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

October 1, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Oct-01 (PDF)

L066 - Tue 1 Oct 2013 / Mar 1er oct 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 October 2013 Mardi 1 er octobre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTING STUDENTS

ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 PROTÉGEANT

LES ÉLÈVES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

PAN AM GAMES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HYDRO RATES

PAN AM GAMES

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SENIORS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

WATER QUALITY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD PROTECTION

EQUINOX SUMMIT: LEARNING 2030

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

TAREK LOUBANI AND JOHN GREYSON

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

WINGHAM BALL YOUTH COMMITTEE

BREAST CANCER

CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

IN DUFFERIN–CALEDON

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE AND REGULATORY

REVIEW ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉVISION

DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

ET DES DISPOSITIONS

RÉGLEMENTAIRES

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA SÉCURITÉ PUBLIQUE

LIÉE AUX CHIENS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LEGAL PROFESSION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LEGAL PROFESSION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LEGAL PROFESSION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY /

SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

LYME DISEASE

AIR-RAIL LINK

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

INCONTINENCE PRODUCTS

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

HYDRO RATES

SHALE BEACH

DOG OWNERSHIP

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

SHINGLES VACCINE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE REDUCTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES DÉCHETS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

TOURISM

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTING STUDENTS

ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 PROTÉGEANT

LES ÉLÈVES

Mrs. Sandals moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 with respect to discipline and other related matters / Projet de loi 103, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne la discipline et d’autres questions connexes.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to be able to stand in the House this morning and speak in support of the Protecting Students Act, which would, if passed, make an important amendment to the Ontario College of Teachers Act. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

Speaker, we know that the vast majority of Ontario teachers do an excellent job supporting our students. They are dedicated to our students’ success and are passionate advocates for their safety and security. It is because of their efforts that we have seen so much progress in our schools over the past 10 years. The percentage of students in grades 3 and 6 who are meeting or exceeding the provincial standard in reading, writing and math has increased 17 percentage points since 2003. In order words, 150,000 more elementary students are reaching the provincial standards than would have had the rates remained the same as in 2003.

We are also seeing more students graduating from high school than ever before. Back in 2003, 68% of high school students were graduating from high school. Today, 83% of students are graduating and moving on to post-secondary education, a skilled trade or into the workforce. What that means is that there are 150,500 more students now on a better path in life than had the graduation rate remained the same as in 2003.

This progress has been no accident. It has been the result of a collective focus by the entire education sector to pursue ambitious goals for our students: to raise the bar of achievement; to close the gaps in achievement by giving our struggling students every opportunity to succeed; and to increase confidence in publicly funded education. Speaker, we have been able to make important progress on all of these goals because of the commitment, professionalism and dedication of Ontario’s teachers.

Our teachers have also been instrumental as we implement new and exciting initiatives that will take our education system to the next phase of student success. For example, by September 2014 all four- and five-year-olds will have access to full-day kindergarten, which is the most significant transformation in our education system in the past generation. This year, more than 180,000 of the province’s younger students will benefit from full-day kindergarten in approximately 2,600 schools. In September 2014, approximately 265,000 students across Ontario will benefit from this program, which features the expertise of both a teacher and an early childhood educator in the classroom.

The early indicators for full-day kindergarten are already extremely encouraging, Speaker. Much of the program’s success can be attributed to the enthusiastic teachers who have embraced the goals of the program. They have worked tirelessly to prepare their classrooms to accommodate their young students throughout the day, and they have worked closely with the early childhood educator in their classroom to build a cohesive and effective team environment.

It goes without saying that everyone in this Legislature knows what kind of incredible influence a teacher can have in the lives of our children. In fact, I’m sure that everyone here today can recall a teacher of their own who was instrumental in their life and help put them on a path to success. A great teacher can make the words of a good book come to life. A great teacher can show you how an abstract math problem can have application in the real world, and a great teacher can see the potential for success in every student. Speaker, this describes the vast majority of teachers across Ontario.

It is what sets our education system apart from so many other jurisdictions. Whether our education sector thrives is based on the quality of our people, and we are privileged to have some of the best people right here in Ontario.

Along with quality, dedicated teachers, we also need to ensure our students are able to learn in a safe and accepting environment. Students who feel safe, welcome and connected to school are more likely to succeed academically. They cannot be expected to reach their full potential in a school environment where they feel intimidated. As a grandmother, I want to know that my grandchildren, along with all children in Ontario, are safe and protected when they walk through their school doors each and every morning. That is why our government has taken a number of steps to increase the safety and security of our students.

For example, we introduced the Accepting Schools Act nearly a year ago. The act requires all school boards to take preventative measures against bullying, consider tougher consequences for bullying in certain circumstances, and support students who want to promote understanding and respect for all. But more than any other legal requirement, the legislation sends a strong message that respect and understanding for all students, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other factor, are important components of a safe and successful school environment.

We were incredibly pleased as a government that so many teachers were some of the first people to be enthusiastic supporters of the Accepting Schools Act.

In addition to that act, we’ve taken other steps to increase student safety. Just last year, we reopened the Safe Welcome Program to allow more elementary schools to purchase and install security access devices that provide school staff with greater control of who enters the school. As a condition of receiving the funding, schools must lock their front doors during school hours in order to restrict access and help keep schools safe.

Speaker, whether it is the Accepting Schools Act, the Safe Welcome Program, or the many other resources we have provided school boards, teachers and support staff, we have had an ongoing commitment to student safety in Ontario, and it is a commitment that continues today with the Protecting Students Act.

While we know that the vast majority of teachers are committed to the success and safety of their students, we need to ensure that in those rare circumstances when discipline is necessary, teachers, students, parents and administrators can all count on a disciplinary system that is open, transparent and effective. The Ontario College of Teachers is an independent regulatory body that is responsible for regulating the teaching profession in Ontario, including disciplinary proceedings.

These proposed changes would help give the college the tools it needs to ensure there is a transparent process in place when disciplinary action is required. It would also give the college increased ability to protect our students when there may be an immediate danger to a student.

Most of the proposed changes in the bill reflect recommendations from a review of the college’s investigation and disciplinary procedures conducted by the Honourable Patrick LeSage. Justice LeSage’s report contained 49 recommendations to modernize the Ontario College of Teachers’ investigation and discipline processes. Since the release of this report, our government has been working closely with the College of Teachers to address all 49 of the recommendations.

For example, back in January 2013, the college began posting the outcome of disciplinary proceedings on their website to ensure that these decisions were open and transparent to the public. We’ve continued to work with the college and other areas where they could take action to address the recommendations on their own authority.

I want to acknowledge the leadership at the college, not only for asking Justice LeSage to conduct the review, but also for moving quickly to address his recommendations. However, while the government and the college have been working hard to address many of the recommendations, some of the recommendations do require legislative changes, and the Protecting Students Act would address the remaining recommendations. The proposed legislation and subsequent regulations in the Protecting Students Act would improve the college’s disciplinary processes, reduce the potential for conflicts of interest and help increase the protection of our students.

Speaker, I know my parliamentary assistant will go into further detail about the legislation, but I want to take this opportunity to talk about a few key elements of the bill. First, the legislation would, if passed, ensure that a teacher’s certificate is automatically revoked if they have been found guilty of sexual abuse or acts relating to child pornography. This is an area where we are actually proposing stronger provisions than what Justice LeSage originally recommended.

While LeSage did not recommend mandatory revocation of a certificate, we don’t believe there is any reasonable circumstance where there is a confirmed case of sexual abuse or child pornography where a teacher should be able to keep their teaching certificate.

There is also a provision in the bill that would prevent an individual from reapplying to the college for a teaching certificate for five years if they have been found guilty of sexual abuse or child pornography. I should explain that while people can reapply, it is in fact rare that they do reapply; however, if they do reapply after five years, the college still maintains ultimate decision-making power over whether a certificate is reissued.

And even if a certificate is reissued, it is unlikely that the individual would ever actually be hired by a school board now that all the disciplinary information has been posted. But the five-year mandated time period is an increase compared to the current college practice of one to three years of revocation, depending on the circumstance. The five-year time period is consistent with other regulated professions in the health sector.

Another component of the bill would allow the college to move swiftly to remove a teacher’s certificate if the college has reasonable grounds to believe that a child is at risk of harm or injury. If such a case arises, the college would have the ability to suspend, on an interim basis, a member’s certificate, and notify the school board immediately so as to limit the risk of the teacher remaining in the classroom.

These are examples of provisions in this bill that would improve the protection of our students and enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Ontario College of Teachers’ disciplinary processes. These are processes that we know the vast majority of teachers will never experience, and only in rare circumstances do our teachers require disciplinary action. But in those rare cases where they do, they need to know that the process will be fair, open and transparent.

Teachers need to know that if there are allegations made against them, the discipline process will not drag on unnecessarily, and it’s important for parents to know that the college has taken swift and appropriate action when discipline is required, especially in cases involving sexual abuse or child pornography. By improving the disciplinary process for these rare circumstances, we can increase the already strong public confidence in the vast majority of teachers who dedicate their lives to helping our students succeed every day.

This proposed legislation, if passed, would strengthen the authority of the Ontario College of Teachers to take action, while ensuring the process is open and transparent for everyone involved.

Speaker, this is one more example of our commitment to improve student safety so that students have every opportunity to succeed. I look forward to the support of all the members of this House on this very important piece of legislation.

I would now like to call on my parliamentary assistant to provide some more details of the legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Scarborough–Rouge River.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to add my voice in support of the Protecting Students Act, Bill 103. As the minister pointed out, we know that so many of our teachers are professionals and are committed not only to their students’ success but also their safety. But for the very small percentage of teachers who require disciplinary action, we need to ensure an effective and transparent process is in place at the Ontario College of Teachers.

In the fall of 2011, there was greater scrutiny of the discipline practices of the college. The college was criticized for not being transparent enough about disciplinary decisions and also for the substance of some of those decisions. It was clear that we needed to give the college more tools to strengthen its disciplinary practices as well as open up those processes so they are transparent to the public. This is what the bill will do.

The minister touched on a few details of the bill that specifically deal with sexual abuse and cases of child pornography. But I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of the other important elements in the bill. For example, if passed, the proposed act and subsequent regulations would help address any perception of conflict of interest of the college. Ontarians expect the college to govern the teaching profession independently, and even the perception of a conflict of interest has the potential to erode some of that public confidence.

By restricting who can sit on the college’s committee panels, specifically restricting the ability of union officials to sit on those committees, the proposed bill will ensure that there isn’t even a perception of a conflict of interest.

Speaker, the bill will also help improve the communication between school boards and the college, particularly when a school board has restricted the duties of a teacher. If passed, the Protecting Students Act would also allow the college to share information with the school board if the subject of a complaint poses an immediate risk to a student. If a complaint is made against a teacher by someone other than the school board, there is a risk that the board may not be aware of the complaint until the college has completed its investigation into the allegation.

We think that this is too big a risk to take, especially if a child could be in harm’s way. By improving the communication between the college and the board, the school board can take the appropriate action locally to ensure student safety.

The act would also permit the college to disclose personal information to other regulators and to the police to assist in their investigations. We think that there are reasonable steps to ensure co-operation between agencies and to better protect the public.

To improve transparency of the college, all decisions of the discipline committee would be published on the college’s website. In cases where allegations have been determined to be unfounded, the teacher would have the option to include the decisions in the college’s official publication.

Speaker, the proposed bill would also ensure the college resolves cases more quickly and efficiently, while maintaining a rigorous investigation process. For example, the investigating committee should review and dispose of most matters in 120 days, while allowing some flexibility to account for circumstances beyond the control of the committee. Teachers, as well as parents and administrators, need to know that complaints will be addressed in a timely manner, and this provision will help the college avoid unnecessary delays in resolving cases.

We also think that it is important to recognize the distinct responsibilities of a principal or vice-principal, particularly in disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the proposed bill would require that an investigation or disciplinary panel include a principal or vice-principal when hearing a matter relating to conduct of a principal or vice-principal. We believe it is reasonable to expect that if you are a principal or vice-principal who is the subject of a complaint, part of the disciplinary panel will include someone who is familiar with the role of a principal or vice-principal and will be able to offer that important perspective during proceedings.

In response to Justice LeSage’s recommendations, the bill will also provide greater clarity on when the dispute resolution process should be used, rather than a full investigation. Relatively minor complaints that might normally result in a caution or admonishment of the teacher could be directed to dispute resolution by the registrar of the college. This will allow a greater amount of the college’s time and resources to be spent on more serious complaints, which would be referred to the normal investigation process.

There would also be clarity about what complaints could not go to dispute resolution, including cases of sexual abuse or child pornography. Those cases quite rightly require an open and transparent investigation process.

Speaker, these are some of the key elements of the bill that will improve the safety of our children and give the college the tools it needs for the rare circumstances when discipline is required. It is important for Ontario families to be confident that appropriate action has been taken in those rare cases, and it is important for teachers to know there’s a fair, transparent and effective process in place.

I believe the proposed provisions in this bill strike the right balance between student safety, increased transparency and accountability, while improving efficiency and effectiveness of the current processes.

I know we can all agree that Ontario’s children are our most precious resource. Our schools must support safe and healthy learning environments where students can succeed and reach their full potential. Part of ensuring that environment exists is making the changes proposed in the Protecting Students Act, and I encourage all members of this House to support this very important bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened carefully this morning to the opening remarks made by the minister, as well as the parliamentary assistant, and it was brief, given that they would normally have an hour on this Bill 103. I listened with some intent, I’ve read the explanatory sections of the bill and I have two or three things that are interesting. I’m certain our critic, Mr. Leone, would be able to respond; he’ll likely get two minutes as well, as well as an hour if he needs it.

I know in our caucus there are people who have been teachers. I’ve been a teacher; I have a daughter and two or three daughters-in-law who are teachers; my wife is a teacher. She’s now a school trustee. I see Mr. Leal is here; his wife is a teacher—now a principal. So we’re all concerned about the safety of children and the quality of education.

More importantly than this bill itself, I’m more interested in the regulation that recognizes seniority over quality and education and training. That’s one of the regulations that we’re hearing a lot about in our constituency as a result of a prior piece of legislation by this same minister.

But if you really look at this thing here, there is an ability to suspended and revoke a licence of a teacher in circumstances where a committee has determined that inappropriate conduct occurred. I agree fully that they should revoke the licence. Now, there is a provision here to reinstate them within a five-year period, but most of the record would show that persons who have issues with pedophilia are not rehabitable—not able to be rehabilitated; let’s put it that way. It troubles me that there’s a way to get back in, and if they’re not just in a classroom, maybe they’re going to be left on the supply list or some out-of-classroom function. So I still have questions on—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. Further comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I listened with some attention as well to the Minister of Education and the parliamentary assistant on Bill 103. No one is going to argue against measures that go that extra step to protect children. I think that we actually have to have some context, though, here. They’re moving forward. I mean, there’s been a lot of conflict in the education sector. In many sectors across the province, teachers are already feeling that, post-Bill 115, they are being attacked and that the level of professional attention that they pay every day in our schools has been undermined.

The professionalization of the teaching profession is an ongoing journey; I think most teachers would say that. A lot of this starts actually at the faculties of education. Interestingly enough, there’s a seminar going on right now in Waterloo which is looking to radically change public education in the province of Ontario, and they talk openly—and I think the Minister of Education may be going there this week—about the engagement of teachers and the connection with the engagement of students. That relationship has to be honoured. At the same time, you’ve reeled in the parameters and the framework to protect children in all cases.

Section 6, number 1, the new

section under 29, requires the registrar to refer a complaint to the executive committee. A lot of this bill deals with: Once the complaint has come forward, what is the most responsible way to deal with that complaint? And, of course, reporting the matter under the Child and Family Services Act needs to happen. I think that it has happened under most cases, but there are always that one or two situations where it doesn’t happen.

So we support having a stronger process in place, but I think that we have to find a balance between ensuring that the safety of children is honoured and that the professionalization of the field is honoured as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on a very important bill, the Protecting Students Act.

I think none of us in this House will dispute the fact that we are really blessed in the province of Ontario to have some of the best teachers in the world: teachers who are professionals; teachers who are dedicated; teachers who are passionate about children and the education they provide to children. I have regular interaction with teachers in my riding and I’m always amazed by their level of commitment and professionalism and their drive to make our school system one of the best.

I think all of us have personal stories as well—teachers who made an incredible impact in our lives. I’ve had the opportunity to receive education on three different continents, in three different countries in this world. In every respect, in every aspect, in every grade that I was in, I can recount a teacher or two who changed my life and has enabled me to do what I’m doing.

I think, for me, as I look at this piece of legislation, our drive is to keep that going for all children and make sure no child is left behind. In that very rare circumstance, that very rare situation where a criminal offence is done, where a child is endangered, we need to make sure we have the best system in place, that we do not leave that child behind and there are support systems and mechanisms in place for not only that child to survive and sustain through the trauma they may have received, but also to make sure that that type of situation is never repeated again.

Ensuring that we’re putting in a system with greater transparency, accountability and efficiency in the disciplinary system relating to teachers is very important, and I look forward to debate on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As always, it’s a great pleasure and honour to rise here in the chamber and debate certain bills that come forward, in this case Bill 103, the protection of children act.

Being a former teacher myself—and my wife is an elementary teacher, and I know there are quite a few people here. As the member across the way alluded to, they are extremely dedicated to the profession. They get into the profession because they love nurturing young minds and enabling young people and giving them hope for the future. I would like to think that’s the intent of all teachers when they go into that profession—although it’s not necessarily the case. Of course, there are predators who go into the profession specifically to target our young children. So absolutely, we have to have mechanisms in place to address this. There already are mechanisms in place.

This bill is going to need some tweaking, and that’s what it does: It does some minor tweaking. I think that all parties can obviously agree that this bill is going to move forward at some juncture after debate.

But again, let me just point that out we have graver concerns in the education system than Bill 103 that’s being proposed and brought forward here today. Regulation 274 is a huge concern for ourselves and young teachers trying to break in to the profession. I know I’m inundated back home in my own riding from young people who are frustrated, who have accumulated massive amounts of debt to get their teacher qualifications and are frustrated, as are their parents, that they’re unable to get a job here in the province of Ontario.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Education has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’d like to thank the members from Durham and Kitchener–Waterloo, the Minister of Labour and the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for their remarks.

I want to just pick up on something that the member from Northumberland–Quinte West said. In fact, the Ontario College of Teachers Act already has extensive mechanisms. What has happened here is that Mr. Justice LeSage did a review of those disciplinary and investigative processes and said, “Here are 49 ways in which you can make them even better.” These are the 49 recommendations that we are following up on.

I also want to pick up on the remarks from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo about balance, because I think that’s very important. We know that the relationship, as she mentioned, between teacher and student is key. We need to recognize that the vast majority of teachers are doing a wonderful job and that there needs to be balance in the process.

One of the things that my parliamentary assistant mentioned was that we are trying to actually make the process so that there are timelines where the college will deal with complaints more expeditiously. Obviously, parents want complaints dealt with expeditiously, but it’s to the advantage of the member to have complaints dealt with expeditiously, because if the complaint is found to be unfounded, we want to get that black mark off the teacher, the accusation dealt with and dismissed, as quickly as possible. So that’s part of the balance. In fact, the registrar has actually been given more authority to deal with frivolous and vexatious complaints, where clearly they are unfounded.

I would suggest that, in fact, there is balance in dealing with that which is truly bad very definitively, and where we need to look at finding whether or not complaints are truly founded, that we also have the ability to deal with unfounded complaints more quickly, too.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the PC caucus to discuss this bill, which, obviously, amends the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. I wanted to start off my comments—I know that I’ve been newly appointed as the education critic—

Applause.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you.

This is the second day on the job, and they asked me to do a one-hour lead right off the bat, so I’m a little enthused by the results of how this all transpired. Maybe it’s a conspiracy among House leaders who have put this on my table.

What I do want to say is—I think I can speak for all members of this House, and certainly for members of the Ontario PC caucus—that we have the best front-line teachers in the world. I think it’s important to remember that in the course of our deliberations during this bill; we have to keep in mind that we do have the best teachers in the world. They’re practising and teaching our students right here in the province of Ontario, and we should do our best to celebrate, I think, what can amount to no less than miracles in the classroom every day.

As a parent of three young boys, I feel especially privileged to have this opportunity to talk about education policy here in the province of Ontario, because it strikes right to the heart, right to the core, of what we are. I do note, and I think that members of this Legislature do know, that my youngest boy is about five months old—almost six months old now—and I know the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex had a child in August. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga—their family is actually expecting a baby this December. Three new, tiny Tories are going to be born into this world this year, so we have lots to celebrate on this side of the House, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Catherine Fife: That’s good for declining enrolments.

Mr. Rob Leone: The member for Kitchener–Waterloo says that’s good for declining enrolment, and I think that’s absolutely true.

Madam Speaker, as I am taking over from my colleague from Nepean–Carleton, who was the education critic up until yesterday, I want to offer very publicly my sincere gratitude to the member for Nepean–Carleton for the hard work that she has done on this file. Thank you.

I think that it’s important to understand that this caucus has a lot of young children in it. I know the member from Nepean–Carleton has a young daughter whom she cares about very deeply, and so this policy area strikes to the core of what we are as parents. I think that it’s very important to have an ability to debate a piece of legislation like this that is charged with the task of protecting our children. I think, as a parent, I feel very strongly about that.

I hope to have a little bit of indulgence to talk about some of the things that my predecessor, the member for Nepean–Carleton, has said in this Legislature. I think that the Minister of Education had the opportunity to enumerate some of the policies that her government has brought forth that have obviously involved children and teachers and parents as well, and protection of all the above groups.

I also want to talk about some of the things that we’ve been working on, because I think the member for Nepean–Carleton has ushered in a number of ideas that merit the consideration of this Legislature. A lot of those ideas are enumerated in our Paths to Prosperity document on education to try to give our kids the best start possible, because we do know, and I think everyone acknowledges, that education is the great equalizer of society. Certainly, I believe that and I think that we owe it to our children—not even just our own children, but all children in Ontario—to have the best sort of education policy.

One of the things I love about that white paper is the fact that we talk about the need to incorporate greater financial literacy in our curriculum. I think it’s important to understand that in an era where we have mounting household debt, sometimes the understanding of how to actually balance a household budget gets lost on some folks. If we teach children at a young age to be responsible about their finances, I think it would be a very important step into, when they grow up and start their own families, having the literacy and numeracy skills that obviously are important to success in life.

The white paper also talks about protecting rural schools. I know there’s an issue in rural Ontario with declining enrolment and what we do with the surplus space that is in our schools. Some very tough decisions are made by our school boards each and every day in terms of what kind of schools and what schools actually have to close, whether we build new ones to replace them, whether we bus students from place to place. These are obviously very important aspects to many of my colleagues who are from rural Ontario.

We have a desire to just talk about the policies that will obviously alleviate some of those concerns—and we do talk in the white paper about how we have a desire to utilize some of that school space for a community purpose, so we can multi-purpose our schools and perhaps we can keep some of these schools open. Those are some of the ideas that we talk about in that white paper.

Certainly I know the government will love to talk about how we actually discuss Don Drummond’s findings in that white paper. I’ll leave that for another day, but obviously those are important elements that we have to discuss. Some serious choices have to be made at the end of the day, when you have an education budget that has increased by more than $8 billion since 2003 and we have almost 300,000 fewer students in the system. What has transpired? Why is that the case? I think we’re going to have some great debates in the future about how we deal with that particular issue and that particular problem.

That’s one of the tasks that I’ll certainly be charged with going forward as the new PC critic.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, as the new critic I do leave, at least partially, a critic portfolio that I truly had a passion for, which was the critic portfolio for training, colleges and universities.

I do want to state on the record that I enjoyed immensely the opportunity to speak to a variety of stakeholders in that portfolio who helped shape the white paper that I helped author, our Paths to Prosperity document Higher Learning for Better Jobs, which is also a document I feel very strongly about: how we can actually get our children who are going through the education system and primary and secondary schools into a post-secondary education field that will ultimately provide them with the gainful employment that I think every parent desires.

So I think this is a great place to start with respect to my interest in this area, my interest that is shaped by the conversations that I’ve had since I’ve been elected as the MPP for Cambridge and appointed the critic for training, colleges and universities.

I am very excited to begin this new task as a critic for the Ontario PC Party and our leader Tim Hudak, because I think we have a lot to say about education, certainly in the course of debating this bill, and we’ll have some debates going forward as well.

Madam Speaker, I want to first start off by suggesting that as a father of three young boys—I had a conversation with my wife about this, actually, last night. She read a media report last week when the bill was introduced about what the content of the bill was. She said, after reading the article, that she found it a little strange, as a parent—she’s not overtly political, by nature; she leaves that task up to me—but she said to me, “I read the

article on that, and something seemed a little off to it. Can you tell me what the bill is about?” So I began to explain what the bill was actually about—at least as I knew it at about 8 p.m. last night. I actually know a lot more by 8 a.m. this morning, because I had to do my homework, given the hour lead that I’ve been given today. But one of the things that struck her as being a little odd was the fact that there was a five-year reinstatement policy for folks who have been tasked with misconduct and potentially sexual abuse in the classroom.

She thought that that five-year reinstatement policy was a little bizarre. If you actually are subject to and penalized for engaging in that kind of misconduct, her belief as a mother was that you shouldn’t be allowed to teach anymore.

We have questions about some of those issues, and I understand the bill tries to address the differences between what the college is supposed to do and what the school board and the employer are supposed to do, but these are the kinds of points that, once we put them out in the public realm, folks obviously have questions about. We have to have some indication, some response, about how we’re going to deal with those issues.

That one, as well, struck me as being a little interesting, perhaps a little odd, that we would allow a provision for someone who has participated in any kind of sexual misconduct back into the classroom at all. I would hope, as a parent, as a father of three boys, that the answer in most cases is no. We have a responsibility to protect our kids, and that’s what this legislation is supposed to do. I would hope that as we discuss and debate and deliberate over this piece of legislation, we actually think about that. I don’t know what it’s like to have been subjected to that kind of misconduct.

I am not a student who actually has gone through that, but I know that students who have had those incidences of misconduct and inappropriate sexual misconduct have life-long issues that they will deal with—mental health issues in particular.

I would suggest at the very start, before we get into the meat and potatoes of this piece of legislation, that we actually talk about and focus on exactly what we’re doing here to protect our kids. We should do whatever it takes to make sure that the teacher in front of the classroom is not going to be tempted by having these young people at their footstep, basically, Madam Speaker. We have the responsibility to our kids to talk about what this reinstatement policy is. I’m sure that throughout the course of debate I’m probably going to learn a bit more about what that means in the larger scheme of things.

I would have to hope that even if the reinstatement does occur, our schools and our school boards are also not subjected to hiring these people. I think there are going to be background checks that school boards and employers will obviously perform on these teachers, that they are subjected to that, Madam Speaker.

Which brings me to another point that I think the member from Nepean–Carleton put forth very vocally last week, which is her private member’s bill to deal with what the member from Northumberland–Quinte West had talked about: to ensure we have the best teachers in front our classroom and providing the principals with the tools for doing so. We know that regulation 274/12 has an effect on the hiring practices of our schools and our school boards. We feel that the greatest indicator of whether someone should get a job or not is that the most qualified person for that job sees the day. I know that current practice has been challenged lately by this regulation.

I remember very early on in my tenure, I guess, as the MPP for Cambridge meeting with a group of principals who talked about their challenges in hiring teachers to fulfill their particular needs. For example, Madam Speaker, I remember going to a high school and meeting with the principal there—I think it was a vice-principal, actually—who talked about how she had a very good teacher, an occasional teacher, who was the coach of the volleyball team or the hockey team; I can’t remember what. But the season spanned both semesters and the occasional teacher was to end in February.

In the course of ending in February, for the second semester that teacher would no longer be the coach of that sports team, which then defaults, in that case—the principal actually has to take over that sports team or that sports team has to fold.

If we don’t arm our principals with the ability to fill those particular teaching needs, I think we are doing a disservice not only to qualified teachers but to students who have a desire to participate in extracurricular activities that only some teachers can perform. So we have to be cognizant of the environment in which we’re making these decisions.

I think we have to do our utmost to ensure that the principals in our schools have the tools necessary to hire the appropriate teacher and to fit the needs of that school, and that also includes doing appropriate screens with the appropriate investigations, whether it’s done by the college or the school board, or the police in certain instances where criminal activity is involved; we have to ensure that the principal has the tools to actually make the decision that’s appropriate for their school.

So while 274/12 in the legislation brought forth by the member for Nepean–Carleton does talk about hiring the best teachers in the classroom to do the job that I think everyone wants in the school, it actually applies in this case, too: that we want to, to the greatest extent possible, arm our principals with the tools necessary to hire the teachers who meet their particular needs at that school, whether that teacher is at the highest end of the seniority list or the lowest end of the seniority list.

What I have a lot of interest in particularly is the fact that we currently have a lot of young teachers who have gone through their education and aren’t able to find work, and we have a lot of students who are faced with this task. We have a mismatch, in essence, with the production of graduates from our teacher colleges with what’s happening in the labour market.

I think there has to be some mechanism by which we address that concern, because it’s hard to tell a student who wants to be a teacher, who has a passion for being a teacher, that they might not get a job in the province of Ontario due to some of the policies that are taking place right here.

So we have a lot of work to do. The member for Durham talked about how there are a number of members on this side of the Legislature who are teachers. I know that the member for Northumberland–Quinte West was a fine teacher before entering politics. I know that the member for Durham and my seatmate from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry and the member for Prince Edward–Hastings—we are all related to or married to people in the education field.

Prior to entering politics, I was also an educator—perhaps not in the same way as my friend from Northumberland–Quinte West was, but I was a university professor prior to entering politics, and I share that love of teaching, that passion for teaching. I miss it dearly.

Forgive me, members of the Legislature, if this sounds like a university lecture. I hope that I am at least providing some level of interest to the debate, because—

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s not bad.

Mr. Rob Leone: The member for Kitchener–Waterloo actually says it’s not bad. I think that’s a great compliment coming from her, so we’ll keep going at that.

On that note from the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, in her remarks that she just provided to the Minister of Education I did note a very interesting seminar that’s taking place in the region that’s talking about radically altering the scope of education in the province of Ontario and how, rather than being behind the curve, we have to actually be ahead of the curve.

I think those kinds of discussions are very appropriate to how we teach the child in the 21st century, particularly the child whose attention span, in the mass media market, is shrinking at an exponential rate—much like members of this Legislature, I might add, who may or may not be listening to this enlightening discussion that I’m providing today. Given the fact that very few people actually laughed and raised their heads at that, I can guarantee that the attention span is actually quite low here. But that’s okay; that’s fine.

I’m sure they can read the Hansard or download the YouTube video later on to hear the comments that the new critic for education in the PC Party has to say about this.

The concept of engagement—I think the member for Kitchener–Waterloo was at the summit, but I did read a lot that came from it. The question of engagement is actually a very pertinent one to this discussion as well. We want to ensure that we have the best teachers in our classrooms. We want to make sure that that teacher is qualified, which is why we have the Ontario College of Teachers and we had

an act that was established to promote that idea. This act obviously strengthens the components of that piece of legislation. But that question of engagement is paramount—how we ensure that we’re engaging children in the future.

I’m actually very interested in this, Madam Speaker, because just last night I was talking to a constituent who was complaining—an older gentleman, mind you—about how either the child or the grandchild is no longer learning cursive writing, is no longer talking about or learning the times tables. This shocks me. I don’t know if it’s actually true or not. I do want to seek some answers on whether we are abandoning what I think a lot of parents actually want, which is their children to read, write and do math.

But we’re talking about the old form of education, and yet we have a seminar taking place almost next door to where this constituent lives, talking about the engagement, the challenges of a 21st-century education. How do we harness technology in that? What is the entrepreneur of the future going to look like? All of these are pertinent questions that I think a lot of parents would like some answers to, which is why I think the Minister of Education would agree that this is a very exciting field to be in and to debate and discuss.

Now, I read with interest, in doing my homework after 8 p.m. last night—I did have the opportunity to read the report by the Honourable Patrick LeSage, which was called the Review of the Ontario College of Teachers Intake, Investigation and Discipline Procedures and Outcomes, and the Dispute Resolution Program.

So I guess the judge, or the former judge, is not an expert at crafting good political titles like the short name of this bill, when you have a title of the Review of the Ontario College of Teachers Intake, Investigation and Discipline Procedures and Outcomes, and the Dispute Resolution Program.

Right away—

Hon. Liz Sandals: “Protecting Students” is so much simpler.

Mr. Rob Leone: The Minister of Education states that the Protecting Students Act is so much simpler—and it is; it sounds nice—rather than the—what’s the official bill title here? I have it here, which is

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 with respect to discipline and other related matters. So you know the lawyer wrote that title, and the minister’s communication director wrote the other one. We’re good with that.

I thought, when I read the title—and you’re never supposed to—I know, when you’re younger, you’re told never to judge a book by its cover. Well, I have to say, thank goodness I didn’t judge this report by its cover, because if I had just read the title and it wasn’t part of my homework, I probably wouldn’t have read it.

Hon. Liz Sandals: It’s a good report.

Mr. Rob Leone: It is a good report.

One of the things that I like about what Justice LeSage has done is that he actually talked about some of the other self-regulated bodies that we have established and have a long history of in the province of Ontario, and looked at the Ontario College of Teachers to see how the two could link and if we could have best practices and learn what other organizations are doing and try to infuse those ideas in this legislation, which I think is a positive step.

For example, he has consulted the College of Nurses of Ontario, the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and has consulted the CEO and a number of benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada. So, obviously, there’s a lot of discussion between the regulated professions, that have a long history—and some of the ideas that other pieces of legislation talk about and discuss were certainly listed in his—what is it?—70-some-odd-page report.

I actually learned quite a bit about the College of Teachers, and I have to say I’m much more informed today than I was even last evening about the contents of what has been discussed.

One of the things I think is very important, in terms of understanding, in terms of the history of the Ontario College of Teachers, is that this process of trying to modernize our self-regulation of the teaching profession is actually quite—there’s a long history of that, and one that actually involves all three political parties.

In 1993, I think, the Ontario government commissioned—has a Royal Commission on Learning, and the stated goal of that royal commission was to ensure the Ontario youth are well prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.

I don’t think there is a member of this Legislature who wouldn’t agree that we have to do our utmost to ensure that youth are well prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. I’m not quite sure the adults are prepared for what’s going to happen in the 21st century, but I’m pretty sure our youth are going to adapt well.

In December 1994, after extensive public consultation, the commission completed its report. You can tell that there was a good spinner writing the title of this report; it’s called For the Love of Learning.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: That’s crazy.

Mr. Rob Leone: Isn’t that interesting?

Interjection.

Mr. Rob Leone: I like that title. It appeals to my inner sensibilities. Who wouldn’t want to ensure that students have a love of learning? Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to pull that report out in preparation for this discussion today, but I am grateful for the fact that, at some level, LeSage actually did try to highlight some of the pertinent points, and I think some of those pertinent points are worth discussing here.

Let me just take a couple of excerpts: “The commission believes that the teaching profession in Ontario must now be considered equal to other established professions.” It’s funny that we had to wait till 1994 to actually state what I think is obvious to a lot of people, that the teaching profession should be equal to other professions. In fact, these are people who are shaping the hearts and minds of our children.

They should be, in essence, trying to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, we treat teachers with the respect that they deserve. Certainly, we feel very strongly about that because, obviously, the outcome of this report was the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers, which was established by a PC government. So we take the words here quite well.

It suggests here that “Structures such as the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and its affiliates are in place to protect the economic interests and workplace rights of teachers.” No one suggests that we should seek otherwise.

They also respond to some of the professional development needs of teachers but not to the need to develop the profession of teaching itself, which is why we have the Ontario College of Teachers.

It goes on to suggest that, “In order to promote teaching to full professional status, we propose that a professional self-regulatory body, a College of Teachers, be established. The college would be responsible for determining standards of teaching practice, regulating initial and ongoing teacher certification and accrediting teacher education programs, both pre-service preparation and ongoing professional development.”

Now, I know the act was established some years ago: The act, in terms of going through that, was introduced as Bill 31 in 1995 and received royal assent in 1996. But there obviously needs to be a place where we discuss teaching as a profession and the promotion thereof. I know from when I was a university professor that that’s one of the things we actually still struggle with. How do we ensure that these fantastic researchers are in a position to actually transmit that knowledge to students?

There seems to be a need; we should talk about how university professors or college professors can actually do that in their day-to-day activities. It’s actually a topic that we talked about at the university level—and we talk in the high schools and our secondary schools—starting in the 1990s, which I think was quite remarkable in itself.

“A majority of members of the college would be professional educators selected by their peers, but there would be substantial representation from the public, that is, non-educators.” So the College of Teachers was initially designed to have representation from the teachers, the teaching profession, and the public at large. So there would be some joint membership in the committee. Obviously I think that speaks to a need that legislation on the report actually talks about as well, which is to protect the public interest.

Protecting the public interest obviously is a valuable asset that we have to make sure happens and exists always. Having non-educators as part of the Ontario College of Teachers has been one of the mainstays of the legislation.

Now I know that, over time, particularly with the change in government that happened and the Liberal government taking power, they wanted to change the composition of the Ontario College of Teachers and, in fact, did change that composition to include more teachers, more educators, in the composition of the college. That was with heavy discussion with stakeholders in the education field—with teachers’ unions and so on and so forth.

Even though the legislation does, as I understand it, make sure that a member of union leadership can’t actually be part of the College of Teachers—they actually have to resign their role as part of a union—the fact is that more teachers were desired to be part of this college to shape its course and so on. That happened probably about eight years ago.

We are now faced with the discussion of whether the public interest has been maintained. I think there are certain questions of whether that is the case. I think the fact that we’re actually seeing this piece of legislation come forward speaks to the need to make the whole College of Teachers much more robust than it may have otherwise been. I noticed that the ebbs and flows of what happens have changed and evolved over time, and that, I think, is a very important component of what we’re dealing with here.

Ultimately, we provide or produce self-regulating bodies to ensure that teachers are making decisions about teachers and that we have other people involved that aren’t teachers to protect the public interest. I think that’s a very valuable thing. I certainly would have loved to and probably will desire to read more in terms of why that changed—in 2006, I believe. But I think it’s very important to actually understand and enumerate some of those ideas going forward.

There’s much more in the report, Madam Speaker, that I could discuss, but I do want to perhaps—I don’t have a whole lot of time left in the deliberations today. In total, the report talked about 49 different recommendations, which are a lot of recommendations that have come forward in this report. These recommendations are far-reaching; I read all of them. They either can be produced through regulatory changes in the bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers or they have to be legislated. I think that’s why we see this particular piece of legislation come forward: because they’re responding to those recommendations that need to be addressed.

Some of the key provisions that we’ve seen and discussed—for example, ensuring that a teacher’s certificate is automatically revoked if they have been found guilty of specified acts of sexual abuse or for acts relating to child pornography. The recommendation is for five years, at which point the teacher can then reapply. As I stated in my initial comments to this bill, these are in fact one of the first questions that I think people of the public are going to ask: Is this five-year requirement the requirement that is necessary?

Should we allow people who are perhaps involved in child pornography the ability to teach again? Should we revoke that right permanently? I think members of the public are certainly going to have a debate about that. I would hesitate to speak on behalf of my caucus, but I think that that’s the role I have now. But I’m sure lots of members of my caucus are going to raise some issues, particularly in relation to that five-year period.

Another point that this piece of legislation establishes is publishing all decisions of the college’s discipline committee. In an era of open disclosure, I think it’s prudent to make sure that we actually know what has happened, what has transpired. I know the legislation talks about the notice period, an appropriate length of time between the notice being issued and the decision rendered. I think it’s up to 120 days. There are lots of ins and outs in terms of the timelines. I think that there’s going to be discussion about that, as with all pieces of legislation that establish certain timelines.

We’re going to have questions about those timelines. Should they be rendered quickly? Should they understand whether 42 days or 100 days, whether it’s business days, whether it’s calendar days, whether all of that is sufficient time to complete the investigation of whether misconduct does in fact exist or, on the flip side of that, to ensure that the student and his or her family has the appropriate resolution in a more meaningful and manageable timeline?

If we think about it, if the length of time is 120 days between the start and end of this procedure—I know there are lots of different dates and times in the Legislature for different acts—but if that timeline is established, that is a semester of school. That’s a long time for a student to wait, and I would hate for a student, who has frankly been sidelined because they don’t want to go back to a school because of the potential emotional and psychological despair that they may be in, to wait four months for a resolution to a case to occur. It might seem to be a little much.

So I know as we go forward and debate this piece of legislation which we, in principle, agree with, we are going to obviously seek to make certain amendments and debate in committee these kinds of provisions.

The bill also does a particular job of outlining clear rules for the use of an alternative dispute resolution process in confirming that no cases involving sexual abuse, sexual misconduct or child pornography will be eligible for alternative dispute resolution. In essence, what that means is that these are serious issues that have to be investigated thoroughly and within the dispute resolution mechanisms that the bill ascribes to, which I think is a good aspect because obviously these kinds of acts are ones that seriously affect the social and emotional well-being—and sometimes the physical well-being—of our children. So we actually have to talk about this in very meaningful ways.

The act does a particular job in clarifying when school boards must inform the Ontario College of Teachers of cases where the board has restricted the duties of a teacher or dismissed them for misconduct. One of the things that I found very interesting, in the course of reviewing the legislation and the report, is the seeming lack of communication between the school board and the Ontario College of Teachers. We would hope that that kind of communication actually is facilitated rather than hindered in any particular way.

If this legislation is necessary to foster that area of communication, we have, I think, a responsibility to support that issue because we need to have those lines of communication established. That shouldn’t be distracted by any other particular issue that might arise. Whether that issue deals with a criminal proceeding, whether that issue has to do with minor offences, but certainly what we have to do is make sure that those lines of communication between the school boards and the Ontario College of Teachers remain totally intact.

Why are we sitting here in 2013 talking about making sure that we’re doing everything we can to make sure that information is shared to the appropriate people in order to protect our children? I find that astonishing and remarkable—I think, Madam Speaker, you’re about to stand up and make me sit down. You can do so at any time, and I will be happy to oblige.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being almost 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I want to again recognize friends from the federation of co-operative housing, Ontario, here. I recognize, of course, Harvey Cooper, who is here, I believe. The federation is hosting a reception this evening, I believe in the legislative dining room, and I encourage all members to attend that.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I appreciate that the Minister of Labour stole my thunder about my guest today, but I would like to formally welcome Harvey Cooper, Simone Swail and Denise McGahan. They’re here today at Queen’s Park for the co-operative housing day, and they will be hosting a reception in committee rooms 228 and 230. I would encourage all of you to come and hear about the great work that the Co-operative Housing Federation is doing for the people of Ontario, and I know that my critics will be there to speak as well, so it will be a wonderful evening. I implore all of you to come.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to introduce all visitors from Rethink Breast Cancer who are joining us today, including M.J. DeCoteau, the executive director; Alison Gordon, the vice-president; Ashley Mac Isaac-Butler, senior advocacy manager; and Silvana Langley, a volunteer. Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to invite all the members of the Legislature out to the front lawn after question period today. The 64th National Day for the People’s Republic of China is occurring. We’ll have a flag-raising out there. I’d like to welcome Consul General Fang Li as well to Queen’s Park today. So if we can encourage all the members of the Legislature to make their way out to the front lawn after question period, that would be appreciated.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure everyone heard that announcement about the flag-raising for the People’s Republic of China.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, we met in your office several weeks ago. It was very kind of you to invite me to meet with you. You put a list of bills on the table. You said that if we could agree upon these bills that both parties support, we could basically clear the decks so we could get to work on jobs and the economy. I agreed to that, and the programming motion is now well under way.

I guess I’m a bit frustrated here because we did our share of the deal. We’re moving forward with the bills. We opened up now the decks for jobs legislation, but the only thing we see from you so far is an online plea for ideas on jobs and the economy. So I guess I’ll ask you directly, Premier: Why are you shying away from your end of the deal? Effectively, why are you reneging on your commitment to act on jobs and the economy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that this question signals that he will be supporting our initiatives, such as the Supporting Small Businesses Act, which will help 60,000 small businesses by helping them with their payroll taxes. I hope that it signals that the Leader of the Opposition will support our social enterprise initiative, which should create 1,600 new jobs.

I hope that it means that the Leader of the Opposition will support our investments when we make investments like the $70.9 million in Ford that will protect 2,800 jobs and create a platform that will allow Ford to be able to compete globally and increase their capacity.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s question signals that he will be supporting those initiatives, including the initiative yesterday that I worked with the Toronto Region Board of Trade on to increase the agri-food sector. I hope he’s going to be supporting us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s unfortunate, as I said, Speaker, that the only ideas the Premier has put on the table are warmed-over NDP ideas that came through the 1-800-Horwath line the last time around. She has now launched her own website consultation. We need a plan.

One thing I always enjoyed with my grandparents in beautiful Sarnia, Ontario, was playing euchre with my grandparents—a lot of fun. I learned that reneging was against the rules. That was just a game. Reneging in a real-life deal has real-world consequences. This means young people are not being put to work. It means companies are passing over Ontario.

Premier, it’s time to get on with the job of creating jobs in the province of Ontario. If you’re out of ideas, why don’t you take some of ours and put people into good jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment is going to want to speak to some of the specifics.

But I want to just react to what the Leader of the Opposition talked about. In fact, the Conservative Party, when we put forward a proposal that a couple of bills that are job-creating, the Supporting Small Businesses Act and the Waste Diversion Act—both of which will directly create jobs. We suggested that those be put in the programming motion, and they said no. They said they didn’t want to have anything to do with two bills that are direct job creators.

The Leader of the Opposition has thrown into his questions in the last couple of days the notion that somehow, as we create jobs, because of the work that we’re doing on those pieces of legislation—and the investments that we’re making are creating jobs—it’s not okay to be asking the people of Ontario to engage with us and talk to us about what other ideas they might have. I reject that notion categorically. I think it’s our responsibility to talk to the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: But, Premier, your idea is to increase red tape, increase tax and increase spending. That’s what drove us into the ditch in the first place. So of course we’re going to say no to those ideas. But I hope you’ll say yes to some of ours.

What I’m perplexed with is why you’re reneging on your side of the deal. I don’t understand what the paralysis is. I don’t understand what the deadlock is.

Why aren’t you moving forward with a jobs plan? We put our plan on the table. In fact, I invite you to steal any of our ideas—for example, to stop the Green Energy Act, the imposition of wind turbines that are dividing communities and driving up hydro rates; to change the way apprenticeship works in this province and put young people into good jobs, like Garfield Dunlop has recommended.

There are so many ideas. Why don’t we actually move forward on one together to put people back to work? Why are you reneging on the deal that we made?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition met with me. I appreciate that we had a conversation about some bills where we might have agreement and we could move forward.

But what I did not commit to was slashing jobs. I did not commit to cutting programs and stopping the progress that we’ve made on renewable energy, on education, on health care. I never committed to that, because that is the plan that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward. I never—I never—would agree to such a plan, because what we believe is that investing in people, investing in infrastructure and supporting a business climate that allows businesses to expand is how we get the economy cooking. That’s working, Mr. Speaker. Jobs are being created in the province.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, recently we learned that top-paid Pan Am executives had run amok with expense claims in bad faith, claims without receipts and incomplete claims. You indicated this was unacceptable and that rules needed to be strengthened. Premier, that’s rich. You knew these were the rules. You made these rules, and you stood by while the rules were abused for years. Don’t just be disappointed and have a conversation with these people; get the money back, Premier.

Premier, tell me when a review of all TO2015 expense claims will commence, and when the executives will be ordered to repay all their bad-faith claims back.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I said yesterday that it was unacceptable, some of the expenses that had been reported. The minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan Am Games had already directed the board to tighten the rules. I’ve said that it wasn’t acceptable; I’ve said that it needed to change, and it is changing.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will not use the moment while I’m getting quiet.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, this happened before these reports came out. The minister had already spoken to the board, and the rules are being changed. As I said yesterday, if there were breaches of the rules and if there is reimbursement that needs to happen, we will ask for that to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Clearly, there is no evidence that the minister ever did have a conversation with anyone about expenses there. If you follow the pennies, you’ll find the dollars. The bad-faith expense claims are indicative of a much greater endemic problem at the upper levels and the upper echelon of the Pan Am organizational structure—entitlement. Indeed, there are tens of thousands of dollars that have been burned partying in lavish hospitality suites and jaunts to Mexico and Guadalajara and London. When I FOI’ed the minister for all expenses on these trips, including travel, we received an incomplete response, only with flight itineraries—an act of bad faith, Premier.

To be clear, this isn’t about Starbucks or dog travel or parking; this is nickel-and-diming, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s why, Premier, you must intervene. When will you set an example from the top and order repayment of all bad-faith expenses and expenses outside of the rules?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport is going to want to speak to this, but I want to say, as I said yesterday, that the reports of these kinds of decisions and these kinds of expenses are unacceptable. The minister had already acted before these reports came out so that the rules had to be tightened and that they had to be changed, and that is happening.

What I did say yesterday is that I make a distinction between these kinds of abuses of the rules and the fact that in order to land these games, there did need to be travel. There did need to be trips to Guadalajara in order to get these games, because we know that these games are going to be a great opportunity for Ontario, for Ontario athletes and for job creation—26,000 jobs—and we want to make them the best that they can be.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: Clearly, everyone is scrambling today for the best excuse for this binge-spending by Pan Am executives. Just today, Premier, your own minister practically abdicated responsibility for the games in estimates. The TO2015 executives themselves will tell you that the government knew and approved the guidelines for expenses. The Pan Am minister will tell you that the executives followed policy but not common sense. The Premier will tell you that we need to tighten the rules—a day late and a dollar short. Everyone is so busy backpedalling that they’ve actually lost sight of who they serve: the hard-working families of Ontario whose money has been exploited.

Enough is enough, Premier. When will you order repayment of all bad-faith expenses? When will it happen?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Enough is enough.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, I agree with you: Enough is enough, the member from Leeds–Grenville. You set it up; I knock it down.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question, and the opposition honourable member. This morning we started our estimates. It was five hours, and we engaged in a very fruitful conversation for one and a half hours of that, so this is good. We will be answering more questions from the critic over there. I wish he’d also listen to our explanations, other than just keep asking questions without really listening to the answers, or refusing those answers.

In terms of the reimbursement, I think we answered this question already. The Premier just said that under the Broader Public Sector Expenses Directive, TO2015 must establish rules for all individuals in the organization with respect to—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: —travel, meals—

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

Minister, when I stand, you sit.

New question.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. After dodging our questions for days, the Premier admitted yesterday that her staff met with Liberal lobbyists hired by EllisDon to pass legislation on behalf of their company. Can the Premier tell us when those meetings actually occurred and who attended on her behalf?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t know exactly when the meetings took place. What I said yesterday was that we meet with a range of people from across all sectors, as, I assume, does the leader of the third party, so I cannot give the leader of the third party the time and date. In fact, I never denied that those meetings took place, and I recognize that if the leader of the third party wants times and dates, I can undertake to get those for her.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I’m going to nip this in the bud. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Minister of the Environment will cease holding up any kind of prop. It stops now.

Supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I believe we would like those dates, Speaker, and so would the people of Ontario.

Yesterday, the Minister of Labour told reporters that he had told EllisDon lobbyists that he didn’t have anything to say to them because it would be inappropriate to discuss a matter that was before the courts.

Why did the Premier’s team agree to such a meeting? The minister’s wouldn’t.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will just say that in government and in opposition, there are many people in the province who want to speak to us about issues of concern to them. There are meetings that happen every single day in this place and in our offices, where people with concerns come to us. They raise issues, and they propose solutions; they propose paths forward. Some of those paths forward are adopted, and others are not. Sometimes a private member’s bill is developed as a result of some of those meetings, and sometimes there is nothing that happens as a result of those meetings.

But the responsibility of politicians is to meet with people to hear their concerns and to determine if there’s a way we can facilitate a response or whether there’s actually nothing that we can do. I hope that the leader of the third party understands that that’s all of our responsibility.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On September 9, the Premier told reporters that she supported Bill 74, and she seemed very well briefed with EllisDon’s talking points on that bill. She said, “This is an anomalous situation. The situation arose in the 1950s.… From my perspective it’s about a level playing field.”

Now, if the Minister of Labour thought it was inappropriate to comment on an issue before the courts, why was the Premier commenting on it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was outlining my understanding of what the issue was. I was not taking a position in terms of the court case. I was outlining my understanding of the situation, Mr. Speaker. That was and is my understanding.

There has now been a court ruling that we’re reviewing. There’s a 15-day appeal period. As that process unfolds, we will see where the legislation goes.

I have at no time put myself in a position where I was interfering with a court case, Mr. Speaker. I was outlining my understanding of the situation, and I think the leader of the third party knows full well that that was the situation.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. It seems that the Premier and her office were all too eager to sit down with Liberal insiders working for EllisDon even though the Minister of Labour thought it would be completely inappropriate.

Can the Premier tell us whether she or anyone on her team made a commitment to pass a bill as long as it was introduced by another political party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I spoke to this issue yesterday. The leader of the third party is seeing conspiracy where there is none, because there was no such arrangement. This was a private member’s bill that was put up by the opposition. Members debated the bill in the House from all parties, and we comment on legislation. We comment on the substance of legislation. That’s what we’ve commented on. That’s how the situation arose. Now, the Divisional Court has made a decision. There is a 15-day period in which there could be an appeal, and we are reviewing the decision of the Divisional Court.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, Speaker, a conspiracy between the Liberals and the Conservatives to ram through legislation for one company—who would have thought it?

People have serious, serious questions about this government’s priorities. The government keeps blindly pressing on trying to ram this bill through the Legislature on behalf of one single company, a well-connected company at that, even while their arguments for doing so fall apart before their eyes.

Ontario families are looking for life to get more affordable for them. They’re looking for jobs for the young people in those families. They’re looking for the health care system to be there for them when they need it. Does the Premier really think that one well-connected donor should come ahead of those families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m trying to just get at what this is really about. I think what we’re talking about is the programming motion. I think that’s what the problem is here for the leader of the third party. As we have said, the Divisional Court has made a ruling that we’re reviewing. There’s a 15-day appeal period, but there seems to be a ruling that is in place now.

So I think that, really, what is at issue here is whether the leader of the third party and her members would be interested and supportive of a programming motion that would actually move ahead some pieces of legislation, like the Local Food Act, like the act that would protect young kids from tanning beds. If the leader of the third party and her members would support those pieces of legislation as part of the programming motion, then I think that would be a good thing for the people of Ontario. She doesn’t seem to want to sign onto that and work with us on those pieces of legislation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There are pressing, pressing issues that face the people of this province. They’re worried about jobs. They’re worried about health care. They’re worried about the cost of everyday life, which keeps going up and up and up for them. Instead of delivering for those people, the Premier seems determined to deliver for one well-connected company even while she frantically denies that she’s doing so.

Is the Premier ready to stop these games and shenanigans, admit this bill is not a priority for the people who are facing tough times in this province, and stop her efforts to ram it through this Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that the 2,800 people who work for Ford are very pleased that we made that $70.9-million investment. I believe that the 535 young people who are going to have placements as a result of the Youth Employment Fund are very pleased with what that accomplishes. I think that the 60,000 small businesses that would benefit from the small business act that would help with their payroll taxes are very pleased with that legislation, because that will give them the opportunity to hire more people.

I would have thought that the leader of the third party would have been supportive of those initiatives and that she would have wanted to work with us, because those are job-creating initiatives and they are moving forward, and that’s our priority on this side of the House.

Interjections.

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

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Tomorrow, when your government marks 10 years in office, Ontario taxpayers—

Applause.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You may want to stop the clapping, because Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers are going to be lamenting the high and skyrocketing costs of hydro in this province.

When you release, later this fall, your new long-term energy plan for the province, you’re going to have to make up for the enormous amount of credibility that you’ve lost, particularly with the Green Energy Act and, of course, now with both of these cancelled power plants that the Auditor General will report on later.

So the question that I have for you is a simple one, Premier, and it’s one I expect a direct response on: Before the new long-term energy plan is tabled, will you assure us in this assembly that you will do a cost calculation of what those cancelled gas plants, as well as the Green Energy Act, have cost Ontario taxpayers on their hydro bill per month for the last 10 years?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I remember, and I think everyone here will remember, in 2002-03, when we were campaigning, we didn’t know when the election was going to be called. It was on again, off again. But I remember how unstable the electricity system was. I remember the brownouts; I remember the blackouts. I remember that when we came into office—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order, as will everyone in the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister, you always find that perfect moment, so I will give you the attention you’re asking for. The minister responsible for seniors’ affairs will come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The party opposite howls, but we have rebuilt over 80% of our electricity system, because it was in disarray.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Cambridge, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have a stable supply. We’ve jump-started a green energy industry. They’d like to slash that; they’d like to kill those jobs, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I shall give those people who want attention the attention. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to welcome the Premier to 2013. Her government has been in power for a decade and hydro rates have tripled on their watch because, on their long-term energy planning, they’ve either ignored it completely by saying they’re going build power plants and then cancelling, or coming to this very chamber and promising 50,000 jobs from a green energy plan that has cost Ontario taxpayers and rural communities a lot of money.

This government has a lot to answer for. Before they bring forward that next long-term energy plan before the assembly and before the people of Ontario, I have asked her directly, and I will do it one more time: Will she go to the people of this province and tell them exactly how much that Green Energy Act has cost them on their power bill, will she tell them how much those two cancelled gas plants will cost them on their hydro bill and will she do it immediately?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. As I begin to sit down, people begin to ramp it back up again. Both sides are making comments before I even sit down.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the member opposite knows full well that the issues around the cost of the gas plants—we’ve had a report from the Auditor General on Mississauga, the report on Oakville is coming forward and we will continue to have that discussion.

But I think the member opposite should remember that if we talk about going to the people of Ontario and talking about what’s actually happening, when the PCs capped energy prices in 2002, it caused energy prices to spike 30% in 30 weeks, and that created a $7-billion stranded debt. So when you talk about being honest with the people of Ontario and talking about what costs really are, that’s what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the party opposite has done. And on the long-term—

Interjections.

Interjection: You’re done.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Okay. I’m done; you’re right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. While someone is giving an answer, if that happens, that’s their time. Then, when that time is up, you don’t get any more time; your time is up.

New question.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier reacted with apparent shock to news about the Pan Am Games’ outrageous expenses. But in an interview, Ian Troop, the CEO of the Pan Am Games, insisted that the government knew and approved of the guidelines for expenses and salaries. This morning, the minister said that the government did not approve these, but the board did.

Speaker, can the Premier explain who has the full set of books with every expense listed, who approved these expenses and salaries, and to whom the Pan Am board actually does or should report?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Chan: TO2015, the operations side, reports to the board, and the board of the Pan Am Games consists of five partners: provincial, federal, municipal, and also the sector, which is the Canadian Olympic Committee as well as the Paralympic committee.

The board approved those expenses, and also the board implements those policies and provides guidance and guidelines for those expenses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, this is sadly not the first time this government has faced questions of inappropriate spending of taxpayer dollars. We still remember eHealth and Ornge. This government has allowed the Pan Am Games to operate outside the expense rules and accountability that should apply to the expenditure of all Ontario tax dollars. The minister passed the blame to the board today, acting as an independent transfer agent, as though taxpayer dollars were not at stake—just like eHealth, Ornge and the gas plants.

Has this government learned nothing over the last few years? Can the Premier tell Ontarians why they should trust her government any more than they would trust the McGuinty Liberals with their hard-earned tax dollars?

Hon. Michael Chan: Let me clarify here: The broader public service expense directive requires designated organizations to establish expense rules where expenses are reimbursed from public funds. These expense rules do not have to be the same as those required by government agencies and ministries within the Ontario public service.

The province’s financial oversight of TO2015 includes administering the transfer payment agreement, review and approval of TO2015’s business plan, reporting from TO2015, and auditing compliance with provincial directives.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Minister, our government has outlined a strong plan for jobs and growth that includes investing in people and infrastructure and creating the right conditions for businesses to grow and stay in Ontario. We all know that social entrepreneurship represents a sustainable way to build a diverse and vibrant economy. This includes people who live in my riding of Scarborough Southwest, who I know will also benefit from the investments our government is making. My residents have already seen the work our government is doing through the Ontario Network of Entrepreneurs, which serves my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment, could the minister please update this House on the government’s recent social enterprise strategy announcement?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for his question. Social enterprises are for-profit and not-for-profit entities that are run like businesses but have as their overarching goal contributing to the social good and creating a better society. Ontarians are global leaders when it comes to social enterprise. There are roughly 10,000 social enterprises in the province today, employing more than 150,000 people.

Last week, the government announced a three-year, $25-million social enterprise strategy to help build the sector in Ontario. A portion of that funding will be used to create a new $4-million social enterprise demonstration fund to support early-stage social enterprises.

The strategy will benefit Ontarians by creating thousands of new jobs, particularly for youth and other populations that have traditionally had barriers to employment. In partnership with the social enterprise sector, our aim is to make Ontario the leading jurisdiction in North America for social enterprise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I want to thank the minister for his response. It’s great to hear that social entrepreneurs will have access to the right funding opportunities and support across this province. It is important that people across the province can depend on a sustainable economy, for, as you said, Minister, it’s about investing in people and infrastructure and creating the right business climate for companies to come and grow in Ontario.

When I speak to constituents in my riding, they say our government needs to continue to take action and invest in social programs that will help increase employment opportunities across the province.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment: Could the minister tell the House how pairing economic development and social impact will create economic and employment opportunities for Ontarians?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Our social enterprise action plan includes support for the recently announced Social Venture Exchange, or the SVX, which brings together impact investors, investors that also want to seek enterprises that are making a positive difference in society, with social enterprises looking for funding.

We’ve created an Office for Social Enterprise in my ministry, as well, to coordinate efforts across government and work with the sector, including promoting partnerships between the private sector, of course, and the not-for-profit sectors. It’s due to the leadership in the sector itself that the great social enterprises Bullfrog Power, the Brick Works, Goodwill, TurnAround Couriers and others are thriving and contributing to our communities. Another good example is Rise Asset Development, which is a partnership between CAMH and the Rotman School of Management where they mentor individuals with mental health challenges to become self-sustaining entrepreneurs and business persons.

Social enterprise is well proven, and we have demonstrated our commitment as a province with this $25-million investment.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Premier, it took 136 years for Ontario’s debt to reach $139 billion, but it took the Liberals only 10 years to double it to $273 billion. Because of your uncontrolled spending, interest is now our third-largest expenditure, after health and after education, and that’s with low interest rates. Because of your uncontrolled spending, you’ve turned the once mighty Ontario into a have-not province. All other provinces have recovered from the recession and are roaring ahead.

It’s clear, Premier, that you have no plan, but we do. Will you work with us to implement our ideas, Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: A couple of things here: One, Ontarians should recognize and be proud of the fact that we are the only jurisdiction in North America to exceed job recovery like no other: 183% of jobs have come back to the province since the recession. We are the only government in Canada in over a decade to actually cut spending year over year, and as a result, our deficit targets have been reduced by over $5.6 billion.

But we always know we need to do better. We will always aspire to do more. That’s why we’re going to continue investing in people, we’re going to continue investing in infrastructure, and we’re going to continue to support our businesses to make them even more competitive. That requires investments, and we’re prepared to take on that debt for their benefit.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, what we’ve seen from you so far is a lost decade for Ontario. Our debt has doubled, our hydro rates have doubled, we have high unemployment, and business is sitting on $500 billion that they will not invest in Ontario. Instead of taking action, you’ve taken us further down the wrong path of the last 10 years.

The solutions to Ontario’s problems aren’t hard to figure out, Premier; they’re just not easy to do. Ontario needs a government that has a plan to reduce spending and create jobs and has the courage of its convictions to stick to that plan.

Premier, we’ve put out a plan for discussion. We have 14 white papers, 200 pages—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The Minister of the Environment will come to order, along with the Attorney General, and that’s the last time for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Our plan: We have 14 white papers and 200 pages of ideas. Premier, since you have no plan to turn Ontario around, will you please adopt ours?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As noted, Ontario has exceeded its targets. Our deficit is going down; our spending has been cut. We’re doing all that’s necessary to make Ontario—in fact, we are the largest jurisdiction in North America, second to none, in regard to investment in this province.

The plan that the opposition has put forward is a plan of across-the-board cuts, something that would harm the sensitive recovery that we now have in Ontario. They want to drive down wages through harmful right-to-work legislation—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: They want to fire 10,000 education workers. They want to fire 2,000—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Just in case he didn’t hear me while he was yelling, I asked the member from Chatham to come to order.

Continue.

Hon. Charles Sousa: So, Mr. Speaker, part of their plan is about firing even more workers—2,000 health workers. They want to cancel something that is so critical to the well-being of our future, and that is investing in our children, investing in our youth, investing in our students and not cancelling the 30% reduction in tuition—that is about producing skills and making Ontario better.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. In 2010, this government slashed statutory accident benefit payouts by 50% across Ontario and 70% in the GTA. Yesterday, we finally received official confirmation that the insurance industry has pocketed every single penny of these savings, passing none of them on to Ontario drivers. In stunning testimony yesterday in committee, insurance actuary Bill Andrus presented hard evidence that the actual return on equity in the province of Ontario for the insurance industry was an incredible 25%. When are we going to see these billions in savings for insurance industries being passed on to Ontario drivers to result in a lower premium?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As noted by the Auditor General’s 2011 report, FSCO retained two experts to review the ROE benchmark and develop recommendations. We’ve adopted the widely accepted financial market principles to ensure the ROE benchmark reflects those market conditions. Using that methodology on an eight-year rolling average, the ROE benchmark for 2013 is, as noted, at 11%. But currently those benchmarks by auto insurance rate regulators in other similar Canadian provinces range up to 12%.

But notwithstanding that, we’ve taken the steps to reduce rates to ensure that we pass on the savings of those claim cost reductions to ensure that consumers benefit from further rate cuts, and that’s what we’re working towards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The numbers speak for themselves. For three straight years, auto insurers have pocketed virtually every penny from the savings flowing from the 2010 benefit cutbacks: $2 billion in savings each year for the insurance industry and nothing for Ontario’s nine million drivers.

It comes as no surprise that the insurance industry, like EllisDon, is a large donor to this Liberal Party. When will the Premier start taking the side of Ontario drivers and not the well-connected auto insurance industry?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As mentioned, FSCO is looking into a return on premium model, which would make the benchmark more transparent to Ontario drivers. Of course, we note—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health will put that down. I’ve already ruled on that, and it’s not going to happen anymore.

Please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The benchmark, of course, is not a guarantee of the rate of return, but this is what is: We’re taking strong action to bring them down. We’ve established an industry-wide average of 15% for the next two years—8% by August.

But this is important, Mr. Speaker. Here is a quote by one of the NDP members. It reads as follows: This “is a step in the right direction.” “I’m pleased to say that something is finally being done.” Sarah Campbell, NDP for Kenora–Rainy River. We agree with her as well.

SENIORS

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Seniors have made and continue to make outstanding contributions to our communities. In my riding of Brampton West, seniors are extremely active, and many are affiliated with organizations like the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. I’m delighted to say that, in May of this year, CARP Brampton

chapter 52 held the largest inaugural

chapter meeting the national CARP has ever had to date.

Today is the International Day of Older Persons. Can the minister outline some of the ways our government is supporting Ontario seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank the member from Brampton West for this important question. Let me say that we recognize the fundamental role that seniors play and the remarkable contribution that seniors have made in shaping in our province.

It is an honour for me to serve as minister responsible for seniors, and let me say that the government is working very hard to make sure that seniors remain healthy, safe and independent for as long as possible. Our government has put one of many plans in place so our seniors, indeed, can continue to live healthy and independent.

The Action Plan for Seniors is a very comprehensive program supporting age-friendly communities, renewing Ontario’s strategy to combat elder abuse and releasing a new guide to programs and services for seniors in Ontario in 16 languages.

Let me say, Speaker, that we’re always looking for new ways and new solutions for our seniors in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Minister, as you’re aware, Ontario is home to 1.9 million people over the age of 65. That represents almost 15% of Ontario’s population and 38% of Canada’s seniors population. By 2036, the number of Ontarian seniors will more than double, to 4.2 million.

Minister, this demographic shift will present both new opportunities and challenges for the province of Ontario. Can the minister tell us more about the steps our government is taking to support seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Again, I want to thank the member from Brampton West because he’s very well conversant with the challenges and opportunities of seniors in his particular area.

Let me say that in addition to the Ontario Action Plan for Seniors, for the first time in our history, we’ve regulated all retirement homes. In 2010, we passed the Retirement Homes Act.

Since 2003, we have invested more than $8 million in elder abuse prevention and awareness initiatives. This includes $900,000 a year in support of the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.

On top of that, we have put in place the Finding Your Way program, which is an awareness program for people—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Mario Sergio: —with dementia. We also implemented the home renovation tax credit, worth up to $1,500 annually.

It is my and the government’s intention to make Ontario the best province for seniors.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Yesterday, Minister, 250 hairdressers from 37 First Choice Haircutters salons joined thousands of other tradespeople in Ontario trying to stop your government’s trades tax. It is costing their industry jobs, and they simply cannot afford to pay for your new bureaucracy—provides them absolutely no benefit whatsoever. It’s one more tax that the consumer has to absorb.

On top of that, now your trades tax enforcement cops are visiting—get this—hairdresser salons and barbers across the province. It’s just a big joke, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister finally stand up for the hard-working tradespeople and abolish the College of Trades once and for all?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ve left me with an opening again. I won’t take it, so he knows.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Too easy.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be happy to talk a little bit more about the situation with regard to barbers in the supplementary, but first I want to respond to the last request that member made.

This organization, when it comes to things like apprenticeship ratios, has performed extremely well, and I just want to share with the member a comparison to apprenticeship ratio reductions that have taken place. When they were in office: zero apprenticeship reductions. When the NDP were in office: one. Since we’ve been in office, as a government, before the College of Trades, we did eight reductions. The College of Trades has been in place for approximately six months: 14 reductions in ratios since they’ve been in office. That’s a heck of a lot better than the record of your government, which I remind the Legislature was—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, what can you say, Speaker?

You don’t even know the file on the ratio reviews. It’s pathetic. You don’t even know the file on it. When are you going to listen? The College of Trades is a boondoggle; it’s that simple.

Hairdressers across this province are being overtaxed and harassed by your government right today. First the HST, then the trades tax and now, of course, the trades cops out harassing them on the site. I’ve personally met with thousands of tradespeople across Ontario and heard their anger over this costly new boondoggle. How can the minister justify forcing hard-working tradespeople like these hairdressers to pick up the tab for the bureaucracy that offers no value to them, their business managers, their owners or the consumers? Minister, can you inform the House of even one—one benefit—the College of Trades is offering hairdressing salons or barbers in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about the benefits that the College of Trades is bringing. The party opposite talks about reducing ratios for apprenticeships. Just look at the record of the College of Trades. I’m going to repeat it again: 14 apprenticeship ratio reductions in less than six months. Let’s compare it to their record: eight years, zero reductions of apprenticeship ratios. Mr. Speaker, he asked for an example of something good coming from the College of Trades: 14 reductions in apprenticeship ratios, creating greater opportunities for apprentices.

When we talk about creating jobs for youth, jobs for apprentices, dealing with the skills gap in the skilled trades, they’re working hard, they’re doing it and their record’s a heck of a lot better than yours was.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. It seems to be déjà vu all over again for the people of Sarnia, Wallaceburg and downstream First Nations communities as well. For the second time in a month, people are worried about the safety of their drinking water in those communities. Last week, two new spills followed hard on the heels of a major diesel fuel leak into the St. Clair River in early September, which we asked questions about at that time. When will the Minister of the Environment put the health of Ontarians first by stopping corporate polluters before they spill instead of reacting after the fact?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, you would recognize that we do that each and every day. First of all, we have in the province of Ontario some of the strictest laws that would exist anywhere in North America in terms of spills that are taking place in this area. We recognize, as well, that there is an opportunity to prosecute those who are seen to be in violation of those laws.

So whenever a spill happens to take place, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do a full and complete investigation, if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute those who are responsible, if there’s been a violation of the laws of the province of Ontario. The ministry has been involved in these matters for some time, has cracked down on this area, and will certainly continue to do so, particularly as a result of some of the recent incidents.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Under the Liberal watch, chemical spills in the Sarnia area have been a regular occurrence. This year alone there have been toxic spills by Sun-Canadian, Suncor, Imperial Oil, and Enbridge, to name just a few. Instead of wringing their hands after a spill has occurred, when will this government actually protect the drinking water of Ontarians and work with those affected communities to develop stronger regulations and more effective enforcement so we don’t have to sail down these troubled waters again and again and again?

Hon. James J. Bradley: In fact, I’ve been in discussion with the members in the particular area. The member from Sarnia, of course, has been very interested in this subject. The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex has been very much involved and has drawn these matters to my attention. Mr. McNaughton has been drawing these to my attention as well.

We do have, in the province of Ontario, very strong laws. If there is a violation of those laws, we are prepared to prosecute to the largest extent possible. It would be then, of course, up to the courts to make the judgments. In the meantime, each of these establishments gets visited by the Ministry of the Environment to make a determination of whether they have in place the necessary equipment and procedures which would ensure—or at least limit the risk of any spills of this kind taking place in the future.

So I have met with the members in the area and we have discussed this matter thoroughly. You can be assured that the strongest of actions will be taken in each and every one of these cases.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my privilege to rise in the House today. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, as you know, Ontario is home to one of North America’s largest food processing sectors. In fact, you often say that we have 3,000 businesses that employ more than 95,000 people across the province.

There are many people in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood who work in the sector. This summer, I had the opportunity to tour some of the local food stores in Scarborough–Guildwood with the minister.

Given that this is a sector that provides economic benefits to all areas of the province, from farms right up the value chain for the food processing industry, I think all in this House would be interested in seeing the sector increase in size. With that in mind, can the minister tell this House what her government is doing to help Ontario’s food processing sector to attract investment, grow and continue to thrive?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for the question. I also want to thank the Toronto Region Board of Trade for the conference that they put together with Food and Consumer Products of Canada yesterday. There’s work being done on creating a cluster of food processors and producers in this region.

The food industry is a very important contributor to the economy, as the member has said—overall, a $34-billion contribution to the GDP and more than 700,000 jobs in this sector. So it’s very important that we support that dynamic and innovative business.

At the round table yesterday, many of the top innovators in the sector talked to me about transportation, they talked about skills development, and they talked about the things that we can do, working together, to make sure that we do what’s necessary to make this sector grow. I was very appreciative of their input.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for your response and for informing this House of the work that’s under way. My constituents have told me that they really value knowing where their food comes from, and consumers here at home and around the world trust the quality and safety of Ontario food products.

I know that in my riding, our diverse population presents an opportunity for new and different food products that combine the need for convenience with the comfort of one’s cultural dishes. We also have an aging population looking for healthful foods; many reside in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood. We have a growing trend of support for local food and people who read labels and want to know where their food is coming from.

What is your ministry doing to promote innovation in Ontario’s agri-food sector?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to talk about a couple of initiatives. One is the partnership with the University of Guelph and the competitive research programs that are going on there. The other one is through the Growing Forward 2 program that was negotiated by my predecessor. He did a great job in working with the federal government and working with companies and the sector to make sure that we had in place the supports for innovation and expansion that are needed, and the kind of stability that’s needed in the sector, because, as you know, the agri-food sector struggles with the vagaries of weather and those kinds of unpredictable changes that may happen.

One of the significant improvements to Growing Forward 2 this year is that food processing is now included. So it’s not just the producers; it’s also the processors. There were many processors at the table yesterday at the Toronto Region Board of Trade, and so we’re working with them and Growing Forward 2 is supporting them in a very concrete way in their innovation, the acquisition of technology, and in supporting their businesses.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday in committee, the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, those people that represent us in our communities, obtaining the best rates possible for our homes, health and cars, implied that the idea of a 15% reduction in auto insurance is a pipe dream. Costs in the system are high and premiums just don’t come down because you wish them to. They’ve seen no credible plan come out of your ministry, and without one, the reductions are an illusion. Even if the reductions do occur, the brokers say that no one outside the GTA will ever see those reductions.

I’m from St. Thomas. We have good drivers there and the city consistently has one of the lowest rates of accidents per insured vehicle in the province. Minister, why do you not think good drivers in my riding, in Collingwood, Timiskaming, Cochrane, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Kenora or any other towns and cities outside of the GTA deserve any reduction?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I really appreciate the question. I’m not sure where the member has been for the last two years, because that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. We’ve been working with the industry, finding ways to reduce those very issues and those costs. We’ve implemented, in our strategy, safe driver protection so that those who are safe drivers, who do have good records, get better benefits.

It’s working, because, as I’ve mentioned in the past, we have press releases from various insurance providers who have already started to reduce rates. You’ve already admitted that they already have reduced costs, so that’s a good thing for those communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m not sure, Mr. Speaker, if I did actually say they’d reduced costs, but I’m saying you promised a 15% reduction in auto insurance when in fact you cannot deliver that outside of the GTA.

It’s not surprising, though, that you took this idea from the NDP, who a few months ago introduced a bill that would lower premiums for drunk drivers across this province.

The PC Party has a plan, and I wish the minister would implement it. We’ve told you for months now to reduce the red tape and bureaucracy in the system, reform the dispute resolution process, and actually take that anti-fraud task force report that’s sitting on the desk beside Drummond’s and implement it and ensure that we have increased insurer accountability. As our leader, Tim Hudak, said yesterday, we have the ideas. You’re welcome to steal any one you want.

The experts agreed in the committee that your 15% pledge is unattainable. It’s disrespectful, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to tell the Ontario people to stand by his pledge of—an empty promise. Will you stop playing the shell games and admit you have no plan to achieve savings for all Ontarians—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What’s really rich is that johnny-come-lately all of a sudden is talking about reducing rates.

We have already instituted rate reductions, in 2004. We’ve taken the anti-fraud task force recommendations, and we have been implementing them. We have releases from CAA and the Co-operators advancing the reductions in costs, and we’ve taken the steps necessary to reduce them over the last two years.

The member opposite is talking about the very issues, like dispute resolution, that w