prior to school entry, and I know the member opposite agrees with this policy. It’s important. It’s about the safety of our children as they grow into adults. It’s because the evidence is there that vaccinations protect lives. It’s very effective.

Now, with regard to this specific vaccination, I know that Peel Public Health, the ministry and Public Health Ontario reviewed the guidelines that are available, and there’s a reason—I’ll get into it in the supplementary—why it’s important that we wait till that first year, that first birthday before we vaccinate against MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—as well as meningitis, which are the vaccines in question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, I’m not trying to assign blame. I’m trying to solve a problem.

I have a second family. Cheryl Fulcher has been warned that her son will be suspended from school because he got his shot two days before his first birthday. As Cheryl says, “They kept saying ‘it’s less effective if it’s before the first birthday,’ and I’m thinking, ‘It’s two days!’”

I’m not a physician, but I have a hard time believing that the efficacy of these vaccinations decreases so dramatically in a day or two that it would warrant the additional cost to the health care system and the inconvenience to these families.

Please intervene on behalf of these two families and stop the madness for one or two days.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, this isn’t about threatening suspension. This is about the safety of the child.

It’s an interesting coincidence, actually, that my PhD in public health at Oxford University was granted based on a thesis that I did on immunization of children in their first year of life, and the timing of the administration of the vaccine. The science is obvious and present. It’s federal legislation—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —and it’s Ontario legislation and guidelines as well—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —it’s the science.

Children, when they’re born, have maternal antibodies that protect them against getting these diseases. Those antibodies wane over time. Science around the world—whether it’s the World Health Organization, the federal health agency or Ontario—agrees that it is premature to put that child at risk, if you’re vaccinating them prior to one year of age.

That is the policy across this country, Mr. Speaker. It’s there for a reason: It’s to protect the safety of the child.

Pan Am Games

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. The Toronto 2015 budget for revenues, marketing and ceremonies has gone up from $106 million in 2013 to $139 million last year to $157 million last Friday. That’s a 48% increase in two years in the budget to attract people to the games. Why is that, and are they having trouble? That’s one question.

Speaker, with all honesty, if they sold out every seat, the total ticket revenue from the entire games wouldn’t cover those extra marketing costs.

Premier, how much extra revenue is the $51 million in new spending expected to bring in? Is it, in fact, less than the $51 million they’ve spent?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Paul Miller: Have you even checked to see?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister responsible for the Pan Am Games.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m happy to take this question. I was happy, also, to join the member opposite as we officially opened the Hamilton stadium last week. I was very proud of that. We had the mayor out; we had city councillors out. It was an incredible event.

Mr. Speaker, I have to speak—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s kind of odd that I have to ask the government side to be quiet while the answer is being put.

Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member opposite knows that these games are about selling tickets; they are about supporting our athletes. But they’re also about supporting our infrastructure for the future. Going out to a place like Hamilton, knowing that there’s a game being played in Hamilton this weekend, England versus Canada—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: The operating budget is what we’re all worried about, Minister, and we don’t know what the final bill will be until after the games.

Year after year, we have seen consistent increases in six of the eight lines in the operating budget: 25%, 27% and 32%. But all these cost overruns have been magically offset by two tricks—two tricks.

First, they have halved the budget—

Interjection.

The Spea