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

March 27, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-27 (PDF)

L018 - Wed 27 Mar 2013 / Mer 27 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 March 2013 Mercredi 27 mars 2013

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SKILLED TRADES

SKILLED TRADES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TAXATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

POWER PLANTS

CASINOS

SENIORS’ SAFETY

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

TIRE DISPOSAL

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

DEFERRED VOTES

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 35

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AUTISM

HOLI FESTIVAL

LIFE OF PI

PROPERTY TAXATION

EMPLOYMENT

TIRE DISPOSAL

DIALYSIS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PRESERVING EXISTING

COMMUNITIES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À PRÉSERVER

LES COLLECTIVITÉS EXISTANTES

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’OMBUDSMAN

(SOCIÉTÉS D’AIDE À L’ENFANCE)

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

(RESOURCES PROCESSED

IN ONTARIO), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

(RESSOURCES TRANSFORMÉES

EN ONTARIO)

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

AIR-RAIL LINK

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

LANDFILL

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILDREN’S PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION

LYME DISEASE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

OPPOSITION DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my record. Yesterday, when referring to testimony from cabinet staffer Tiffany Turnbull, who told us she saw at least one Project Vapour-lock email every week, I stood and said we had absolutely no Vapour-lock documents. I was, of course, referring to the Vapour-lock documents she swore she saw, which, as we confirmed, are indeed missing. They are indeed missing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member. As all members have the right to correct their record, the member has, and it is a point of order.

Point of order, the member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order to correct my record. I alluded to the fact yesterday that we saw some documents related to Project Vapour-lock and that we hadn’t seen any documents. I was referring to the documents Tiffany Turnbull was referring to in testimony yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. I do acknowledge that 99.99% of documents that we have to date do not contain the words “Project Vapour-lock,” and also in the same—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I accept the reality that people do correct the record, but it’s not to add any comment other than to correct the record, I remind the members.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 20, 2013, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: First of all, I’d like to note that I will be splitting my time this morning with the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

It’s my pleasure to rise today and speak to Premier McGuinty’s—I’m sorry, Premier Wynne’s—speech from the throne. So meet the new boss; same as the old boss. With all due respect, perhaps I should say that it’s the McWynnety government.

I believe the goal of government is to respect the people who elected it, to be committed and accountable to every taxpayer who pays the bills of the province. I have not seen that level of respect in the words of the speech from the throne, nor have I seen the commitment to accountability from this government in their actions thus far.

Mr. Speaker, over 600,000 men and women woke up this morning without a job to go to. In December, it was reported that the unemployment rate in Chatham–Kent–Essex was over 9%. Tinkering around the edges will not help these men and women; bold and decisive action will.

For over a year now, the Ontario PC Party have been putting ideas on the table that will help pull this province out of the mess created by a disastrous decade of the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals. These recommendations have gone unnoticed by this government.

Back in February, I sent out a news release to the local papers in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex with my initial reaction to the speech from the throne. One of my concerns with the speech from the throne had to do with farming in Ontario. At the time, I had mentioned I was concerned that the Premier and self-appointed Agriculture and Food Minister Wynne did not bother to mention any specific plans for agriculture. I wondered how seriously the Premier took the issues of farmers and their families.

The throne speech was made over five weeks ago, so let’s take a look at what has happened over the past few weeks. Since that time, it has become known that Premier Wynne was forced to hold a second, secret swearing-in ceremony as the new Minister of Agriculture and Food after forgetting the word “food” in the title. Well, forgetting the word could have been an honest mistake. Perhaps there was little time to juggle a key ministry while fulfilling the duties of running the province.

We know that the Premier didn’t have time to visit the 75th anniversary of the London Farm Show—Ontario’s largest indoor farm show, by the way, Speaker. It is somewhat of a tradition for agricultural ministers, as the former Minister of Agriculture knows, to attend, and many rural residents, including many from my riding, were surely disappointed by the fact that the Premier was a no-show. It would have been an opportunity to engage with rural Ontarians, but photo ops are more important, it seems.

The government has since introduced its Local Food Act, but many in the agriculture industry do not feel that this bill does enough to support farmers and local food. Although it contains some pleasantries, it does little to address the challenges that farmers are facing, such as endless amounts of red tape and increasing hydro costs.

Looking back to February, I was skeptical of a promise made by the Wynne Liberals to increase local decision-making powers. At the time, I said that it was too little, too late for my riding, as we’ve already been impacted by many projects. This is from the throne speech, and I’d like to get this into the record:

“Your government intends to work with municipalities on other issues, too.

“Because communities must be involved and connected to one another….

“They must have a voice in their future and a say in their integrated, regional development.

“So that local populations are involved from the beginning if there is going to be a gas plant or a casino or a wind plant or a quarry in their hometown.

“Because our economy can benefit from these things, but only if we have willing hosts.”

Interjections.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I must be hitting a nerve, Speaker, because they’re getting a little riled up on the government side. That’s a good thing, I must add. That’s a very good thing.

Interjection: When you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: That’s right.

In my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, you know, you can hardly look anywhere without seeing a wind turbine. Recently it was announced that an additional 124 turbines would be installed from the Chatham Municipal Airport to the western border of Ridgetown, south of the 401. Residents who are opposed to them feel helpless. Does this sound like a local population was involved from beginning to end? Sadly, it was too little, too late for the people of my riding.

Two other communities recently made the news for their desperate resistance to wind turbines. Bluewater, in the beautiful riding of Huron–Bruce, and West Grey, in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, have had their struggles in their fight against these projects.

The following is a quote from an

article in the Toronto Star on Friday, March 22: “Two rural Ontario municipalities are putting expensive … hurdles in front of wind farms in their communities.

“Councils in Bluewater, on the Lake Huron shoreline, and West Grey, about 165 kilometres northwest of Toronto, have passed bylaws squeezing more money from prospective wind developments.

“Politicians say they’re trying to protect the interests of their communities, where many people greet large-scale wind farms with apprehension: West Grey, for example, has formally declared itself an ‘unwilling host’ for big wind farms.” Good for them.

Specifically, West Grey passed a resolution back in 2010 asking the province for a moratorium on wind turbines until a proper study by a third party regarding the health, well-being and safety of residents near wind farms could, in fact, be established.

They, like many municipalities around this province, are trying to do what they feel is right for their communities. They are voicing the opinions of their people, who are opposed to having wind farms forced upon them by the heavy and all-too-distant hand of this provincial government.

The Liberal way forward: Fill up ridings you don’t hold with wind farms that residents don’t want, and then tell them that you value their input after ignoring them for years? Does that sound almost like an oxymoron? I ask: Do Bluewater and West Grey sound like local populations that were involved from beginning to end, as mentioned in the throne speech? Well, I think not.

Further on the issue of expanding local decision-making, I was saddened to hear that Premier Wynne has opposed the notions of citizens having a direct say in whether or not casinos are built in their neighbourhoods. It’s no surprise that the people of rural Ontario are so skeptical of Liberal promises.

One last element of the throne speech that drew my suspicion was the promise to work together and co-operate with the opposition. From the speech, I quote the following: “For the benefit of the entire province, your government intends to work with opposition parties, in a spirit of renewed co-operation, to get the people’s business done.”

Since the throne speech was delivered, it has been more of the same from the Liberals. Despite calls to be more co-operative, we are still faced with a government that must be dragged kicking and screaming to accountability. For example, in the last few weeks, we’ve learned that there are even more files on eHealth, and we have the justice committee still working hard, looking for answers in the gas plant scandal.

Speaker, I have a saying that I’d like to share, and I’m sure this House has heard it from time to time. It’s really simple: When you mess up, you fess up. I call on this government to get everything out in the open and clear your record. It’s one thing to quote renewal, but another thing altogether to achieve it.

In closing, I have some thoughts that I’d like to share with all members of this Legislature. It’s something that I strive to live by as well, and here are the thoughts to think on: Keep your thoughts positive, because your thoughts become your words. Keep your words positive, because your words become your actions. Keep your actions positive, because your actions become your habits. Keep your habits positive, because your habits become your destiny.

Though we’re only just a little over a month removed from the speech from the throne, the words found within have already given way to troubling actions. The Liberals have continued some habits—some of the same habits, rather—that have gotten Ontario into such a financial mess, with the same unwillingness to admit the error of their ways. In doing so, they may have just cemented their legacy.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: Just taking a couple of minutes here, joining the debate—

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

There seems to be a mix-up here. There was someone sharing their time; they didn’t stand up. So now we’ll go to questions and comments.

The member from Davenport.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thank you, Speaker. I’m happy to join the debate on a Wednesday morning here in Toronto. Grandma Grace, if you’re watching, good morning. Thanks for joining us.

Following on the comments of the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex on the throne speech from the new Premier—and I want to extend my congratulations to the new Premier and my commitment and, I think, our shared commitment in this caucus to actually get results in this Parliament.

People I speak to in Davenport are less concerned about which party you represent and instead how this Parliament is going to deliver for people in this province. So they don’t care if their food is brought to them by the Liberals or the Conservatives or the NDP; they just want to make sure that they have food. They don’t care if their job is brought to them by any particular party; they just want a job. That’s the thing we have to aim for here.

I heard some good things in the budget speech. The tone was kind. I think the member who just spoke speaks with a bit of resistance to actually working together. That is not a problem. I think that we absolutely need to work together, because the problems facing this province require co-operation. They’re challenging, they’re complex, and we need members in here to actually get to work and do that. I don’t really love the kind of resistance to working together.

However, I do resent the fact that the new Premier would insinuate that this is a new government, because it’s just clear: It doesn’t fool anybody in Davenport, and I don’t think it fools anybody in this province, to call this a new government. This is the same government, and it’s a government that has had 10 years now to deliver. We need to see the good intentions, the good words in that throne speech, met by some action.

I’m happy to read the newspaper this morning and see that the Liberal government has considered now some of the proposals we’re putting forward to actually regulate corporations in this province and make sure that people’s lives are a bit more affordable. We’ve got other ideas that are practical, that would get things moving here. I hope that they’ll include our proposal to close corporate tax loopholes so that we can actually get some funding that’s badly needed for Ontario.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I had the opportunity to listen to a very articulate speech from the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex. In fact, it would be nice to get that riding changed to Chatham–Kent–Leamington, which would actually reflect the geographic boundaries of that area, and I know the member wants to work on that.

Just a couple of things this morning: We’re very pleased that the Premier, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, yesterday announced three more agreements with the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario: Georgian Downs, in Innisfil; Fort Erie Race Track—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order.

Hon. Jeff Leal: —and of course, Flamboro—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, could we get a little louder, if you could? Guess what, folks? The hammer’s coming down today quickly.

Go ahead.

Hon. Jeff Leal: We’re making progress on that file, which is important for rural Ontario.

But one of the things I’m very concerned about in the Leamington area, of course—we have that fine operation, HJ Heinz, that was recently acquired by Warren Buffett. The federal government has proposed some changes to container sizes, and we’re troubled about that. The former Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr. McMeekin, has been pressuring the federal ag minister in Ottawa, Mr. Ritz, and the new minister has been pressuring him. We’re very concerned about this unregulated container size that may have a tremendous impact on that operation in Leamington—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Nepean–Carleton.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I know that the member supports it. He needs to work—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Okay. I’m glad that the member’s got her voice back, but the bottom line is, that’s her last warning.

Continue.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, if I get a little time put back on the clock, I also want to acknowledge a response that was made to the member’s colleague yesterday, the member from Perth–Wellington, when Minister Chiarelli said—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Your time’s up. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to follow up my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex. He gave a fine speech and identified quite a few of the shortcomings of this throne speech, which are many.

The government has managed to avoid a lot of the serious problems—nearly all the serious problems—that we have in this province of Ontario. They didn’t speak to our debt. They didn’t speak to our deficit. We’re not going to be able to meet the elimination of our deficit by 2017, like they keep saying they will. They keep trying to tell us that everything is under control, yet they haven’t talked about eliminating any serious spending.

The Green Energy Act is something we just cannot afford, and it’s going to cost us tens of billions of dollars. They haven’t talked about a wage freeze for public sector salaries, which is 55% of our budget in this province of Ontario, and we can’t get away with not doing that.

They haven’t talked about the unaffordability of our defined benefit pensions, which is a problem that is on the radar and that we can’t avoid, and we have to make serious changes there to install sustainability in the pensions for our public sector for the future.

They haven’t talked about job creation. They haven’t talked about the need to do labour reform. We have to do serious labour reform in the province of Ontario to create an environment where jobs can be created by the private sector. We need to change the apprenticeship ratio for trades; that would triple the number of apprentices that could be hired by industry when there’s a demand for those workers. They haven’t talked about changing training of people in community colleges to match workers who are trained to the needs of industry, which has been a shortcoming of our education system.

In short, they’ve missed the point, and we’re not going to get the job done.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s with pleasure that I rise to talk about the throne speech. There’s a lot of good things and very nice words that were said through the throne speech, which I can take back and talk to constituents back home. I’m looking forward to going back home over our constituency week and over the Easter weekend to have a chat with them.

One of the things that our party has been stressing, really, is a balanced approach and affordability. I can tell you what it doesn’t mean: Cutting ServiceOntario services throughout the north is what it doesn’t mean. That’s not a balanced or an affordable way of providing those services, which is exactly what this government is doing.

Cutting the ONTC services and not having a proper transportation strategy for northern Ontario: That is not what affordability and a balanced approach is. Not assisting a lot of seniors and underprivileged individuals throughout this province on their HST, which is a direct savings that could be done through eliminating it on their hydro bill, which is something that we had advocated for, for a very long time—these are some of the things that we’re looking to get done within this upcoming budget.

We’ve made suggestions to this government and we hope that we see them reflected in the upcoming budget that is going to come through. One of them is a 15% cut on auto insurance. That’s something that is balanced and affordable, and that is plausible that we can do. A five-day home care guarantee: Again, this is not something that is going to take this province to the bank. This is something that we know is needed in this province.

Eliminating those corporate tax loopholes: How can I go back home and explain that, “I’m sorry but your trip that you’re going to have at the restaurant or your evening that you’re going to take your kids out to the hockey game, you can’t write it off, but the bigger businesses can.” And that would bring a direct $1.3 billion back—maintain it—into this province. So, let’s look at this. Let’s take a balanced approach, and let’s keep affordability at the forefront.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Speaker. Again, I’d like to thank the members from Davenport, the Minister of Rural Affairs, from Peterborough; also the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills and, of course, the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for your comments. I do appreciate that very much.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that when you make a mistake, you should admit to it, or like I like to say, when you mess up, you fess up. Well, since I’ve been privileged to represent the members from Chatham–Kent–Essex since being elected back in October of 2011, I’ve yet to hear this government acknowledge mistakes. They won’t fess up, and yet we’ve seen lots of mess-ups, as I might add.

They talk a good game, Speaker; they truly do. I’ve got to give them credit for that. They talk a good game, but unfortunately, they’ve been talking a good game for the last 10 years, and we know where that’s taken us so far. The debt, when they came into power, was about $125 billion. Today, as it stands, it’s around $275 billion. I take a look at that and I say, “Well, that’s quite a track record.” Again, you know what? They talked a good game but they don’t walk their talk. They don’t do that. It’s spend, spend, spend. And, unfortunately, that has now got our province in a dire, dire strait, and it’s going to take a long time to start digging our way out of it.

Speaker, I’d like to remind the government and the opposition—the third party—that PCs have a plan. We have a plan to get this province back on track. We offer the hope that is needed; it’s our Paths to Prosperity. So far, we’ve issued around 12 or 13 different Paths to Prosperity in different ways, looking at different ministries to pull things out. Right now, this government is killing, and we hope that everything will get straightened around.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to stand and speak, always, on behalf of the people of Parkdale–High Park, and in fact for all Ontarians.

Because this is the throne speech, in case people are wondering what we’re debating—and it’s actually the very first motion that the government put forward, and a confidence one at that—I just wanted to take the opportunity, because I haven’t had that opportunity before, to congratulate the new Premier, Premier Wynne, the first woman—as a feminist, I applaud that—and also the first openly gay woman, and I applaud that as well, as someone who has been active on the LBGT file for 40 years now—40 years; who knew I was that old? So congratulations; two firsts. I just wanted to make sure that I extended that.

When we’re talking about the throne speech, of course we’re talking about something that deals in generalities. My first reaction, I have to say, to the throne speech and to the generalities that were put forward was that this was a pretty utopian document. I mean, if you actually look through it and read what has been promised, you’re really looking at a completely and utterly transformed Ontario that looks, really, nothing like the Ontario that we all live in.

I know that she wasn’t planning on being facetious, but towards the end of the throne speech it says, “We will not over-promise.” Well, my goodness, the promises abound for the first few pages of the throne speech, so I wanted to look at some of those promises. After all, this isn’t a new government. It’s a new Premier, but it’s not a new government. It’s a government that has been in place for 10 long years—for 10 years—most of that time in a majority role. We all know in this place that when you’re the majority government, you can do just about anything you want. The opposition can scream and yell, rant and rave, but the government has its way, and that’s the reality.

So what has this government done with its way over 10 years? What is the end result? I remind everyone who’s listening and watching that Premier Wynne was at the cabinet table for most of that time—not all of that time—and that she voted with the government, with Dalton McGuinty, on all of those major objectives.

For example, someone who came from a background in education as a trustee, who was known as “progressive” back then—this is a woman who stood up and voted with Dalton McGuinty and the cabinet for Bill 115, one of the most regressive pieces of legislation that collective bargaining and that unions have seen in this province for a long time—since the Mike Harris days. She voted for it. She did not absent herself; she did not vote against it; she did not sit on her hands. She voted for it. The damage of that bill is still being undone in our schools.

This is a government, I remind you, that has the worst record, the absolutely worst record, of investment in post-secondary education. We have the worst investment per capita in our students of any province in Canada. We also have the highest student debt of any province in Canada. We have the highest tuition fees of any province in Canada. Yet in the throne speech it talks a great deal about youth—youth employment, working with colleges and universities. Yet after 10 years, that’s the net result of a Liberal government: the worst record on post-secondary education in Canada.

Let’s take another file that’s near and dear to my heart, and that’s housing: the absolute worst record in Canada on an investment-per-capita basis on bringing forth any sort of new housing—any sort of new housing. Of course, this is a government that will say, “Well, it’s the federal government’s fault.” Well, of course it is, in part. Federally, we need a national housing program. But this government, this provincial Liberal government, has had a role to play and has not played it, has not done what it should be doing.

Hence, we have over 150,000 families waiting an average of 10 to 12 years for a place to live. That’s an abysmal record. That’s an abysmal record—over 70,000 in the GTA alone. These are real families with real stories. This is the record of this government after 10 years, most of which was majority, most of which the current Premier sat at the cabinet table and voted in lockstep with the designs of the rest of her party, and that’s the end result of it.

Look at the poverty file: We have high hopes on this side in the New Democratic Party for action on that file, but what have we seen after 10 years of Liberal rule? Again, with the current Premier at the cabinet table, we’ve seen one of the worst records in poverty. These are the so-called social justice portfolios. This is supposed to be a social justice Premier, and yet we have one in seven children living in poverty in the province of Ontario—one in seven. We have one of the worst records of families living in poverty, and again, under this government’s watch, we cut back on the community start-up funds.

These are the funds accessed by people on social assistance if they have to move or if they’re a woman who’s fleeing a domestic violence situation in her own home. She has to access those funds, otherwise she doesn’t have the money to get out and to get safe for herself and her children. This government cut those funds—they cut those funds. A social justice Premier cut those funds. That’s the reality on the ground, the lived experience of Ontarians after 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard a lot of talk about integrity and forward thinking in the throne speech, a lot of utopian language, one might say. Yet over 10 years we have seen one after another scandal—scandals that speak to a lack of integrity, scandals like the gas plant, the so-called Project Vapour; scandals like the debacle at Ornge; $1 billion wasted on eHealth.

When you look at what is similar about all of these scandals, you see Liberal appointees making huge sums of money, spending huge sums of money, billions of dollars that could have gone to help that woman fleeing that domestic violence, could have gone to help that child have a decent breakfast so that they could study in school. That money could have gone to all of the above.

This so-called social justice Premier at the cabinet table was in lockstep with the political decisions, many of them to spend that money in that way and still continue to spend that money in that way in many of these government agencies, and yet not on the files that the spin would have us say is indicative of a progressive government.

Let’s look at transit: It got a lot of play in the media, but might I point out that after 10 years of Liberal government, most of it in majority with the current Premier at the cabinet table, almost $5 billion was taken out of Transit City, setting us up for failure. We over here in the New Democratic Party supported Transit City. We supported uploading the cost of the operations of the Toronto Transit Commission, which is what past governments have done. This government had 10 years to act on the transit file, and what have they done? Has it affected one person, Mr.

Speaker, waiting for a bus, waiting for a streetcar, waiting for a subway in the city of Toronto? I can tell you that in my riding of Parkdale–High Park, there is a great deal of concern about transit, and they look again to this government and their past record and they don’t see much action at all. They see a lot of spin. Remember Move 2020? Remember that one? We’re not moving, and we’re getting closer to the year 2020. We’re not moving at all.

One can say that the people of my riding of Parkdale–High Park treat anything that comes out of this government, now that they’ve pressed the reset button, with a fair degree of scepticism. Where’s the transit? After all the announcements, shovels in the ground, where’s the transit? So that’s the transit file. Now we’re hearing, “Well, maybe that will all change with the budget.” We live in hope in the New Democratic Party.

In fact, a very loud message came through to me from my constituents that they want to see things done. As you heard from the member from Davenport, they don’t care what colour it is that accomplishes what needs to be accomplished; they just need something—anything—to be accomplished. That’s what they need.

They said to me, very clearly, “Work with the government. Get what you can done.” That’s what we’re doing. But we’re feeling frustrated because, after all, we’ve now seen the new Premier, the socially progressive Premier, in place for, what is it, just over a month now.

What are the bills that are coming forward from the government? What are the bills coming forward? Well, the good food act—I mean, please. With all the promises for a utopian Ontario in the throne speech, we get a good food week? Is that what we get? A good food week—is that really the best that can come forward?

After all the promises in the throne speech, after all of the promises, do we get a very, very limp bill, the Ornge bill, that even the current administration at Ornge says won’t solve the problem—after all the promises for a utopian Ontario, is this what we get? Action on our member’s bill on tanning beds? I mean, it’s an important bill; it’s an important action. But, really?

I don’t see anything about tanning beds, I don’t see anything about good food weeks, and I don’t see anything about lip service to a new administration at Ornge in the throne speech. I see grand vision and huge promises of a utopian Ontario, but, a month in, I don’t see the bills to back it up. I don’t see the discussion or the debate in this place to bring anything of these promises into fruition.

Now, we’re practical in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, as you know. We are practical. We are asking the bare minimum of this government in order to support them in the budget—the bare minimum. We get that this will not be a New Democratic Party budget. We were not the government. We wish that we were; we are not. But we need a bare minimum—a bare minimum. We would be satisfied with a bare minimum, not the lofty dreams and goals of the throne speech—just the bare minimum.

Action on closing corporate tax loopholes is almost $2 billion in corporate tax loopholes, so that would feed a lot of children breakfast. That would provide a lot of housing. That would provide transit. Almost $2 billion, but nothing, nada: We’re not seeing—we’re hearing. We’re hearing the talk; we’re not seeing the action on closing those corporate tax loopholes. Again, a bare minimum demand.

We’re asking for the First Start jobs youth program, a very concrete suggestion that we’ve put forward about jobs for youth because, after all, we’ve lost hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs and replaced them, as we’ve heard, with precarious employment. Some 50% of all the jobs in the GTA are precarious. That means, in answer to the question, “Do you think you’ll have your job next year?” the answer was no. This is the reality of working in the GTA, working in our province. We’ve asked for action on that; but good food week? I don’t think good food week’s going to cut it.

We’ve asked for a five-day home care guarantee. Again, over and over again, our leader, Andrea Horwath, has asked about a commitment to that one small demand. It’s not a huge demand; it’s a small demand, a bare minimum demand for support. We haven’t heard, Mr. Speaker, a promise.

So we still have seniors and others languishing, and this makes no economic sense, of course, many of them in high-expense emergency-ward beds waiting for good home care, and they’re not getting it.

We have asked for a 15% cut to auto insurance rates. We’re going to be debating that this afternoon. We’re hearing some positive signs, but they’re signs only. We haven’t heard concrete commitments to reducing the insurance burden on our drivers. Many folk in the 905 have to get to work. They’re in those precarious jobs as well. They need this. This is the bare minimum they need. And I want to say again that this is not the utopian grand vision of the throne speech. This is a simple, little, practical demand. Can they do it? We haven’t heard yet.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On the poverty file—and I speak directly to my friend the Minister of Community and Social Services on this one—we are hoping for the bare minimum demand, the $200 that people get when they work or if they get money from other sources and they’re on social assistance, which, by the way, is so pathetically low. You can’t live on $600 in the city of Toronto, and yet we claw back earnings. You can barely live on ODSP, and that’s just around the $1,000 mark. And we claw back anything they earn? What kind of justice or morality is that?

We’ve asked for the bare minimum, that the clawbacks end for that $200. There’s lots more we need—my goodness, lots more we need—but this is the bare minimum. We haven’t seen a bill yet; we haven’t seen action yet.

We’ve also heard, of course, about balancing the books. We hear from our friends to the right of us, literally and figuratively, that they’d like to see more balancing of the books. They pointed out, and quite rightly, about how this government has doubled the real debt, as well as, of course, the deficit. What they failed to point out is that the New Democratic Party has the very best record of balancing the books across Canada in provincial governments—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not in Ontario.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: —except for one notable exception, and that was a gentleman called Bob Rae. All I can say is Bob’s their uncle now. Bob is now the leader of the Liberal Party. He’s the only exception to that rule. So not only have we got the best record of balancing the books, but of course, the Liberals, as one might expect, have the worst in provincial leadership.

Again, we have called—and I was heartened to read our leader’s words, “A balanced approach to a balanced budget.” I was heartened to read that those very words were used in the throne speech by the new Premier Wynne herself. A balanced approach to a balanced budget—have we seen that? We haven’t seen that action yet.

This is the problem. Really, between the thought and the act falls the shadow, if I might paraphrase. Here we have the thought, the throne speech, with its grand vision of a completely new Ontario—not the Ontario any of us live in, particularly those who have lost jobs, live in poverty, are about to be evicted, youth unemployed. It’s not that Ontario, but a new Ontario. It’s all outlined. It’s beautifully done in the throne speech.

Yet in the months that we have hit the reset button, that we have a new Premier, we have the same old actions. We have bills that accomplish virtually nothing, put forward with great debate as if they accomplish a great deal. We don’t see anything in the throne speech reflected in the bills put forward in the last month. And this, after all, is a Legislature that deals with bills. It deals with laws and changes to laws. Where are the new laws? Where are the courageous bills that would bring us a new province?

Where is the dramatic action that would feed the children, house the homeless, get kids who can’t afford to back into universities, provide jobs for the young? Where is any of that? It isn’t in this chamber. It isn’t here.

We, in the New Democratic Party, want to make this government work. We want to see the government live up to its throne speech. That’s what we’d like to see. We would like to see the action from across the aisle that they have outlined in this throne speech, and we live in hope. I’ll leave it at that.

It’s Easter week. We all live in hope, and we wait to see the actual legislation.

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

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have listened very attentively to the member from Parkdale–High Park in response to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

On some of the things that the member has said, I don’t fault her, and I have to agree. Of course, when we come into the House and we express our views, they are expressed in this House, and of course we are protected by our own laws if we are right or wrong.

But I have to say that I want to pick on one particular item, and it’s transportation. As someone that has been around for a few years now—I have served in the good old city of North York; some of us may remember that. I also served on Metro council, and I served as chair of the transportation committee at the time, afterwards serving in this wonderful place here, sir.

I remember that when we had an NDP administration in the city of Toronto, we were delayed five years—five years—to get the content and approval for the subway extension to York University, which is a city in itself. On a daily basis, we have some 55,000 people, between students, professors and teachers.

But the fact is this, Speaker: When I came to this House, then we got the approval to go through, and the new NDP mayor delayed for three years, because they couldn’t decide if they wanted the subway extension or they should have an LRT. They couldn’t decide it.

We thought, personally, “We have $8.4 billion on the table.” We’ve been saying—the Premier has been saying, the former and the present—“Get on with it. The money is there. Get on with it.” So it’s not us, Speaker. Let’s look at somebody else.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to have a moment or two to respond to the remarks made by the member for Parkdale–High Park.

I would certainly agree with her that the question of over-promising in this throne speech is a point that we should certainly all look at in terms of what in fact was said. The throne speech is something that should set a tone and provide a vision and certainly an idea of what to expect in the future. But what we saw in this was the platitudes. One of them was “without letting anyone slip through the cracks.” I couldn’t help but wonder about the 600,000 people who are unemployed in this province and if they would see themselves as people who haven’t slipped through the cracks.

Another one that I think is a little difficult to juxtapose against the realities we face is again a quote: “A clear message that Ontario’s finances are in steady hands....” Well, when we look at the committees that are investigating Ornge and the gas plant move, we’re looking at—maybe those are steady hands, but they’re certainly not ones that operated in the interests of the people of Ontario.

It’s very clear that there’s a reason why, in the lead-up to her winning leadership of the party, Premier Wynne never once talked about fiscal responsibility. It is in no literature; it is in no speeches that have circulated.

I think that those things are reason for us to feel we cannot accept this throne speech.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: It’s a pleasure to stand up and respond to some of the comments that were made by my colleague the member from Parkdale–High Park.

I wanted to elaborate on one of the points that she raised, and that’s about home care. In the throne speech, it does state that the “government will continue to expand support available for people in their homes, and to address the needs of men and women across Ontario currently waiting for the home care services they require.”

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to go to Rainy River, where I met with a 90-year-old woman. She is very capable; she’s very independent. She’s really quite an amazing and impressive woman. She lives on her own; she takes care of herself.

She had the misfortune of injuring herself. She went to her doctor, and she was extremely concerned. She was concerned about her health, but she was also concerned about her independence. Her doctor then prescribed home care. He really tried to set her mind at ease, and he assured her that she would be looked after when she returned from the doctor in Fort Frances to Rainy River.

Now, Mr. Speaker, she has waited and waited. She has called the number that they’ve given her for home care services, and nobody has called her back. In the interim, she has had a bandage that has needed changing. She has had to rely on the emergency room services in Rainy River—thank goodness, they’re still there—and she has had to rely on her friends. This is a woman who is falling through the cracks, and she’s afraid. As I said, she’s afraid for her health; she’s afraid for her independence. She’s otherwise very healthy and very capable.

This is a prime example: If we were to put these supports in place to help people to live in their homes longer, it’s better for her; it’s better for the system.

So I am calling on the MPPs to come together, to work together, and to implement the five-day home care guarantee, because this is something that is within our power right now and we can make these changes in the budget.

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

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to rise in this House this morning and talk about the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne, as we all know, is a document which sets out the government’s vision and also a plan for the year to come. In this document, the Premier lays out our government’s vision for economic growth, job creation and also building a fair society in this wonderful province of ours, Ontario.

In this document, the Premier talks about job creation. Over the past few weeks, since this government came to office, we have done quite a lot, actually. I’m just going to mention a few items.

For example, in my ministry, we have invested $100 million in the Ontario Brain Institute. This investment is going to leverage a $150-million investment from other sources. The scientists, the neurologists—500 of them in Ontario—are going to continue the world-class research on discoveries, on making people’s lives much easier, and on making treatment of diseases such as dementia, Alzheimer’s and other diseases—which have their origins in the brain—much easier for the people of Ontario.

We have invested $36 million in 17 research projects in the city of Toronto, and we have invested $50 million in the creation of the new venture capital, which is going to attract $250 million from other sources, including from our federal government.

These are some of the economic measures we have done just in the past few weeks, since we came to office.

In the area of university students’ fees, we continue to reduce the fees for 30% of students. Ontario university students have the lowest tuition fees in the province, actually, when you take 30% off—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

The member from Parkdale–High Park has two minutes.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I remember very well the Minister of Transportation standing in this House and saying, in answer to a question, that it’s a good thing for a politician to under-promise and over-deliver. I think, in summing up the throne speech, what I would say is it’s a huge over-promise, and what we have seen is an enormous under-delivery. That’s not just true of the throne speech. It’s true of the last 10 years of Liberal rule in the province of Ontario, and it’s beginning to tell.

When the bills that come forward in the first few weeks of the new Premier’s situation here in Ontario are things like a good food week, they’re not delivering on what the people of Ontario need. They need jobs; they need health care.

We in the New Democratic Party have made some very, very small demands of this government, and we haven’t seen action on any of them yet. We’ve asked for the closing of corporate loopholes. That’s $2 billion that could go to alleviating the problems of this province. We’ve asked for home care. We’ve asked for a five-day guarantee on wait on home care; we haven’t seen it. We’ve asked for action on poverty, the very minimum action, to end the clawbacks; we haven’t seen it. We’ve asked for action on youth getting jobs, and quite frankly, we haven’t seen it. We’ve asked for action on insurance rates.

We’ve heard some noises, Mr. Speaker, but we haven’t seen it. Again, even on the modicum of demands we’ve made, we haven’t seen action, and yet the promises of the throne speech are nothing if not grandiose and utopian. We have grandiose promises but very little delivery. Let’s see some delivery, I ask my friends from across the aisle. Let’s see some action. We live in hope. All of Ontario is waiting. Let’s do it. Let’s get going.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Pursuant to standing order 42(a), there have been 12 hours of debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I’m now required to put the question.

On February 20, 2013, Ms. Wong moved, seconded by Mr. McNeely, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session.”

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour of Ms. Wong’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Orders of the day?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I know everybody’s anticipating this motion, and no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There being no further business for the moment, the House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 0957 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to introduce to the House two guests: Catherine Duval-Russell and Helene Paulyn. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to welcome the Westwater family from my riding of Oakville. Noah is a grade 7 student at Maple Grove Public School. He wants to spend a lot more time here; he’s applying for the page program. He’s joined by his sister Brooke, who’s in Grade 5, and his mother, Susan, one of Ontario’s great elementary school teachers.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome today, in the west gallery, Jeannette Chau and Scott Clark from the Ontario professional engineers association.

Mr. John Vanthof: Eric Guild is page captain today, and on this proud day, he is joined by his family, Kristen Guild, Angela Rowan and Dean Wallace. I’d like to welcome them to the House.

Hon. Michael Chan: From the wonderful riding of Markham–Unionville, I would like to welcome my constituent Joyce Riettie and Royston Richards from Jamaica.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to welcome back into the gallery my good friend, a young friend from North Bay, Ishmael Van Der Rassel.

Mr. Norm Miller: I am pleased to welcome to the members’ west gallery Harold Wilson, PC candidate for the riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Kyara Wendling is a page here, and her sisters are joining her today in the west gallery: Matteya and Justine Wendling from Port Colborne.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome here at Queen’s Park today Asquith Allen from my riding of York–South Weston. He is VP of the federal and Ontario Young Liberals.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we need to put this down in history: I have to admonish somebody for heckling a guest.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And he’s still at it.

Mr. John O’Toole: From the great riding of Durham, I’d like to recognize page Andrew Hodgins and his parents, Charisma and Allan Hodgins, in the west gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce three people from my riding of St. Paul’s. First is Mark Tishman, who is my constituency assistant; with him are James Molloy, an intern at my office, and Ehssan Taghavi, who is also helping to volunteer at my CO.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Save your voice.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. We owe an obligation to our youth to provide every opportunity we can for them to find good, well-paying jobs and to clear aside unnecessary obstacles to employment. We’ve heard quite clearly from Ontario manufacturers, industry, that the journeyman-to-apprentice ratio is an artificial barrier that belongs back in the 1970s. We have a plan that will help create 200,000 jobs—good, well-paying jobs—in the skilled trades today by modernizing our apprenticeship system and helping young people find opportunity in this great province.

I ask the Premier: Will you support the PC plan to bring our apprenticeship system into the 21st century?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities is going to want to address this issue specifically. I want to make the overarching comment, Mr. Speaker, that we are very, very concerned about making sure that young people are prepared for and have the training for the jobs that are available.

I’ve said consistently through the leadership and into this first period as Premier that the mismatch between labour force and labour market is something that really does have to be addressed, and I think it’s something that can be addressed if government works in partnership with business and works in partnership with labour.

In the jobs round tables that we’ve been holding around the province, this is a theme that we’ve heard over and over again. There are businesses that are willing and wanting to work with government, Mr. Speaker. The education sector wants to work with us so we can make that matchup work much better for young people.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I do appreciate that the Premier is very concerned, in her words, on the mismatch between training and job opportunities. We agree, and that’s why we’ve brought forward initiatives to actually help address that, to clear aside an old, outdated piece of regulation from the 1970s. Granted, Speaker, the 1970s had some good things about it, but there are some things we should leave in the past: for example, disco, bell-bottoms and this outdated red tape that is having a real impact on our young people, preventing them from moving into good jobs.

I want to commend my colleague from Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, who probably knows more about the skilled trades in Ontario than any of us here in the assembly. Mr. Dunlop is bringing forward a bill for second reading tomorrow entitled Helping Ontarians Enter the Skilled Trades Act. It will modernize the system to help connect people with jobs.

I ask you, Premier: Will the Ontario Liberal Party support this piece of legislation that would create 200,000 skilled trades jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: First off, Mr. Speaker, their piece of legislation will not create any jobs. Apprenticeship ratios don’t create jobs; projects create jobs. Investment in a skilled workforce creates jobs. A competitive corporate tax environment creates jobs. Apprenticeship ratios do not create jobs. I had the opportunity to meet with the CMA as well yesterday, and we had a very good talk about apprenticeship ratios.

Mr. Speaker, here’s where we differ from the opposition: We’re of the view that politicians should not be dictating this policy; that those that know the skilled trades—the industry itself—should have a say on apprenticeship ratios. We think that’s a more responsible way to make those decisions. I don’t know why the opposition are not onside with us on that.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, I started out hopeful with the Premier’s initial answer, and then she handed it off to the minister, who’s just giving us these stale, outdated talking points that just don’t reflect the realities of the economy. It’s certainly going to be disappointing for all those young people who want to get into the skilled trades in our province, be it the electricians, mechanics or precision machine operators.

I ask the minister—he says that industry should decide this issue. When the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says the single biggest obstacle preventing people from getting into skilled trades is this outdated journeyman-to-apprentice ratio—if you believe industry should say it—and the CFIB has said this—then surely you will put your old Dalton McGuinty talking points aside, with all due respect to the gentleman in the House here today, and you will support instead somebody who knows far more about the skilled trades, Garfield Dunlop. Will you, Minister, support this important piece—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to take a fresh approach, then he wouldn’t want to be sticking to the status quo when it comes to making important decisions with regard to the skilled trades: apprenticeship ratios, issues to do with compulsory trades.

We’re of the view that the days when politicians made those decisions in backrooms at Queen’s Park should be gone. We’re of the view that the College of Trades, which will take into consideration the expertise within the industry, is much better qualified—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re of the view that the people who work in the skilled trades are much better qualified to make these decisions than the Leader of the Opposition. So we’re not going to stick with the status quo like the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. We’re going to move forward to a new, exciting future—

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

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll go back to the Premier on the same topic. I had hoped for better.

Considering that the unemployment rate among youth today, Premier, as you know, is 16.2%—here in the city of Toronto, it’s even greater: high double digits, near 20%—I regret that the minister seems to be putting the special interests and the status quo ahead of the 200,000 youth who could benefit directly from Garfield Dunlop’s bill.

I’m for moving forward. I’m for moving into the 21st century in these policies. I’m for joining the other seven provinces that are moving in this direction. I’m for Garfield Dunlop’s bill. I’m for more good, well-paying jobs in the skilled trades.

I’ll ask the minister: If almost every other province has moved in this direction, why is your government stuck in the 1970s when it comes to how it’s approaching this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not stuck in the 1970s. In terms of age, that wouldn’t be a bad thing for me, but I’m not.

Mr. Speaker, all of us agree in this House that we want our young people to be able to find jobs. We have done so much in terms of providing opportunities. Yesterday I was in Clinton. I had the opportunity to meet with some students who are taking

part in an agriculture Specialist High Skills Major. Specialist High Skills Majors were introduced under Premier Dalton McGuinty, and they have been a huge opportunity for young people to have co-op opportunities, to have the chance to learn—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Northumberland, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and to get some very specific skills so that when they graduate from high school, they’re ready to go into a skilled trade or they’re ready to go into a college program.

That’s the kind of thing we need to be doing: dual credits, Mr. Speaker, working to make sure that the placements, internships and co-ops are in place. That’s why working with business, labour and government, we can solve those problems.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think the Premier is mischaracterizing this issue. There are graduates from the Specialist High Skills Majors, there are graduates from pre-apprenticeship training programs and there are graduates from apprenticeship programs who can’t find job opportunities in our province. The jobs are actually there, to be clear, but this outdated rule on the apprenticeship ratios has prevented them from moving into jobs here.

By way of example, a young man I met in Cornwall wanted to be an electrician—a burning desire to be an electrician. He even had a small business—his name is Ryan—who would hire him. But because the employer, the small business, did not have enough journeymen, he was not able to hire young Ryan, who couldn’t get the job.

I worry that young talent is going to leave our province. They’ll go to British Columbia; they’ll go to Alberta; they’ll go to BC. When I talk to these students, almost universally they say they’ve lost friends and family to other provinces.

Premier, why are you putting special interests ahead of these young people who want—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Leader of the Opposition is just plain wrong. We’ve doubled the amount of opportunities for young people, from 60,000 apprenticeships, when we took office, to 120,000. We want to do more. That’s why we have an Apprenticeship Tax Credit that’s providing incentives to businesses to hire apprentices.

I think, though, what the Leader of the Opposition is not doing is telling the full story here, because if we were to go to a one-to-one ratio across the board, what the Leader of the Opposition isn’t saying is how many thousands of journeymen would his party be putting out of work. What would that do to the long-term sustainability of the skilled trades as a career that we want to encourage our young people to get into?

Mr. Speaker, it’s important that they tell the full story. We don’t think politicians ought to be making these decisions; we think they should be left to the people in the skilled trades.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I would give a suggestion to the minister. Maybe if he could spend even one day travelling with Garfield Dunlop to every corner of this province, talking to people here, to understand better how this will create 200,000 jobs.

When I see the Heavy Construction Association of Toronto, Merit Ontario, the Ontario Electrical League, the Ontario General Contractors Association, the Ontario road builders, the sewer and water main, the CFIB—all of these employers that say, “We want to hire more people. We want to put more people to work in the skilled trades that are out there. We’ve got their resumés. We’ve got jobs lined up for them, but the Ontario Liberal Party and the special interests are putting roadblocks in our way.”

Clear those roadblocks aside. Take the system into the 21st century. Put 200,000 skilled trades workers in the province to work today. Help our young people. Extend that hand. Why won’t you get out of the 1970s, join the 21st century and create 200,000 jobs—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Just a reminder that when the Leader of the Opposition was asking the question, I was hearing the same comments coming out of almost the same people while he’s asking the question. That means you’re heckling your leader. And for those—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, I’m not finished yet—which also means that as soon as I ask for that attention, it does not mean that this side needs to carry on either.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As well, the member from Renfrew, thank you for your help, but I’ll do it myself.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s offer to spend a day with his colleague, but I would suggest maybe his colleague should want to spend a day with me as well, because he would spend some time talking to real tradespeople out there, people like a young man by the name of Jason Yull, a carpenter. This is what Jason had to say: “Somebody sitting behind a desk making decisions for tradespeople doesn’t have the same effect as a bunch of people who are out in the field seeing every day what goes on and what needs to be done.”

We agree with Jason. We think those decisions ought to be left up to those who know the field better than we do sitting here at Queen’s Park, the skilled tradespeople across this province. That’s why we set up the College of Trades, and the College of Trades will promote the skilled trades as a viable career opportunity for our young people right across this province.

Mr. Speaker, they should be onside with us on this. I can’t understand, for the life of me, why they’re not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Interjection.

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, come to order. When I ask you for order, it doesn’t mean carry on; it means stop.

The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. As the Premier knows, New Democrats have made it clear that we want to see results for people in the upcoming budget. One of the issues we’ve raised is the fact that Ontarians’ auto insurance premiums are the highest in Canada and they need to come down. Is the Premier now indicating that she’s prepared to act?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I’ve been very clear that we want to take action on this issue. More than a year ago, I had a round table in my own riding where we talked about the cost of auto insurance. Through the leadership campaign, particularly in Mississauga and Brampton, I heard concerns about the cost of auto insurance. We are going to take action, and that’s why the Minister of Finance is working with the industry.

I’ve been very clear that the costs of fraud that are in the system need to be taken out, and implementing the recommendations of the anti-fraud task force is very important to me. So I am very willing to take action, and those conversations are happening in the run-up to the budget between the finance minister and the industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have been very clear that we want to see a 15% reduction, and we want to see the Financial Services Commission of Ontario have a mandate, a real mandate, to get us there over the next year. What steps has the Premier actually taken to achieve this, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I think I said what we are doing. We are determined to take action. We are looking for the ways to do that. I think one of the important ways that we need to do that is to implement the recommendations of the anti-fraud task force. I think there are hundreds of millions of dollars that can come out of the system. What we need to do is make sure that we can tie those reductions to a premium reduction for drivers, Mr. Speaker.

So the principle underlying the question from the leader of the opposition and the principle underlying the opposition day motion is a principle we can agree with: that the reductions in auto insurance need to be put in place. That’s why the Minister of Finance is working with the industry to find the ways of doing that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier forgot to talk about the $2 billion annually that the insurance industry is gaining from previous decisions that this government has made, while reducing benefits for drivers. Ontarians are paying the highest premiums in Canada, and they’re expecting some real change to make life more affordable.

In the past, the Premier has indicated that a 15% reduction in premiums was going to be too big of a challenge. It’s clear that she’s hearing from the same people we are that life has become completely unaffordable and they actually want to see some real change in their rates.

When will the Premier be contacting FSCO and giving them a mandate to reduce rates by an average of 15% over the coming year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the House that it was this side of the government that introduced legislation at the time, in 2004, to reduce insurance premiums, and we did it in a gradual and a concerted effort in dealing with the industry. The NDP know this all too well, because they themselves have recognized that they need to take a gradual approach, recognizing that the impact is very complex. It’s not a direct, proportionate amount of a reduction unless we deal with the fraud and the cost of claims, and that is what we’re addressing.

We’re dealing with the industry. We welcome the input by the third party. We’ll continue to do what we always do on this side of the House, and that’s work in the best interests of the public and ensure that premium rates go down. And I should say this: Premium rates have gone down last year because the efforts that we provided through the task force are taking results. So we will continue to do what’s necessary, and we’ll continue to work with the NDP to make sure it happens.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier as well. We’ve been really clear that in the coming budget we need to see some results and not just conversation. We’ve laid out some very clear and achievable goals that we know people want to see to make life a little more affordable and to ensure the budget is fair.

Is the government still planning to open up a brand new tax loophole for Ontario’s biggest corporations so they can get a break on their HST while Ontario families are paying more?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we’re doing consultations around the province. In fact, the House should know that we have it on our website, so we’re asking everybody out there to come out and provide some input. We welcome the additions that anybody has in respect to what we should do to put forward a very constructive budget that meets the needs of the public.

The issues around tax compliance, tax avoidance, the issue around “What we are going to do to ensure the integrity of our revenue stream?” are critical, and I again applaud the NDP for also bringing that to the forefront, which we addressed with the federal government.

We’ll continue to work on those issues, as well as input tax credits, as well as the auto insurance that we’ve already mentioned and a number of other exemptions that have to be addressed, so that we provide integrity in our revenue stream as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families in Ontario are feeling extremely squeezed, and the Liberal government is now talking about squeezing them even more. At the same time, this government is opening a new tax loophole so the biggest corporations can get a break on the HST. Can the Premier commit today that she won’t be moving ahead with her new tax loophole?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As the member and the leader of the opposition, the third party, recognizes, the federal government’s engagement in this issue is critical. That’s why we have addressed the matter with them as well. We’ve called on the feds to work with us. We are taking steps to avoid those tax loopholes. We’re also trying to address the underground economy. We’re taking the necessary steps to ensure that the strong fundamentals of Ontario continue.

And let me rectify and correct the record that I hear oftentimes from the opposition. Ontario has produced over 600,000 new jobs since the recession—a net number of 400,000. What we’re doing is making a difference. We’re attracting investment. We’ve made it a very competitive jurisdiction in Ontario. People are investing in Ontario, companies are investing, and jobs are being created, and that’s what matters, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier claims she believes in a balanced approach, but her government is planning to open up new corporate tax loopholes worth over $1 billion annually. At the same time, they’re firing nurses. They’re scrambling to build casinos in communities that don’t want them, and they’re contemplating measures that will add new costs to household budgets.

The Premier says she wants an approach that’s balanced and fair. When will we hear her say, “Handing out massive tax breaks to Ontario’s wealthiest corporations isn’t something we can afford, and I’m going to stop it”? That’s what we’d like to hear her say.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a balanced approach. We are talking about the best way to move forward so that we attract business investment and ensure that we create those jobs.

I find it odd to hear the members opposite talk about growth, and yet it was during their time in power that auto insurance rates went up very high, that the economy had made some suffering. They were the ones that cut nurses and doctors and investments in hospitals and infrastructure.

We have taken a position that we need to invest in the long term. Investments in infrastructure, investments in our services, be it education and our health care—that’s what’s critical for making us competitive. But we need to afford to do those things, and the way to afford them is to attract those businesses, to create those jobs and create those investments that are going to make us even more competitive. We need to work together, and that is what’s a balanced approach.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Given the experience that we’ve had with Ornge and the number of times that the Minister of Health told us here that the reason that scandal was allowed to brew was because she had no idea what was going on at Ornge, at the last public hearings, we asked Dr. McCallum, the new president and CEO of Ornge, how many times the minister has asked to meet with him to get a handle on what’s going on at Ornge. Dr. McCallum said, and I’ll quote from Hansard, “I have not met with her.” I said, “She has never asked you to meet with her?” Dr. McCallum responded “Not to date.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, the next day, the member from Haldimand–Norfolk asked the same minister if she had met with Dr. McCallum, and she responded—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: —“I have met with Mr. McCallum. In fact, I’ve seen him earlier this week.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Time’s up.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Regrettably, I could not identify the individual saying so, but you will not be using unparliamentary language.

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m very happy to tell the member opposite that I did see Dr. McCallum earlier in the week. We met because there were people here from Australia, understanding about what was happening at Ornge. I met Dr. McCallum at an event that was—so it’s possible we were both right; that when you interviewed Dr. McCallum, he had not met with me, but I had met him the other week.

There is constant communication between Ornge and my ministry. I have had conversations with Dr. McCallum. The ministry is very focused on continuing to improve Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: How incredibly disappointing that answer is. It was very specific. The question was: “Did the minister ask you to meet with her to report on what is happening at Ornge, the financial and operational affairs?” Dr. McCallum clearly said, “No; I was never invited to do that. I never met with her.” What the minister is doing now is equivocating.

The Premier wants civility in this place. I suggest that a good place to start is to direct her ministers to be forthright and honest when they are asked a question.

I want to ask the minister one more time: Did she or did she not meet with Dr. McCallum to discuss the operational and financial affairs of Ornge, yes or no?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have regular communications with the chair of the board, Ian Delaney. Typically the relationship is between the minister and the chair. My ministry is in constant communication with Ornge—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The issue here is, is Ornge back on track? The answer, absolutely, is yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Either you’ve got brilliant timing or terrible timing.

Interjections.

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

Minister, wrap up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m finished.

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Yesterday, Jamison Steeve, principal secretary to your predecessor, testified at the justice committee that TransCanada came to him because they were concerned that local bylaws in Oakville would prevent the construction of their power plant. It looks like TransCanada came to you looking for a bailout.

Why did the Liberal government move heaven, earth and $1 billion to make sure TransCanada was happy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. I respect his tenacity on these issues as well, but all three parties made the same commitment to relocate both the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

We minimized some costs, Mr. Speaker, by not allowing construction to begin at the proposed Oakville site. The opposition suggests we waited until the middle of the process to relocate the plant. The sunk costs would have been higher had we waited.

As stated in committee yesterday, a number of options were considered at the time to relocate the plant. We have been very clear that the committee is doing its job. It has the opportunity to ask these questions.

The Auditor General is looking into it. He will be able to look into these issues. The Auditor General has the right to interview Mr. Steeve, and he can do that under oath.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, back to you: Jamison Steeve also testified that he was directly involved in talks with TransCanada. He said that he was directed by Chris Morley, Dave Gene and the Premier himself. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Ontarians are on the hook for a plant that nobody wanted, that apparently wasn’t needed and that couldn’t be built.

Why were the Liberal Party leader and his insiders putting Ontarians on the hook and taking TransCanada off the hook?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have mentioned and referred to a memorandum of understanding, which is on the website of the OPA. It was put there September 24 or 25. There are three parties to that agreement. There’s TransCanada, the OPA and the government of Ontario. Yes, there were parties from the government involved in those negotiations, but the facts and the numbers that were provided were provided by the OPA.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important that Ontarians be provided with all the facts. That’s why we’ve asked the Auditor General to look into this. He will provide a report on both of those gas plant sites and their relocations. We also expanded the terms, the mandate of the committee to enable these things to be examined in further detail. We await the results of all the evidence and all the comments.

We have been straightforward, we have been honest and we have provided all the information.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Recently, I have heard concerns from traditional Chinese medicine health professionals about the new regulatory college that will be overseeing their practice. I am concerned that not all Chinese medicine and acupuncture practitioners who serve our communities will be able to be registered as required to continue their practice after April 1, when new rules come into effect bringing oversight to their practice. People throughout Ontario have come to rely on the health professionals who provide important traditional Chinese health care services.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: What changes are taking place and what must health professionals do to continue practising?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. We recognize that many people rely on traditional Chinese medicine. They turn to traditional Chinese medicine; it plays an important part of their health care. We also believe that citizens deserve to know what they are getting and the qualifications of the people from whom they are receiving that service. It’s a basic principle of consumer protection, and never more important than when it comes to health care.

That’s why I’m very pleased that Ontarians will now have a college to regulate traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. We brought in legislation in 2006 that makes traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture services safer for Ontarians by ensuring that only regulated and qualified practitioners who are accountable to a regulatory body may deliver those services. They’ve been working hard developing regulations and policies, including entry practices.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: How is the Transitional Council of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists addressing these very important concerns?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: After April 1 of this year, there may be applicants who are eligible for the general certificate but who have not yet completed the registration examination requirements. That’s why the transitional council is providing a flexible approach to registration for these applicants by issuing provisional certificates to members. Once these members have written and successfully passed the registration exam, they will be issued a general certificate to practise traditional Chinese medicine.

Furthermore, we do recognize that there will be issues around language that will need to be taken into account. That’s why transitional services are being made available to those who need them in order to complete their testing.

The most important thing that health professionals can do, if they have concerns, is to contact the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists. We must remember that the role of the college is about continually improving patient safety. We need to ensure top quality professionals.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday I told this Legislature that Tiffany Turnbull of the Cabinet Office testified there was “weekly email traffic” on Project Vapour-lock, the secret code name for the cancellation of the Mississauga power plant. The shock in that, Premier, is the fact that there were absolutely no Project Vapour-lock documents that she swore existed in all the 56,000 pages we received—none that she was referring to. In fact, your own House leader stood up and paraded five Vapour-lock documents, but by doing so, he proved that none of those had the ones that she was saying existed.

Premier, you continue to say that we have all the documents, and we continue to prove that we don’t have all the documents. When are you going to quit playing these games and provide all the documents?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think the member has to be very, very careful with the facts, as he found out yesterday and had to correct the record here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, there were more Project Vapour-lock documents I could have read from yesterday; I didn’t have time. I have one here—a memo:

“Project Vapour-lock

“I recommend a similar governance structure to the Vapour transaction as follows:

“1. Government oversight committee (same as Vapour)....

“2. Government technical working group (same as Vapour)....

“3. Relationship between OPA and government is also similar to the Vapour transaction” etc.

Mr. Speaker, he can’t stand up in this House and claim that these documents don’t exist when in fact they were part of the 56,000.

In terms of the broader question of access to documents, he has some nerve, after he sat at the committee several weeks ago when the government offered to provide a much wider sweep. He, along with other members of the opposition, put their hands up and voted against it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to take that picture, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m also going to—I’ve heard the words “respect,” “disrespect,” “civility,” and I’m waiting for it.

I also told the member that I would admonish him, so to the Attorney General and to the Minister of the Environment, don’t do it again.

I would now ask the member for his supplementary question.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I have to say to the House leader, thank you for your transparency. We can see right through you. We stand here—you’re not fooling anybody with that nonsense, and I’m tired of games. My guest Ishmael is tired of games.

We’re here to find out two things. We’re here to find out what is the cost of this political cancellation, and who ordered the documents not to be turned over to this committee. We stand here week after week providing testimony from witnesses under oath. They prove that the Mississauga cancellation was more than $5 million more than they’ll admit, and they swore under oath that the Oakville cancellation is between $800 million and $900 million more than they are admitting to.

So I ask the Premier, how much are the political cancellations of the two power plants, and who ordered the documents not to be turned over?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I have tried to let the committee do its work. If the honourable member wants to get into the weeds here on the floor of the House, let’s get into it, because he needs to get his facts straight.

The original request from the committee was for documents from the Ontario Power Authority, the Ministry of Energy and the Minister of Energy’s office. They were the 56,000 pages that were given to him.

When he raises other documents that might be provided, government members went to the committee and moved a motion to provide them to the opposition, and they sat there, raised their hands and voted against it. If anyone has some explaining to do, it’s that member, it’s the member for Renfrew–Nipissing and all his caucus colleagues, and why they voted against it and did not allow that motion to proceed.

CASINOS

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, community groups all across Ontario, First Nations and the horse racing industry have been vocal opponents of the Liberal government’s plan to push casinos on communities, yet the new government, just like the old government, is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay, start the clock.

Finish.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Speaker. The new government, just like the old government, is moving ahead with the OLG privatization despite strong—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Go ahead.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: On top of this, there is mass confusion across the province over a municipal hosting formula that results in municipalities being completely in the dark about potential casino revenues.

Will the Premier commit to the people of Ontario that they will have a meaningful say in casino locations—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Oxford, come to order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: —before they are pushed into communities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There were a lot of things in that question, and there was an interaction between the opposition parties that I’m not sure about.

But here’s our position: We have never said that we were going to force or impose a casino on a municipality. We have never said that. We have said the exact opposite. We have said that it is up to municipalities to determine whether or not they want a casino. They have the authority and the power to do the consultation that they deem necessary, and then they will make the decision whether they want a casino or not—not the OLG, not the provincial government, not any individual member, not the Premier. The municipality will decide whether they want a casino or not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order—second time. Do you want to make it three? I’m going to cut off the coffee in the galleries.

Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, it sounds like the PC members are supportive of the government’s plan to privatize or else they wouldn’t be trying to shout me down.

Interjections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I can assure you, members of the NDP caucus are not supportive of the plan to privatize.

Premier, tomorrow in this Legislature—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I know how to do my job, I think. Keep it down.

Finish, please.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Tomorrow in this Legislature, we will debate the NDP motion to give Ontarians a real say before casinos are forced on communities, and to ensure that this government actually sits down—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Lambton, come to order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: —to talk with the horse racing industry without the threat of a looming March 31—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop. Stop the clock. The two members that I will now speak of are heckling so much and there’s so much noise, they didn’t even know I asked them to keep quiet, or they totally ignored me. So I’ll make sure it’s clear: The member from Lambton and the member from Stormont, come to order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Some 30,000 full-time jobs in rural Ontario are on the line, and this government is not even willing to admit that cancelling the SARP partnership without a plan for the future was a mistake that will cost Ontarians dearly.

Will the Premier explain to Ontarians why the Liberal government is choosing to reward the Donald Trumps of the casino industry over jobs in rural Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve made our position on casinos very, very clear. Let me talk about the horse racing industry. We are being guided by the transition panel’s report, which called the SARP program bad public policy. It called it unaccountable, un-transparent; it created a fractious industry that lost the focus on its customer.

I think the best evidence that we have got a plan and that we’re moving on that plan is that we have nine transition agreements in place with racetracks. Woodbine, Mohawk, Western Fair, Grand River, Clinton, Hanover, Georgian Downs, Flamboro and Fort Erie: All of those racetracks have transition agreements in place.

We are moving towards a sustainable horse racing industry in this province. We are following the plan laid out by the transition panel, and that will mean we will have a transparent, sustainable horse racing industry in Ontario.

SENIORS’ SAFETY

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Today, my question is for the hard-working minister responsible for seniors. Over the last six months, since I first had the privilege to represent the wonderful community of Vaughan, I’ve spent a lot of time in my riding visiting wonderful seniors’ clubs like the Maple Pioneer, the Vellore seniors and the Sonoma seniors. Over and over again, I hear from the seniors of my community and from their families that the safety and security of our seniors is definitely a high priority. When our seniors develop dementia, it can make it challenging for their loved ones to ensure that they are safe and protected, especially when they decide to leave home without assistance.

Speaker, through you to the minister: If a loved one with dementia does go missing, what resources are available to help families and caregivers that can help them make sure they are properly prepared?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have to say thank you to the very effective and hard-working member from Vaughan for the question. It’s not only an important question; it’s an incredibly important topic as well. We have 180,000 seniors who suffer from one form of dementia or another. During their term of life, they will go missing once, perhaps more, and statistics show that 70% will repeat it time and time again.

Last week, the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat, along with the Alzheimer Society of Ontario, joined forces to launch the Finding Your Way wandering prevention program—the very first program in Canada—in a bold effort to support our loved ones with dementia.

The program recognizes Ontario’s diversity, and it will be delivered in eight different languages. When a loved one goes missing, families—

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

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Thank you very much, Minister, for that wonderful response and for all of the exceptional work that you’re doing on behalf of seniors in my riding of Vaughan and across the wonderful province of Ontario.

I understand that according to the OPP, 75% of individuals who wander are located within less than three kilometres from where they were last seen. Most of them also have a history of wandering.

If a loved one goes missing—I’m asking the minister if he can tell me what we are doing concretely to ensure that our police officers know how to respond to such a call.

Hon. Mario Sergio: The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you to the member from Vaughan for this great question. We have developed resources to train police officers to help families prevent loved ones from going missing. Our officers will also know how to deal with situations where our seniors have already been reported as missing.

That means that we will train front-line police officers to recognize and respond to cases involving seniors who have wandered. To do so, we have provided $200,000 in annual funding to the Ontario Police College to develop, deliver and evaluate police training on wandering and dementia.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you will know, the Federation of Ontario Traditional Chinese Medicine Associations has retained a litigation team to seek an injunction against you and your ministry’s transitional council. I’ve met with numerous traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, and they’ve all raised concerns with me regarding your ministry’s and the traditional council’s treatment of them.

They’ve advised me that both you and the council have refused to listen to their concerns, that the process leading to the promulgation of these regulations is deeply flawed and will result in unfair and discriminatory requirement terms for practitioners.

Minister, why on earth has it taken a lawsuit to get your attention to this matter?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, quite to the contrary, the transitional council has been working—we passed the legislation in 2006 and appointed the transitional council. They have been working very, very hard to develop the foundation of the college of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture.

I think people in Ontario have the right to expect that they are receiving care from someone who is qualified, and that is the purpose of the college. They have met with a wide range of practitioners. They’ve done very, very difficult work. But I think it’s important that the safety of Ontarians is paramount.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: That’s the way this ministry continues to operate, same old: Ignore legitimate issues until they blow up in your face. We’ve seen this time and time again: eHealth, Ornge—the list goes on.

Minister, lawyers, as you know, are gathering in court to deal with this matter as we speak. It should never have come to this. Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine have raised legitimate concerns about this whole process, including the constitutionality of the regulations, which will affect access to treatment by over one million patients in Ontario.

Minister, will you commit today to meeting with the federation to resolve these concerns?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will let the courts do their work, but what I can tell you is that since January 2011, the transitional council has worked closely with future membership to keep them engaged and to keep them informed about the forthcoming changes. They’ve provided regular updates on their website and through newsletter and by email. They’ve clearly communicated requirements and timelines in order to obtain a certificate of registration by April 1, 2013.

The council conducted a series of outreach sessions in February this year to educate practitioners on how to register with the college. The council ran a series of ads in daily newspapers like Ming Pao and Sing Tao to encourage potential members to submit their applications to college. They’ve offered requisite courses since November 2012 and have been accepting registration applications since February. To date, over 2,000 applicants have completed the courses.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Eighteen more people have lost their jobs in Windsor, and that’s 18 fewer children’s aid society caseworkers protecting children in Windsor-Essex and 18 fewer families who can depend on a paycheque to keep a roof over their heads. Windsor is already struggling with high unemployment; the last thing they need is their government to make things even worse. How can cutting jobs at the Windsor children’s aid society be good for kids and good for that community?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you very much for the question. Given that it is the Windsor-Essex CAS, I certainly am concerned over the layoffs that are occurring at the local CAS. We have been in touch with that local CAS to discuss that issue as well.

Ultimately, our concern is to ensure the protection of our children and our youth through our CAS, and that is where it is. Staffing decisions are made by agencies based on their volume and based on their need. What I can say is that we have been working with the CAS, with the Ontario Association of CASs, on a funding model to ensure sustainability in the system with each CAS across the province, not only the one in Windsor. We will continue to do that work with them—again, with our primary objective being our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Windsor’s children’s aid society workers do a job that is stressful and that is emotionally draining. They’re already overworked and underfunded, and now they have to deal with demoralizing staffing cuts. Eighteen workers have just lost their jobs, and their colleagues are now shouldering even bigger caseloads. Is this how the government shows concern and makes sure that no child is left behind in Windsor?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Speaker, I’m going to echo the comments that she just made with respect to the work that is done in our communities on behalf of our children by the workers at the CAS. I worked in our community. I worked very closely with the CAS, with our families, so absolutely, they do a fine job, and I know exactly the work that they do down in our communities.

What I will say is that over the past number of years, this government has increased funding to the CASs throughout the province by 40%. It is funded at $1.5 billion. The CAS in Windsor has also received increases of close to 30% over the years. So we are certainly working with our CASs. We are certain ensuring the sustainability of that system and ensuring the protection and safety of our children.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is to the Premier in her role as the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, there are many groups in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan that are interested in, and excited about, the introduction of our local food bill. The Thunder Bay Food Action Network and the Thunder Bay Federation of Agriculture, as well as others, have been working towards highlighting and supporting the benefits of local food for some time now.

In Thunder Bay, food is often transported long distances, with obvious environmental impacts. More consumption of local food is better for our health and supportive of our local agricultural community and our economy.

Minister, can you tell this House what this bill will do, in addition to previous initiatives like the Greenbelt Fund, to support the efforts of the Thunder Bay Federation of Agriculture, the Food Action Network, and organizations like them right across Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for the question, and to his community for the work that is being done to promote local food.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The hard work.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s right, the hard work that’s being done. That’s right.

We want residents of Ontario to be able to access local food, to eat it at home, in restaurants, at work, in schools or wherever they are. We want to take ideas like what’s going on in Thunder Bay–Atikokan and we want to be able to spread those across the province. We want to support those ideas and we want to support communities in that kind of innovation. So, if passed, the local food bill will do just that: It will support, it will promote and it will celebrate the good things that are grown in Ontario, the good projects that are going on around the province.

Food production in Ontario is a significant industry that drives the economy and many good jobs—over 700,000 good jobs in the agri-food industry. It’s an extremely important industry in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the Premier in her role as the Minister of Agriculture and Food for that answer. It’s important for the people in Ontario and in Thunder Bay–Atikokan to know that our commitment to local food still remains very strong.

The last time this bill was introduced, the industry had feedback about how the legislation could be strengthened and were vocal about the changes that they wished to see in the bill. For example, there was concern around ensuring that consultation on the goals contained in the legislation was robust on the part of our government.

Speaker, through you to the minister: With this opportunity to reintroduce the local food bill, were any changes made?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Absolutely. What we did was we consulted with the industry, we consulted with producers and municipal partners, and their feedback helped to shape the changes in the bill—helped shape the changes in the bill and also some of the non-legislative changes that we proposed, some of those goals that aren’t necessarily in the legislation but are part of the larger local food strategy.

I know my critic from the Progressive Conservatives supports the notion that we would consult with stakeholders on the kinds of targets that we would put in place, because I know he doesn’t want our municipalities to be burdened with targets and objectives that they can’t actually manage. We’ve worked with the stakeholders. We have a local food strategy in place.

We’ve stipulated that the ministry publish a

summary of government local food initiatives at least every three years, so we’ve put the burden on the government and on the minister to produce that report and to make sure that we work with the sector across the province. The report will highlight the successes and the innovations across the broader public sector and within municipalities.

TIRE DISPOSAL

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Minister, as you know, your colleague the Minister of the Environment has approved exorbitant fee hikes charged by the Ontario Tire Stewardship. Starting April 1, the fees are increasing from between 400% and 1000%, minimum. I would suggest that this is a careless and rushed decision, as it negatively impacts farmers and small business, drives sales out of Ontario and into Quebec and the United States, increases food costs, and ultimately results in more job losses and decreased tax revenues.

Minister, was this a unilateral decision by your fellow ministers of economic development, rural affairs, and transportation, or did the environment minister act alone? Please clarify if they actually supported it. Most importantly, how, as the self-acclaimed learning-on-the-job minister of ag and food, have you allowed this decision to be made knowing it will so severely and negatively impact the farming community, the community you are supposed to represent?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to take the first one, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of the Environment is going to speak to the details.

I want to address two things—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nice, deep breath.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Halton is not helping.

Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to address two points, and then I know the Minister of the Environment is going to want to speak to the details.

The first one is the accusation that I’m a learning-on-the-job minister, a learning-on-the-job Premier. I’m never going to apologize for learning more about this province, ever.

When I met with the corn-fed beef folks yesterday and when I was at the chicken farmers’ AGM this morning, they were thrilled that agriculture and food is getting the profile it’s getting. That’s the first point.

The second point is that this issue around the tire stewardship has been raised with me. I raised it with the Minister of the Environment and I know that he has some details that he would like to share with the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Speaker. This time, my question is to the Premier. Premier, would you discuss this matter with the ag minister and seek an apology to the farm industry and small businesses?

These increases will cost our farmers in the agricultural industry tens of millions of dollars. A single large tractor is going up by $300. Tires for a quad train spreader will increase by $1,340. It saddens me to advise that an implement dealer in my riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound has already lost one major sale and is having to absorb the increases on three other tractors at the cost of $700 per tractor—unacceptable.

Premier, are you absolutely certain that your fee hikes are not harming the already struggling farm, contracting and small business industries in Ontario, decreasing tax revenues and making Ontario businesses less competitive and causing job losses? May I suggest that your idea of performing the dual role of ag minister and Premier is not—

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

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I know the member would be aware that Ontario Tire Stewardship, which was established under the legislation of the previous Conservative government, in fact is a business organization that makes business decisions at arm’s length of government; so I know the member at the end of the question period will want to correct his record, and know that the government of Ontario gets none of this money. The government of Ontario does not impose these fees. It’s done by private sector—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I understand that there are votes coming up.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Having said that, I have had a meeting with Ontario Tire Stewardship officials and have discussed this matter with them at the behest of the Minister of Agriculture, and they have agreed to go back and consult even more with the agricultural community to try to establish whether or not changes can be made and, if they can, how they can be as fair as possible to members of the farming community. I commend—

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

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Does the minister think it’s right that the traditional Chinese medicine practitioners are told that they need a licence as of Monday, but the Chinese material won’t be available till September?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to see there’s such interest in this issue today, Speaker, and let me repeat what I said before: The transitional council is providing a flexible approach to registration for those applicants who have registered, but have not yet completed the requirements. They will be provided with a transitional certificate, they will be able to continue to practise, but they must first register with the college so that the college knows that they are preparing to write those exams.

Speaker, this work is important. It is under way because we believe that it’s important to protect Ontarians. It’s important that when they receive acupuncture or services from a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, they get them from a qualified practitioner.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Mr. Speaker, do you really think it’s right that the Chinese material won’t be available till September, yet you have to register as of Monday? We are on Wednesday, one day before the long weekend of Easter, and not one of them has a licence to practise, and they’re supposed to have those licences on Monday.

This makes no sense. It should have been something good; it’s turning into a nightmare. Traditional Chinese medicine has been around for 4,000 years, yet the government does not seem to be able to have Chinese material line up with the date where we start to regulate them. Minister, how does this make any sense?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is very good news. In fact, it was the unanimous approval of the Legislature on a unanimous vote to form the college of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. As I said earlier, over 2,000 applicants have completed their courses. This work is under way. People are registering. They’re getting their provisional certificate. They will be able to continue business as usual as they complete their requirements to practise. This is a transitional process, and it’s very good news for the people of this province.

DEFERRED VOTES

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013 / Projet de loi 33, Loi autorisant l’utilisation de certaines sommes pour l’exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2013.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1141 to 1146.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On March 26, Mr. Milloy moved second reading of Bill 33.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Craitor, Kim

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Piruzza, Teresa

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Schein, Jonah

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Leone, Rob

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Milligan, Rob E.

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 67; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Second reading agreed to.

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

Mr. Sousa moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013 / Projet de loi 33, Loi autorisant l’utilisation de certaines sommes pour l’exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2013.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Sousa has moved third reading of Bill 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no; therefore, all those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh. I skipped a move.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

I therefore say that the ayes have it.

Five members?

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute vote. Same vote? No.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Craitor, Kim

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Piruzza, Teresa

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Schein, Jonah

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed to the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Leone, Rob

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Milligan, Rob E.

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 67; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and is entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

On February 20, 2013, Ms. Wong moved, seconded by Mr. McNeely, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.”

All those in favour of Ms. Wong’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Craitor, Kim

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Fife, Catherine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Orazietti, David

Piruzza, Teresa

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Schein, Jonah

Sergio, Mario

Singh, Jagmeet

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Vanthof, John

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed to the motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Leone, Rob

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

McDonell, Jim

McKenna, Jane

McNaughton, Monte

Miller, Norm

Milligan, Rob E.

Munro, Julia

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettapiece, Randy

Scott, Laurie

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 67; the nays are 36.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.”

There are no further deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1500.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 35

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I seek unanimous con