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

April 1, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Apr-01 (PDF)

L121 - Tue 1 Apr 2014 / Mar 1er avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 April 2014 Mardi 1 er avril 2014

Time allocation

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

POWER PLANTS

MINING INDUSTRY

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

TOURISM

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

POWER PLANTS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CURLING

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

NUISANCE BEARS

PARKDALE ACTIVITY-RECREATION CENTRE

ISABELLA LEONE

SERENA RYDER

HEALING HOPE

FUNDRAISING BRUNCH

NEWCASTLE FIRE HALL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

RANKED BALLOTING

AIR QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

MINIMUM WAGE

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

LCBO OUTLET

AIR QUALITY

LCBO OUTLET

DIABETES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCING PATIENT CARE

AND PHARMACY SAFETY

(STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT) ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

AFIN D’AMÉLIORER LES SOINS

AUX MALADES ET LA SÉCURITÉ

DES PHARMACIES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. John Milloy: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House related to Bill 122,

An Act respecting collective bargaining in Ontario’s school system,

The Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly shall meet on April 2, 2014, from 12:15 p.m. until 6 p.m. and on April 3, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 122; and, in the event that clause-by-clause consideration is not complete by that time, during regularly scheduled meetings thereafter until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and

That only those amendments which have been filed with the Clerk of the Committee by the time of adjournment of the committee’s meeting on Wednesday, March 24, 2014, shall be considered by the committee; and

That on April 2, 2014, at not later than 12:15 p.m., those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

Upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith; and

When the order for third reading of Bill 122 is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further amendment; and

The vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

In the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy has moved notice of motion number 43.

Mr. Milloy.

Hon. John Milloy: I think this is a very straightforward motion that we’ve put forward here today. It concerns Bill 122, a very important bill and a very time-sensitive bill that concerns bargaining in the education sector.

Just to outline what this somewhat complicated-sounding motion does—it’s very straightforward—it sets out a timetable for committee hearings to finish up on this bill, and, should the committee decide to pass it forward to third reading, a way in which it should be dealt with by this Legislature in an expedient manner, and, again, should the Legislature see fit to pass it, to make sure that it is put to a vote.

Just to give you a little bit of history, Mr. Speaker, very briefly as to why we have come to this moment when we’re introducing a motion to create this timetable, I’ll give you some of the statistics of how much debate we have had on this bill thus far. It saw a significant period of debate in the House at second reading: 32 members, according to our count, spoke to this bill, and 59 members participated in debate through questions and comments. It was debated for 14 hours over nine days.

It passed second reading on December 2, 2013, only after the government moved closure on the debate due to stalling tactics by—and I’m going to name the Progressive Conservatives. We referred the bill to the standing committee on legislative affairs for further scrutiny, where again we have unfortunately seen the official opposition not wishing to engage in debate in the usual back and forth on these matters, but instead to filibuster and to delay. It’s clear that the official opposition has no interest in participating constructively.

I’ll give you one example: We’re on clause-by-clause consideration; we have done six hours of consideration, and only three sections of the bill have been dealt with by the committee.

It’s unfortunate that the official opposition continues to obstruct constructive progress of this bill. That’s why we have brought forward this time allocation motion.

I think members across the way in the Progressive Conservative Party will be very familiar with time allocation. When they were last in government, they time-allocated about 60% of their legislation. In fact, Madam Speaker, I remember I had the pleasure—I have great respect for, Mr. John Baird, who was a member of this Legislature and a former House leader when the Conservatives were in government. I remember once, in a casual conversation, he bragged to me that the standard operating procedure of the Mike Harris-Ernie Eves government was to time-allocate legislation. So it’s something they’re very familiar with.

This is a very straightforward item that we’re putting forward here today. We look forward to the debate and discussion, but let’s get on with some consideration of Bill 122 in a meaningful way.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: Madam Speaker, everything the House leader just said was complete nonsense. We have been debating this very important piece of legislation, Bill 122—let me just remind the House leader that, in the course of second reading debate, a time allocation motion was put forth, silencing the opposition. He is now choosing to invoke the same clause in a similar tactic by limiting debate in committee. We in the committee sought to expand public hearings to listen to more stakeholders.

The funny thing is that the government likes to talk about partners in education. They like to talk about the teaching federations and the school boards. But they always, always, always neglect one very important partner in our education system, and that is our parents and their kids. The woeful neglect of simply trying to understand some of the concerns that they have with collective bargaining has certainly been the result of what the government House leader suggests are stall tactics, when really all we’re trying to do is to listen to the people who sent us here. The government simply doesn’t want to do that.

So now they’re going to time-allocate us in committee, and not only are they going to time-allocate us in committee, but they’re going to allow third reading debate to last for no more than one hour. That means every caucus only has, on one of the most vital pieces of legislation in education that we’ve seen in the province of Ontario in years—one hour of debate at third reading, 20 minutes per party.

I’m not sure if the government has been reading the newspapers lately. The very fact that it seeks to go to extraordinary lengths to silence the opposition has certainly called their ability to govern into question. They’re doing it here on important pieces of legislation. They’re trying to silence the opposition when it comes to asking some very important questions about politically motivated decisions to cancel power plants. At every turn, the government seeks to silence the opposition, silence the critics. They don’t even want to hear from us.

Madam Speaker, I am very disheartened that on this particular piece of legislation we aren’t able to solicit ideas from the very people who elected us. As the official opposition, we have an obligation to represent their concerns.

I’ve written a couple of letters to the Minister of Education outlining specifically what we were looking for with this particular piece of legislation.

We started that process by looking at, examining and exploring whether we can modify or even repeal regulation 274, which talks about the hiring process of our teachers when there are vacancies in our schools.

Parents right across the province of Ontario have expressed concern about the hiring practices in our schools. They’ve told us that this process takes too long to actually complete and find a teacher. They have become upset when there has been a teacher who might have been on a temporary assignment, who the students love, who participates in a vibrant school environment, and that person, because of their lack of seniority, isn’t able to fill that position.

Parents are talking to us about that, and they wanted us to raise that concern, so we took the opportunity to invite the government to see if we can come to some agreement. It didn’t necessarily need to be in this particular piece of legislation. It could have been an agreement where we incorporated another item, so that we could ensure that the best teachers are in front of our classrooms. That’s one thing that we had spent a lot of time talking about on this side of the House. We put a private member’s bill forward, and that wasn’t acceptable to the government, so we invited the government to come up with something else. We have our own ideas. They have their ideas as well.

There is wide recognition that there is a problem with the hiring process in our schools and with regulation 274, not just from parents but even from teachers and especially principals. I might add that principals are obviously a partner in our education system, and their number one priority is to get rid of or modify regulation 274.

Yet we didn’t hear anything. The government didn’t invite us to negotiate. It’s a very funny thing that on a bill, on a piece of legislation that is supposed to outline how negotiation is to take place in the province of Ontario, we actually had no negotiation whatsoever. Given that, we wrote another letter, acknowledging that the government did not want to move on regulation 274.

But through the course of public hearings, we did hear from one deputant, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, that there was a modification that they sought, to incorporate the withdrawal of co-instructional activities into the definition of a strike, which exists in this piece of legislation. That is exactly what they have looked at; that’s what they came to the table to talk about.

Listening to that concern, we wrote another letter to the Minister of Education, stating that we will take off the table our request for modification of regulation 274 and put on the table the protection of extracurricular activities in our schools.

Throughout the course of the government’s last round of negotiations, which took place last spring, about a year ago—and certainly people will question whether negotiations actually did take place, but we’ll leave it at that—there was a withdrawal of extracurricular activities in some of our schools in the province of Ontario. Some of our schools participated in extracurricular activities; some of our schools did not.

There was a request from two teaching federations to withdraw the services and voluntary services of co-instructional activities in our schools. It meant the cancellation of football, basketball, volleyball, soccer, curling and other sports. It meant the withdrawal of activities that involved debate clubs, drama clubs, music, choir—these kinds of things that enrich the educational experience of our students.

Parents are rightfully concerned that whenever we talk about another round of negotiation—we are about to enter a negotiation season—once again we’ll be faced in the fall with the prospect of losing out on the very activities many students love.

A lot of parents have come to me to talk about the fact that come September, when their child is in their last year—a year that’s so critical for the prospect of getting athletic scholarships in schools across North America—they’re worried about losing that one season that’s going to make the difference between getting into a school they want or not.

Nobody other than the PC caucus is standing up for those parents, is standing up for those kids. It’s our obligation as legislators to effectively represent their concerns. Yet we put that on the table, Madam Speaker, and what we heard back was silence, no interest, that the only people worthy of talking to in this process of teacher negotiation and Bill 122 were the teacher federations and the school boards. The concerns of parents right across this province were simply neglected to be heard.

I vowed to those very parents that I would use every means possible to raise their issues, to talk about the things that matter to their kids. I vowed to those students, who care so much about those experiences—often those kinds of experiences that we remember far beyond our time in our schools—that I would use every tool necessary to raise their concerns. Because that’s my job; I’m a member of this Legislature who represents constituents in my riding. I’m also the official opposition critic for education. Parents across this province would come to us and say, “Keep up the fight.

Do this because our kids need to have some certainty about whether those activities are going to continue.” I would suggest that in this process, where we’ve actually heard complete silence on this very issue, it is so disheartening to me as a legislator, but also to parents and families right across this province.

We asked for something on behalf of one of the people who came to us through the course of public hearings, the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association. We listened to stakeholders who wanted to talk about how we can maintain an enriched educational experience for our students. Most of those stakeholders weren’t even allowed to participate in the public hearing process. The reason for that was because we were only allowed to have 12 deputations, for three hours, on a bill that is so fundamental to the process that we have.

So I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that we are looking for some assurance from the government that simply is not available to us. I want to say, on behalf of those parents, on behalf of those students, that we will do whatever we can to bring this issue forward.

Twelve deputants and three hours of debate on a very important piece of legislation is an insult to this Legislature and it’s an insult to the families who care about education. We should have opened this up far more than what has happened. The fact that we’ve been constrained in our ability to examine this legislation is the very reason why we oppose this time allocation motion. Twelve deputants got an opportunity to speak for five minutes, and most of those deputants didn’t even have enough time to complete the presentation that they came to committee armed with.

On the flip side, we were able to have a rotation of questions that lasted, per caucus, three minutes each. I know through the course of question period, we get four minutes to pose two questions to the government and have that response. On this very thoughtful piece of legislation that has so many implications for collective bargaining in the province of Ontario, the deputants had five minutes, and each party had three minutes to ask questions—not enough.

I noticed the government House leader talked about how the Mike Harris years implemented these sorts of things. Let me tell you that on certain pieces of legislation, when we talked about education and we had deputations, we actually allocated 30 minutes per deputation in committee: 30 minutes, double what this government has suggested. You know what? Gerard Kennedy—

Interjection.

Mr. Rob Leone: — was in that committee suggesting that those committee hearings were a sham, that not enough public hearings were actually incorporated in the process of listening to people’s concerns, that it was a sham.

I notice the Minister of Education was heckling me there. She had an opportunity to actually participate in some of those deputations where, as the president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, she was allowed to stake 30 minutes to make a deputation on Bill 74, way back in the day of our government.

The time allocation motion that is brought forward has completely shut down debate on a very important piece of legislation. This is something that I would suggest: that we actually have to encourage more discussion rather than less. I know they are going to heckle me, because all I’m asking for is some more time to talk about this. But they don’t want to hear that, because they want to ram through this piece of legislation.

I want to raise the issue about what exactly we are talking about, because it’s very important to have the government really understand that there was an easier way to do this. There was an easier way to actually get this bill past committee in a fashion that would have produced a win-win for us. It would have produced a win for the government, because they got a bill they would have been able to present to their partners, and I would have been able to include, in those partners, parents and students who would have been guaranteed—or at least had more guarantees—that extracurricular activities would have been present in their schools come the fall. We could have come to an agreement.

What we were asking for wasn’t radical; it wasn’t over the top. What we were asking for is to simply put in writing a guarantee for parents that appears in a ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board from the Trillium Lakelands District School Board and Upper Canada District School Board v. the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. This labour relations board ruling came to us last year. I read that labour relations board ruling, and it’s a very interesting ruling. All that we are simply doing is making clear in legislation what that ruling actually states.

So what we are asking for wasn’t a radical deviation from what was already decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. This ruling came out on April 11, 2013.

What are some of the concerns that this relates to? The minister wants to be reminded of this. Two school boards took the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to talk about the removal of what the teachers’ federation calls voluntary services in our schools. That’s what they were seeking to do. The position of the school boards was that this was an illegal withdrawal of services. So they brought the matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

It was very interesting, throughout the course of reading the decision, all the manoeuvres that were put in place to try and avoid an actual ruling on certain matters. And, indeed, this is now an interim decision because there is a charter challenge of whether engaging in these discussions is actually part of a free assembly and the right to political protest. I’ll leave, obviously, that matter for a future decision to be rendered.

But what’s interesting is some of the things that were said in the course of this ruling. It’s extremely difficult, as the Ontario Labour Relations Board suggested, to determine what exactly constitutes a voluntary activity, because that is always a concern. Every time we raise it, they say, “You know you’re trying to make mandatory what’s voluntary.” That’s not the case. We’re just simply following what we’ve studied and read, and I hope the government has done the same thing, with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

“[O]n a principled or logical basis,” the decision reads, “I see no difference for ‘a voluntary activities’ exception per se from the definition of strike—and in particular in the education sector. The line between mandatory and voluntary duties would not be a bright line test....” It’s too difficult to distinguish between what is a mandatory and what is a voluntary activity and whether that constitutes an ability to withdraw such services.

“ETFO argues that the applicants’ collective agreements here explicitly make these duties (or some of them) voluntary—so these cases do not apply.” Again, we have to understand that the Ontario Labour Relations Board says that it’s too difficult to define what is voluntary and what is mandatory, and you can’t simply withdraw what you think are voluntary services. You just can’t do that. So our amendment that we proposed in this piece of legislation simply reflects what the Ontario Labour Relations Board was suggesting.

Some reasons why the defining of a “voluntary activity” would be problematic if these “voluntary activities” were not included in the definition of a strike: Trying to define the line would end up being left “frequently to be determined in always expedited unlawful strike applications with their concomitant pressures and urgency, which is not the best context for any thoughtful or deliberate analysis of the difference....

“The point is that ... ” it goes on to say, “interpreting the definition of strike not to cover voluntary activities invites (if not virtually guarantees) future disputes and future uncertainty, as parties for their own tactical advantage at the relevant time attempt to characterize duties as voluntary or mandatory.” Again, “as parties for their own tactical advantage at the relevant time attempt to characterize duties as voluntary or mandatory,” was part of this decision.

The ETFO goes on to suggest that “there is no evidence of any quagmire of litigation—there have only been a handful of cases....” But, “‘it is less clear,’” it goes on to say, “‘what one should make of that fact for present purposes, because it is reasonable to infer that one of the reasons why such work stoppages have been uncommon is that, by and large they are apt to be, and are known to be, illegal.’”

Finally, even if voluntary activities were easy to define, they should still be included in the definition of a strike, and there are some reasons this Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling had stated: “‘Almost any contract of service or collective agreement which envisages service, especially in a professional enterprise, can be frustrated by insistence on “work to rule” if it be the case that nothing that has not been expressed can be asked of the employee.’” The focus is “solely on the impact of the activities in combination or in concert—and here no one disputed the impact or that the withdrawal was intended to have an impact....

“[C]ertainly some teacher functions will surely be done outside of school hours....” So “to conclude that a refusal in concert to perform voluntary activities is not a strike simply because they are unpaid, seems to me to achieve indirectly what cannot be achieved directly—i.e. strike action.”

So, Madam Speaker, what we have suggested in our deliberation of Bill 122 was simply codifying in legislation some of the elements that were actually present in the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling, and the rationale provided for doing so is simply to provide some greater clarity.

It provides greater clarity for us when we’re deliberating over a particular piece of legislation; it provides greater clarity for parents, who are obviously concerned about the withdrawal of extracurricular activities as a voluntary activity in our schools; and it provides some greater clarity to teachers on whether or not these constitute a strike action if you’re withdrawing, en masse, co-instructional activities.

I do want to state with a degree of force that “co-instructional activities” is a broad definition. In our amendment that we’ve put forth on this particular piece of legislation, we stated what those items include. People want assurance that their sports are going to take place. People want assurance that their music programs are going to be enriched. People want assurance that their creative activities are going to find a place in our schools.

People want assurance that groups and clubs of activities, whether it’s for anti-bullying or for another matter, have a person in charge, responsible for putting those ideas and putting those clubs into action. They don’t exist without presence of a teacher. So even on things as important as anti-bullying, we are potentially facing the lack of supervision by a teacher because a teacher federation determines that these are voluntary, when they are a part of the educational experience of students. We’re concerned about that.

We have great teachers in the province of Ontario, and a lot of the teachers in the province of Ontario provide extra instruction beyond what takes place in an instructional day. They have math clubs and reading clubs that are a part of helping students achieve better. We’re now in the process of potentially leaving in limbo those very activities because the government chose not to act. It chose not to follow the

interpretation of the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling I have just cited that clearly states—clearly states—that the voluntary withdrawal of services of what constitute voluntary activities is synonymous with withdrawing mandatory activities, because you can’t distinguish between what a voluntary activity is and what a mandatory activity is.

Imagine if we were to do that in the course of our work as MPPs—to try and determine what is, in fact, a mandatory function and what might be a voluntary function. Is going to Legion halls on Friday nights a voluntary activity, responding to e-mails from our constituents, making those phone calls, or attending events at all times of the day? They might be considered voluntary activities, but you know what, Madam Speaker? It’s part of our job; it is what we do.

Every job has, of course, activities that they do on an ongoing basis. When I was a professor prior to coming into politics, around January and February was reference letter season. I never got paid for writing reference letters for my students, but I wanted them to get the education that they wanted. I helped them as much as I could, like our educators do in our schools each and every day.

So what we’re suggesting here is simply following the guidance that was provided by a labour relations board ruling that has listed and provided some detail about how we govern future labour relations when it comes to the withdrawal of voluntary activities—what constitutes “voluntary activities”—from our schools.

What I’m trying to suggest here, and I’ve gone on about this at some length, is that there could have been a far easier solution to getting Bill 122 to the place I know the minister wants to have it. Frankly, I want to have it there, too. The easy way would have been to say, “What you’re saying, Progressive Conservatives, is simply putting and clarifying in legislation what already has been ruled upon by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.” But instead of doing that, they’re going through and taking and utilizing draconian measures to silence the opposition, who are raising an extremely valid point when it comes to the provision of our extracurricular activities.

The simple way would have been to pick up the phone, would have been to talk to the opposition, would have been to negotiate. I’ve said this time and again: If you didn’t like the amendment that I was putting forward, but you had a different amendment that would have achieved a similar goal, hey, put that on the table. I’m happy to listen to those kinds of arguments. But to ignore, to ridicule, to shut down debate on this particular piece of legislation, I think, does a disservice to parents and students right across this province.

I think we are at a very interesting point in our deliberations, that the lack of interest by the government to even entertain and codify something that already exists in the Ontario Labour Relations Board says more about the government than anything else. It says that they are willing to do whatever it takes, perhaps, to not give the opposition any credit when it comes to education, when it comes to something so vital to the way in which our children learn in our schools.

What possible reason could there be for just simply ignoring and flat out rejecting a simple request to add to the definition of “strike” co-instructional activities? What possible reason could there be to do that? Time and again, I’m asking that question, and I know some teachers have been engaged in discussions with me on this, too. Once presented with the facts, they come to understand that, really, what we’re doing in the opposition is not to ask for anything radical but to simply codify what exactly exists in this labour relations board ruling. So what possible reason could there be for an outright ignorance of our perspective?

Could it possibly be that they want to retain the political support of teacher federations? I know the Minister of Education and the Premier were at OECTA; they were at their conference a couple of weeks ago. I want to state that something really interesting happened at that conference. They debated whether or not they should use their reserve fund of $2.8 million to campaign against the Ontario PCs in the next election. Something very interesting happened. In the course of the initial debate, teachers actually rejected that idea.

They don’t want to use their $2.8-million fund to campaign against the Tories, except there was one teacher who actually got up and said, “You know, I think we’ve got this wrong. We’re going to have to use this fund against them, or else we’re going to go on strike.” So what happens in the presence of the minister and the Premier is that they reverse that decision. Now $2.8 million of reserve fund is going to be used against the Tories in the next election by the Ontario Catholic teachers.

I’m wondering whether the simple refusal to incorporate a simple request of putting co-instructional activities into the definition of “strike,” their refusal to do that, wasn’t somewhat related to the fact that they didn’t want to upset the wealth of funds that might be used against their chief rivals when it comes to the next election. Of course, we’re not going to be able to match $2.8 million in third party advertising. We’re not even talking about the Working Families Coalition budget, which is likely going to be three or four times more than that.

The calculus of this government isn’t to help parents; it’s to stay in power. That’s what they do. That’s what they are known to do. Their simple refusal, their outright rejection of a simple request to legislate what we already see in this Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling—we have to ask some serious questions as to why. Because it’s written out there. The reasons aren’t my reasons. This isn’t my decision; this is a decision that was rendered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So I think it’s very important to see what we see in the context of that.

So here we are. The bill that we have in front of us, Bill 122, has about 100 amendments that are before the committee. We were told that through the course of creating this bill, months and months of negotiation were put in place. We were told that this bill was going to come to this Legislature in early September. Well, it didn’t come in early September. They were late. Their legislation wasn’t tabled until the end of October. We were debating it into November. They time-allocated that, and we’re in committee.

But months and months of negotiation with all these “partners of education”—it was so badly written that it required nearly 100 amendments to fix. And then what happened, which was more interesting than that, was that after the bill was tabled in late October, the government was in negotiation with the partners to see what kind of modifications were necessary. So they had their talks, they had their negotiation to find some acceptable path forward. Well, you know what?

The rest of us in the opposition, whether it’s New Democrats or Conservatives, and probably the vast majority of MPPs who are on the government side, have absolutely no idea what was discussed in those closed-door meetings.

So first of all, we were time-allocated in second reading debate. Secondly, we were restricted to three hours of public hearings on a very important and vital piece of legislation, one that ignored the vital partner in our education system, which is our parents and our students. We decided to look at clause-by-clause, and to speed the process of clause-by-clause we suggested that we incorporate for parents and students, who they neglected to talk to, some protection of co-instructional activities in the bill. They took the “strike” definition from the Education Act and put it in the bill.

They did that; I didn’t do that. So they did that. We raised the issue. They could have negotiated, but rather than negotiation they engaged in a protracted process where this bill stalled in committee for weeks.

Now we’re at a point in time where we’re sitting here, on April 1—I thought this was an April fool’s joke, actually—talking about whether members of this Legislature should further limit debate on a bill they already were limited in debating, Madam Speaker.

And this time allocation motion doesn’t just limit the debate in committee for a number of hours, but what I think is far more discouraging is the fact that when this bill comes to third reading, 107 members of this Legislature—106 minus the Speaker—have to fight for 20 minutes per party to actually put in their two cents on this particular piece of legislation. I’m not quite sure what that works out to and how many seconds are allotted to each legislator on that debate.

This is a very serious bill, the implications of which are going to be far-reaching. I think one aspect in this bill that we should consider is actually introducing a clause that has a review period, that after this process of collective bargaining goes through, we come back after that process to see if the system worked or it didn’t.

But you know what, Madam Speaker? Some of those great ideas that we might enlist in improving this legislation will not be debated in clause-by-clause if they had not been put in place as of March 24, which was last week, some very important ideas that could improve and strengthen this bill. I made it clear we were putting the amendments that we were putting forward very simply because that’s what we wanted to talk about, but there are other ideas that could have strengthened this bill that the members of the opposition are simply going to have no opportunity to bring forward.

I think what this is going to show is that we’re going to have a process that this Legislature may agree upon that may be flawed and that we can do very little about. I think that is the most disheartening process of why this time allocation motion should be defeated.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, provincial funding for education has changed in a very fundamental way. Negotiations in that sector will have to change as well to reflect those new realities. The bill before us is meant to do that, because these are very important matters for this province.

The existing bill contains some substantial flaws. We in the NDP have proposed amendments to the bill, as has the government, at the request of stakeholders, and in our opinion this bill is only acceptable if it is amended for greater fairness and balance.

It has been claimed that the government is putting forward this bill as a way of preventing a repeat of the experience with Bill 115, and as I have said before, if a government is prepared to ignore the Constitution, no bill is going to prevent it from acting in an arbitrary way in the future. This bill may be many things, but it is not something that will prevent Bill 115 type experiences in the future.

Major stakeholders—boards, teachers, education workers—want a more predictable environment for bargaining. Families and students want more stability in the system. We want to amend this bill. We want to get back to clause-by-clause in order to try and meet the legitimate needs of all those who have a deep interest in the success of our schools.

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

Mr. Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 43. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This will be deferred until after question period.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Milloy: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Seeing no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 0950 to 1030.

WEARING OF PINS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Labour on a point of order.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members of this Legislature be permitted to wear pins in recognition of Parkinson’s Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Labour is seeking unanimous consent to wear ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome the mother of the page captain today, Nick Lacoste, from the riding of Kitchener–Conestoga—Debra—as well as her friend Wanda Woods. They’ll be in the members’ gallery. Welcome to question period. Good luck today, Nick.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome page Jane Oleksiw’s aunt. Ola Bodnar is here today, so I’d like to welcome her.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome, from the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, the parents of page captain Jonah Opler. We have here with Jonah his mother, Cindy Opler, and his father, Michael Opler. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome students from my riding of Whitby–Oshawa, from École secondaire Saint-Charles-Garnier. They’ll be joining us shortly in the gallery.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s an honour for me to have my daughter, Annie, joining us later. My wife, Kate Bartz, will be coming here at some point.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I just want to say—I don’t know if we should touch on the topic, though—that it is April Fool’s Day. I’m just throwing it out there now, if anybody wants to jump in. I just won’t mention—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is well received.

Further introductions?

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thornhill resident Kevin Hanit is here; you can give us a wave. Kevin took public transit to come down and visit us today. Good for you, Kevin.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome Karen Laffrenier. She’s Callista Laffrenier’s mom. I don’t see her yet, but I saw her this morning. She’s proud to be here, and she’s a good neighbour of mine.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery, we have my other brother; Joe Peters is here joining us. For those not quite baptized in that manner, he’s the brother of the former Speaker, Steve Peters.

Also in the gallery are my guests, retired Justice Ken Lenz and his wife, Pat Lenz. With them as well is a long-time friend of mine, the chair of Brantford International Villages and one of the originators, Pat Eyzenga. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re glad you’re here, all three.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, can you tell us exactly what the budget-leaking team is?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Finance is going to want to speak to the budget. What I will say is that, as in previous years under many governments, there is always a plan to foreshadow the budget. We will be bringing forward a budget. We will be bringing forward a budget that will invest in people, it will invest in infrastructure and it will invest in supports for businesses in this province.

We’ve been clear about that all along. We remain committed to making those investments. I’m not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition might take issue with that strategy, because he actually does not want to invest in the province. He thinks that cutting programs and undercutting business and individuals is the way to go. We don’t believe that. We believe that investing in people is the way to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think I got an answer from the Premier on a very simple question. There’s no listing in the Ontario civil service for something called the budget-leaking team. I understand this is a secret team that you’ve put together. So I’ll ask you again if you could answer a very simple question on behalf of taxpayers: Can you describe exactly what the budget-leaking team is, who sits on it and what their purpose is?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the people of Ontario is that we are preparing a budget. We will be making announcements in advance of the budget, as is the practice of government after government.

We will be making investments in the people of Ontario, we will be making investments in infrastructure and we will be making investments in a business environment—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that will allow the economy to thrive.

That is what I have said all along. That is what I have said about our budget. That is what will be in our budget. Do we have a communications plan, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve asked for order. Now I’ll ask individuals. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. The member from Dufferin–Caledon will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Do we have a communications plan? Absolutely, and I’m sure that the Conservatives and NDP have communications plans. It’s unfortunate—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that those confidential plans may have been released, but the substance is exactly what I have said we are going to do.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, I asked a very simple question. The Premier, for some reason, is not telling us exactly if the budget-leaking team exists or not. Until now, it had been kept secret. We did hear from whistle-blowers within the civil service who are very concerned that you are now drafting Ontario public servants to do the work of the Ontario Liberal Party. It’s not their job. They have a job to do, but it’s not to be Liberal Party staffers.

Premier, let’s be clear about this. I fully expect that you are aware of what’s happening in your own office. You would have been briefed on this, if not come up with the idea yourself. Can you please tell me if the budget-leaking team, secret until today, is staffed by political staff or staffed by bureaucrats?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are putting together a budget. We are putting together and have a communications plan. We are going to be investing in people in this province, we are going to be investing in infrastructure and we are going to be working to partner with business to make sure that they can create jobs.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was at a business this morning in north Etobicoke with MPP Shafiq Qaadri and we made an announcement about investing in Club Coffee. We’re putting $5 million into that company so that they can expand, so that they can create more jobs and export around North America and around the world.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It has everything to do with the budget because the budget is about investing in the economy of the province. That’s what we’re doing.

Interjections.

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

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll try again. The Premier seems to be avoiding answering my very direct and simple questions. I’m confused as to why she won’t confirm or deny that this secret budget-leaking team exists, nor will she confirm or deny that she has drafted civil servants to do the work of the Ontario Liberal Party.

We fully expect Liberal Party staffers to figure out communications, but we do not expect you to draft public servants to do the work—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: That’s not what they are there for. This shows me further a Premier who is more concerned about protecting her own job than creating jobs for—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You seem to be oblivious, or you claim to be oblivious, to what’s happening within your own government, your own office, from the OPP investigation of potential criminal activity and the destruction of documents, now to this budget-leaking team. I’ll ask one more time. This is try number four. Can you confirm that the secret budget-leaking team exists, and if so, is it staffed by bureaucrats or Liberal Party staff?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just say to the leader of the third party, the jobs that I’m protecting and the jobs that we’re working to create are jobs for the people of Ontario. We’re making investments in order that we can have an economy that’s thriving.

So are we preparing a budget? Absolutely. Are finance officials engaged in preparing that budget? Absolutely. I think the people of Ontario would be shocked if I said, “No, the Ministry of Finance officials are not involved in preparing a budget.” Do we have a communications plan? Absolutely.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Carry on.

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

We will deliver on that commitment to bring forward a budget that will invest in the people of this province, that will invest in infrastructure and that will support a business climate that will attract jobs to the province. That is what the substance of our budget will be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m going to send over to the Premier a list of people on the budget-leaking team. This information was given to us by civil servants, whistle-blowers, who are concerned that you’re abusing your power as Premier to put Liberal Party interests ahead of the interests of taxpayers or the civil service.

I asked you four times, Premier, if this group existed. You refused to answer. I don’t know why you’re being so extraordinarily evasive when it comes to very basic questions here today. What are you trying to hide?

I’ll ask one of the pages to bring this over to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that Matthew Sylvain, Kyle MacIntyre, Stephen Donnelly and others on this list are paid Liberal staff? Or is it, as we fear from the whistle-blowers, civil servants you’re drafting to do the work of the Liberal Party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say again to the Leader of the Opposition, yes, we are preparing a budget. I believe that that is absolutely our responsibility, to prepare a budget, to work with the officials in finance. Of course, they are working to prepare that budget. Do we have a communications plan? Absolutely, we have a communications plan.

I think what the Leader of the Opposition is really concerned about is that he doesn’t support the investments that we’re putting forward. He—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community and Social Services, come to order, and for the third time, the member from Renfrew—sorry, second time. Because you’re counting, you only have one left.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is not surprising to me that the leader of the third party would be somewhat exercised about investments in the province, because it’s not what he supports. He opposes making investments. He opposes supporting business. He opposes supporting the talent and skills of this province. So I don’t expect him to agree with us, but I do expect him to understand that we’re going to bring that budget forward.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: We on this side certainly appreciate that the Premier showed up for question period today. I just wish we had some answers to, honestly, very basic questions.

You’ve had the list to study. This looks to me like the Liberal Party that, once again, is more concerned about keeping their government limousines, their cabinet minister titles, and spending whatever it takes to keep their jobs. I’m more concerned about creating good jobs with better take-home pay for all Ontarians. That’s what my plan is.

I guess it’s my last chance. We’ll continue to ask this, Premier. Can you confirm or deny the existence of the hitherto secret budget-leaking team, and can you tell me also that your plan is to make 39 different spending announcements totalling $5.7 billion in the next 21 days? That’s the information we’ve had from the whistle-blowers. And if that’s the case, where are you going to find the money?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, I know how to do that, and you’re wasting your own time. I called for you to do it—and I don’t want the responses either.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m just adding impact, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted them to listen very carefully.

This is what is happening, and this is what I can confirm: We on this side of the House are preparing a budget, a very forward-thinking plan, one that will be released in the coming weeks here in this very House, one that is being used and worked on with a number of officials from the ministry, including members of our political staff, and one that includes a rollout of a coms team that I am very proud of.

The people of Ontario will be very proud of this budget as well, because it speaks to the needs of that community, it talks about investing in our people, it talks about being very strategic in our investments in infrastructure and creating jobs, and it talks about maintaining a very dynamic business climate.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ll not know when I decide to stop the last people.

Leader of the third party.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thanks, Speaker. It’s nice to be missed. I want to thank the Premier for showing up to Queen’s Park today, as well, to question period. There are some important questions that the people of this province deserve answers to, and the buck stops with the Premier when it comes to answering them.

What services was Peter Faist supplying to the Liberal Party in the last week?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me first say that I know that the leader of the third party, who puts herself forward as a champion of the north, will understand that it was very important that I meet with the businesses that I met with yesterday in Sault Ste. Marie—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order. Second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She will know that it was very important for me to meet with the folks at Algoma University to talk about the expansion to their athletic complex. She will know that it was very important for me to visit with the students at Francis Clergue school. She would know, because she does put herself forward as a champion of the north, that it is not appropriate to make plans weeks in advance and then cancel them. So I was very pleased to have been able to be in Sault Ste. Marie, and I’m happy to answer her other questions in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A Premier who preaches accountability should know that that takes showing up in the Legislature to answer questions of the opposition.

Mr. Faist’s services were abruptly terminated over the weekend. If he was merely providing routine services, as the Liberals insist, why was his contract terminated?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I worked all day yesterday, until midnight, and I have never walked out of this Legislature. Never have, never will.

Let me just say that we learned on Thursday of the allegations about the former chief of staff in the former Premier’s office. Following these revelations, we put in place an internal investigation, we conducted that, and it was determined that the company previously did occasional IT services in the caucus office under the former Premier, and in the party office—and that was until January 2013. Those IT services only continued with the party until we discovered—and on Sunday those services were terminated.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Mr. Faist has worked closely with the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus for some time, as the Premier has indicated, yet this internal Liberal Party investigation of his services brought about his immediate termination. What exactly was found in that investigation is what I would like to know from the Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I said was that this IT company did some work with the caucus services before I was in this office, until January 2013. I was not in this office until February 11. There was a continuation, there was some work that was done for the Liberal Party until we did our internal investigation after the allegations came forward on Thursday. As of Sunday, those services were terminated. That is a decision that we made on Sunday.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. For more than a year, people in the Premier’s office have known that the partner of a Liberal staffer came into their office to wipe their computers. At least, that’s what they told OPP investigators. But for a year, the Premier and her staff never came forward, never shared these facts with the public. Now we learn the same individual was working for the Liberal Party even while this Premier insisted she didn’t know him. Yet they expect us to take the Liberal Party at their word when they say there’s nothing more to see.

Does the Premier think that saying “I know nothing about this” is good enough?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s just be clear: I learned of the allegations on Thursday, and the allegations are against the former chief of staff of the former Premier. It has nothing to do with the staff member who has been mentioned by the leader of the third party.

Nonetheless, we are in this process; there is a police investigation going on. They are doing their work. We need to let that work unfold.

I have said quite clearly, I am happy to debate—and I have been answering questions about the relocation of the gas plants for the last year. I have appeared before committee. We have opened up the process, and that is appropriate debate.

The allegations that the leader of the third party is commenting on are part of a process that the police are undertaking right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, on Friday I wrote to the Premier, making it plain that it’s time for a public inquiry into the gas plant scandal and the cover-up. I have yet to receive a response from this Premier. Will the Premier finally call the public inquiry?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the leader of the third party to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We actually had this conversation a year ago, Mr. Speaker. I said that we were going to open up the process. We have done exactly that. The committee has seen tens of thousands of documents—I think hundreds of thousands of documents—and has had witnesses. I have appeared before the committee twice, and my understanding is that the committee is still calling witnesses. The fact is, there’s an investigation that’s ongoing. We need to let that unfold.

The reality is, the only reason we’re having this discussion is because we did open up the process. We opened up the process. We made it clear that we were going to provide any of the information that was relevant. We have done that. We will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The only reason we are where we are now is because we have a minority Parliament and this government has been forced to answer the questions of the opposition.

For the families that are stuck paying the bills, the Premier’s story is pretty hard to believe. The Liberals keep insisting that there is nothing more to see here, folks. That’s just not good enough.

The Premier leads a Liberal Party that wasted over $1 billion and now has key political staff under criminal investigation by the OPP anti-rackets squad. If the Premier is actually interested in getting the facts out, why won’t she allow for a completely independent, truly unbiased public inquiry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would put the OPP in the “unbiased” category, and they are doing their work.

Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly—and I have taken responsibility—that there were mistakes made, that there were things done that should not have been done and that there were decisions made that should not have been made. I have said that we need new rules. We’re putting those new rules in place. We have new rules about document retention. We have training that has taken place with all staff. The Minister of Energy is putting new rules in place in terms of siting energy infrastructure. We have made changes over the last year as a result of this discussion.

That has nothing to do with being in a minority Parliament. That has to do with the integrity of this government and our understanding of what needs to happen in order to make decisions properly in the future.

Interjections.

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

New question.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Premier, our leader, Tim Hudak, has presented you with evidence of your secret budget-leaking team, code-named BLT. It is reminiscent of the existence of code names during the gas plant scandal, with titles Project Vapour and Project Apple.

The BLT’s purpose is to leverage the size and scope of the Ontario civil service towards the goal of doing the pre-election campaign work of the Liberal Party. The plan is to have taxpayer-paid employees leak out 39 budget plan details over the next month. This is the same self-interested behaviour we saw when the Liberals blew $1 billion to cancel two gas plants to save five seats, against the advice of their own advisers in the civil service. When will you end the practice of putting the Liberal Party ahead of the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear to all those that are listening and watching. Let’s be clear to all Ontarians. This is not about the fortunes of any political party who are doing political gimmicks and playing cheap tricks to try to get and play at the lowest level of politics. It is untoward what they are doing. This is not about the fortunes of that political party there, or any; it’s about the fortunes of Ontarians. We’re going to deliver a budget. It’s in progress—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that you’ve finished, the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order—second time.

Carry on.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the budget is in progress. Nothing has yet been finalized. We want everyone to know that the budget will be presented right here in this very House, for the people of Ontario, and we have asked the people of Ontario for their submissions. All of us have been working on this together. The opposition have decided not to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I must say, Premier, I think the lowest level is co-opting tax-paid employees to disclose your secret BLT. That’s the lowest level. This BLT confirms the fact that the Liberals are withholding the 2014 budget from the public and from the credit rating agencies to use it as a political tool to help in their re-election bid. Even more damning, the Liberals’ budget-leaking team also oversees the use of taxpayer dollars to advertise and promote these new Liberal initiatives. Basically, the Liberal Party has co-opted tax-paid Ontario government employees to run its election campaign for the next month.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, those safe hands you keep talking about are found to be digging into taxpayers’ pockets yet again to get you re-elected. What’s so safe about that?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite repeatedly asks for transparency and more information. The member opposite wants us to come forward with our long-term plan, which is coming in the coming week. The member opposite wants that budget presented in this House. The member opposite wants it to be audited and wants the integrity of those numbers to be confirmed, which they are. In fact, the government of Ontario was rated the top in the nation for integrity of our numbers and the disclosure of what we are doing. We’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to work with all of our stakeholders.

I am very proud of the staff at the Ministry of Finance and the work that that team has done alongside myself and others to present a budget that is wholesome and, yes, very aspirational because it’s long-term in its view. They choose not to do that, Mr. Speaker. They choose gutter politics. They choose to smear the very individuals that are working on behalf of the public service for the benefit of others.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier say right now that she thinks Peter Faist should come to the justice committee and answer questions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think all members realize this is a very serious situation. The justice committee is looking into the matter. There’s a process in place in which they can come forward with witness lists and call those witnesses forward. I think we should allow the committee to undertake the work that’s set out and to determine which witnesses it wishes to call and undertake that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I didn’t see that coming. Again to the Premier: As we heard in committee this morning, we’re having a hard time reaching Mr. Faist. Are the Liberals prepared to use the information they have to help us locate him? Or better yet, does the Premier know where he is?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when it comes to members of the government, including the Premier, including the Minister of Energy, including myself, we have made ourselves available to the committee. In terms of other witnesses, it’s up to the committee to decide what that list is and to pursue the matter as it sees fit. There are processes that are in place.

I know, speaking on our side of the Legislature, we were very, very disappointed. We wanted the Conservative candidates from the election—the same ones who made claims that the only way to have these gas plants cancelled was to elect them—to come before the committee and talk about their financial analysis, about the policy work that was done, and they in fact didn’t appear in front of the committee.

As far as this government is concerned, we have co-operated fully with the committee in terms of the witnesses and the documents that have been requested.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, I cannot forget, and my constituents cannot forget, that our community is on the traditional lands of the Mississauga First Nations, and that is why I’m proud of our government’s strong record and our Premier’s strong record on consulting and working with numerous aboriginal communities across Ontario. By creating the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in 2007, we are continually strengthening these important partnerships.

I hear the minister say in the House that Ontario is taking action to drive smart, sustainable and collaborative development in the Ring of Fire. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Northern Development and Mines please educate the House on how Ontario is ensuring a collaborative approach to Ring of Fire development with our aboriginal partners?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks to the member for asking that question. The timing, may I say, is impeccable. Our commitment to a collaborative approach was demonstrated very clearly just this past Wednesday when I had the privilege of signing, on behalf of the province, a landmark agreement with the nine Matawa First Nations chiefs. What is so important is that will ensure that the Matawa First Nations truly benefit from the Ring of Fire development.

This regional framework agreement is an absolutely vital step in a historic community-based negotiation process. It really does ensure that First Nations and Ontario will work together to advance the Ring of Fire opportunities. The agreement lays out the framework for regional, long-term environmental, enhanced participation in the environmental assessment process, resource revenue-sharing—a number of important factors.

A tremendous day, a great opportunity—we are looking forward to moving forward with the Ring of Fire.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you to the minister for the update. This collaborative approach is truly impressive, and it is this type of collaborative approach that makes our mining sector a Canadian leader in exploration and development—responsible and sustainable exploration. The minister stated that this framework agreement was just one of many ways we are moving forward on the Ring of Fire.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, how is our government moving forward on this nationally significant project?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you again for the question. I very much appreciate the description that this is a nationally significant project, because that’s exactly what this multi-generational project is. To make sure that everybody in the House knows and everyone else knows: We are leading the creation of a development corporation to move the infrastructure process forward.

We have often said—the Premier has said—we’re moving on a parallel path. The First Nations negotiation process was absolutely vital, and we made a great step forward last week, but certainly we’ve begun real discussions with several of the key partners as we move forward with this important process. We have retained Deloitte, an experienced company related to governance issues, and we are very keen to continue to move forward on that aspect of the project as well.

What I want to do today, though, is once again call on the federal government to partner with us, with our development corporation, to develop vital infrastructure for this region. They’ve invested in many other nationally significant projects in Newfoundland, British Columbia and Alberta—

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

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the government House leader admitted that Peter Faist worked for the Ontario Liberal caucus at one point and for the Ontario Liberal Party, under your leadership, until Sunday.

Given the severity of the OPP allegations involving Mr. Faist during the time he worked for her party and surrounding the deletion of emails and wiping hard drives in the Premier’s office, can the Premier, as Liberal leader, tell this House if Mr. Faist had undergone a security clearance before he accessed sensitive files either for her party or for the Premier’s office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to repeat for the member opposite that we learned about the allegations on Thursday about the former chief of staff of the former Premier. The individual about whom she is speaking was not the subject of these allegations. Following the revelations about the connections, an internal investigation was conducted, and it was determined, as I have said, that this particular company did some work previously for the caucus office under the former Premier. That ended in January 2013.

There was some service provided by the company to the party office until Sunday. Having determined that this person still was doing some work, we terminated that service on Sunday. As I said, we made that decision as soon as we determined that he was providing services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is a reasonable question that Ontarians and Liberal Party members would want to know. We know that Mr. Faist has refused to speak with the OPP over the $1.1-billion gas plant scandal; we know we’re having a very difficult time reaching him to come into the justice committee. We’ll deal with a Speaker’s warrant if the time comes.

Given the nature of this scandal and the OPP revelations and given Mr. Faist’s alleged role as an employee of the Liberal Party of Ontario, I ask you again: As leader of the Liberal Party who had this individual under your employment up until Sunday, did he or did he not undergo a security clearance to deal with these sensitive files either through the Legislative Assembly or through your party?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this was work that was done for the caucus office under the former Premier. The allegations that came to light on Thursday were allegations against the former Premier’s former chief of staff.

I would say this to the member opposite: The committee, whose scope we opened up—the process that we initiated in order to get information into the public realm—will continue to do its work. I know that the committee will continue to call people to speak to it, and that is as it should be. When I came into this office, that is exactly what I said should happen. So we’re going to let that process unfold, and we’ll leave it to the committee to call the people whom they choose to call.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: Can the Premier tell Ontarians if she discussed the gas plant cover-up with her cabinet secretary and what the secretary told her?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would want the member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I will withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Can the Premier tell Ontarians if she discussed the gas plant matter and records with her cabinet secretary and what the secretary told her?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows full well that I have been before the committee twice. I have answered all the questions about what I know about this matter. I have repeated it over and over again. He can check Hansard; he can look at the records from the committee. I have been very clear about my involvement, which really was very limited.

What is critical is that he understand and that the people of Ontario understand that I have taken responsibility. I have said that there were decisions made that should have been different. I have said that there were processes that needed to be changed, and we have changed those processes. We have put new rules in place about document retention. We have trained all of our staff. We have, working with the Minister of Energy, put new rules in place about siting energy infrastructure. Those are the actions that we have taken in addition to opening up the process around these questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: There are a lot of words there, but no answer.

Does the Premier expect Ontarians to believe that the head of the Ontario public service, a gentleman who told police that he was uncomfortable with the goings-on in the Liberal Premier’s office, never once talked to the Premier about the destruction of emails that happened during February and March 2013?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the member opposite is talking about actions that took place before I was the Premier. As soon as I became the Premier, we worked to open up the process and change the rules. The fact is that the allegations that have come forward in the last few days have been about the former Premier’s office and the former Premier’s chief of staff.

Indeed, I have had many conversations with the secretary of cabinet about how to change the rules and make sure that the document retention rules and the training were put in place. We have had conversations with the privacy commissioner in order to put the right framework in place. That’s what we have done, and we will continue to co-operate with whoever has more questions of us, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre du Travail, the Honourable Kevin Flynn. Before posing the question, I’d also just like to thank the Premier for the advanced manufacturing announced in my own riding of Etobicoke North just an hour ago.

Speaker, the inaugural question to our new Minister of Labour: It has been said that how a society deals with its youth will determine its prosperity. Of course, our investments include things like full-day kindergarten all the way up to world-class schooling, something that’s valued by my own residents in Etobicoke North.

But for many young folks, it’s still a difficult challenge for them to acquire positions and placements in internships. Our Youth Employment Fund has, in fact, helped 9,800 young people find meaningful employment, which is, of course, commendable. Internships: There are still a lot of issues associated with that.

My question is, what are we doing to ensure that young people in my community who start a new job will be paid for the work they do?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the fine member from Etobicoke North for that very timely question. We all know that building a strong workforce is also about building safe workplaces and fair workplaces.

In Ontario, the rules on internships are very, very clear. It doesn’t matter what your job title is or what your position is; if you perform work for someone, you’re covered by the Employment Standards Act, and you deserve to be paid the minimum wage. There’s a narrow exemption for co-op students, for trainees and for the self-employed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister Flynn, for your first answer as our newly minted Minister of Labour. I know that the labour ministry will be under good stewardship under your watch.

I appreciate, first of all, your outlining the strong rules for internships here in Ontario. My own constituents value this, as we’re reaching out to young people, businesses and institutions. But I still hear from folks in my own riding that although the Ministry of Labour is there to help them, sometimes they have a challenge to reach out to them.

We’ve also seen, as you know very well, issues within the publication industry and the press with regard to unpaid internships.

So my question is, Minister, how is the ministry exercising oversight and making sure that these youth are protected?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Once again, I’d like to thank the fine member from Etobicoke North for the thoughtful question. I can assure the member that the government is working very hard to ensure that our youths’ rights are protected.

We are the very first government to conduct proactive inspections, and while they’re out in the field, the enforcement officers specifically ask about internships.

We have invested an additional $3 million per year for this proactive enforcement. We’re making sure that more businesses are inspected and more workers’ rights are protected.

This spring, we’ll be conducting a blitz that’s going to look directly at this issue. Any concerns regarding arrangements can be referred to the Ministry of Labour’s hotline: 1-800-531-5551. Confidential help is available in 23 languages. We will review any and all complaints to enforce these rules.

Speaker, we are working very hard to ensure that Ontario’s youth have a solid and a very safe start to their work life.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you seem to have your dates a little crossed up, so I want to lay this out for you. You met with the leader of the official opposition on January 28, 2013, and asked him to stop pursuing the truth about the $1.1-billion gas plant scandal. Then, on February 7, you wrote to the Auditor General to ask him to expand the probe on the gas plant scandal to include the Oakville power plant. But between those times, the OPP says Peter Faist was in the Premier’s office, purging documents off computers.

How can you be responsible for taking meetings on the gas plant scandal and asking the Auditor General to further probe the gas plant scandal but be completely removed from the deputy chief of staff’s IT-savvy boyfriend destroying files on the gas plant scandal? Premier, you’re ministerially responsible for that office. Why don’t you explain yourself?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say this: I came into this office knowing that there was a need for an opening up of the process around the relocation of the gas plants. I knew that. It was discussed during the leadership race. We talked about it, and we knew there was going to need to be a different process whereby information could be brought to the public.

I absolutely came into this office and wanted to do everything that I could to make sure there was the opportunity for the members of the opposition, but for the public also, more importantly, to have the information that was needed.

We opened up the process. I said I was going to do that, and that’s what we have done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Premier, the best defence is a good offence, but your house of cards falls to pieces when you can no longer muzzle the people around you. You tried to muzzle the member for Nipissing after you redacted the wrong documents in the estimates committee. You’re trying to muzzle the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nepean–Carleton, to change the channel on your $1.1-billion gas plant scandal.

The problem is, Premier, that no one takes you seriously. You can’t even muzzle your own government bureaucrats and prevent them from leaking out your crass political spending plans.

How can you call yourself an open, honest and transparent government when you refuse to answer questions and can’t go a day without dragging honourable members of this Legislature through the mud? Premier, it doesn’t get much lower than that. You should apologize to the people of Ontario for your smear campaign.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will debate issues that have a basis in truth, that are honest and that have evidence to support them. I will debate those any day, which is why I said, when I came into this office, that it was very important to me that we open up the process and we provide any answers to questions that were put forward, and that we broaden the scope of the committee so that those answers could be brought forward.

In terms of our budget, I’m happy to talk with the member opposite about our plan for the budget. I’m happy to talk about how important I believe it is that we invest in the people of this province and not cut their programs, not cut their health care, not cut their education and not undermine labour in this province. I’ll debate that with you any day.

Interjections.

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. People throughout the OPS and senior Liberal ranks told the police that they knew that computers in the Premier’s office had been tampered with, but the Premier claims that she had no idea. When did she first learn that computers in the Premier’s office had been wiped and emails deleted?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There were allegations that came forward on Thursday about the former Premier’s chief of staff—the former Premier’s chief of staff, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier’s chief of staff never worked for me. He was never in my office. He was never part of my staff.

Let me just repeat: The allegations that came forward on Thursday were about the former Premier’s chief of staff. That person has never worked for me and was never in my office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Let me clarify some dates. The OPP court document says that they “believe David Livingston committed the offence of breach of trust by allowing ... Peter Faist to ... access 24 computers in the Premier’s office between the 6th of February and the 20th of March, 2013.”

Did Peter Faist erase computers while the Premier was in office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, let me just be clear: The allegations are about the former Premier’s chief of staff. The other individual who the member opposite has named is someone who did provide service to the Liberal caucus office up until January 2013. I became the Premier in this office on February 11. He no longer was providing services to the Liberal caucus.

That individual was providing some services to the Liberal Party when these allegations against the former Premier’s chief of staff came to light. We did an internal investigation, determined that this person was still providing some services to the Liberal Party—not in my office, but to the Liberal Party—and we terminated those services.

TOURISM

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. According to Tourism Toronto, last year we welcomed the largest number of overseas visitors on record. This is great news for Toronto, and I can certainly see why tourists would want to visit the entire region. There are many attractions to enjoy, including the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Royal Ontario Museum, and Ripley’s brand new aquarium, which opened this fall with tremendous success.

As the member from Vaughan, I’m also very proud to have wonderful attractions in my community, like Legoland, the McMichael art gallery and Canada’s Wonderland, right within driving distance of Toronto.

Speaker, can the minister please inform the House regarding how we are working as a government to stimulate even more investment for Ontario’s tourism industry?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. The weather is warmer; the daylight is longer. I’m very pleased to rise today to talk about tourism.

Our government understands the important role that the tourism sector plays in building a strong economy and creating jobs. As a matter of fact, it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates billions of dollars for our economy. Our tourism attractions stimulate local economies and help make Ontario a premier tourism destination.

This is why my ministry supports investment projects by the private sector throughout the planning and development phases. The member is right: We invested in the new Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada in Toronto, which will attract an estimated two million visitors in its first year of operations. That’s great for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for his response and for the outstanding response that he’s doing for the people of Ontario.

As he mentioned, the tourism sector is a key component of Toronto’s cultural and recreational fabric, but it’s also responsible for generating jobs and revenue for the province. The tourism sector generates billions of dollars for Ontario’s economy and supports over 300,000 jobs. It was also, and importantly, the single largest employer of young people in the province. Supporting tourism has truly helped to raise the profile of Ontario as a world-class destination, making it a great place for international visitors to invest.

Speaker, can the minister please update the House regarding what actions are being taken to ensure that tourism remains an essential part of Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Michael Chan: Definitely, tourism is an essential part of the province’s economic development and investment attraction strategy. My ministry continues to implement our tourism investment strategy, launched in November 2012, which aims to raise the profile of Ontario as a place to invest.

Here are some examples of the projects that we are working to support: the Fort Erie Canadian Motor Speedway, which recently broke ground; Skyline Developments’ Georgian Valley project; and Triple Properties’ proposed Durham Live! project in Pickering.

In addition to our own investment attraction efforts, my ministry is also working closely with the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Employment to leverage their significant investment attraction efforts as well.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is also for the Premier. Premier, when the province’s top bureaucrat, Peter Wallace, was before the justice committee last June, he gave testimony that, in hindsight, is quite shocking.

To paraphrase Mr. Wallace, he said that in the midst of a scandal that paralyzed your government—with the Minister of Energy facing contempt charges, with the former Premier having been chased from office and after years of questions about missing emails from the Office of the Premier—then, as the incoming Premier, you apparently asked no questions about the retention of email records, and neither did any of your staff. Mr. Wallace testified that conversations about document destruction in the Premier’s office would take place on a political to political level.

So tell us, Premier, why did you and your staff fail to ask routine questions of the outgoing staff? Is it because you already knew the answer and you just wanted to appear to be ignorant when the police came knocking?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, I knew when I came into this office that we needed to change the process around the relocation of the gas plants. I was aware of that. It was part of my platform when I came in as the Premier, Mr. Speaker. And so in those early days what I was working on was how we were going to open up the process, how we were going to make sure that all of the questions that the opposition and that the public wanted answers to would be answered. That’s the work that we did in those early days. That’s why the process got opened up.

That’s why there’s as much information as there is in the public realm. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to provide the opportunity for the committee to do its work. It continues to do its work, and that’s as it should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: Premier, this comes down to your credibility, and your claims of ignorance are not believable. We know from sworn testimony from the head of the public service that your staff made no inquiries about email records that were the subject of substantial interest in this Legislature and elsewhere. What we don’t know is what conversations took place between political staff in the outgoing Premier’s office and your office about the work Peter Faist performed on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party.

You’re implying here today that your staff is fundamentally incompetent and that some conspiracy of silence exists in your office, where no one asks the inconvenient question. What is your defence? Enough is enough. Is it not finally time to let the people of Ontario pass judgment on your sorry record?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it seems to me that for the last year there have been many difficult questions that have been asked and answered. We have shied away from none of those. We have answered the questions, we have provided documentation and, most importantly, we have acknowledged that there needed to be changes. We have changed the rules and the protocols around retention of information. We have changed the rules and the structures around locating gas plants and energy infrastructure.

We have acknowledged that communities need to be more involved and they need to have more buy-in, and that is what is happening. I came into this office understanding that there needed to be changes. We have moved ahead and we have made those changes.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier or any member of her caucus or staff been investigated by the OPP?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite understands that there’s an OPP investigation going on. We need to let that unfold. I think what is really critical is that we talk about how we make sure that we have the right rules in place, that we have had the right process. I would suggest that I came into this office and I knew that we needed to open up the committee process so that there could be a more complete discussion of the issues, which is why there have been hundreds of thousands of documents.

Dozens of people have come forward to the committee and answered questions, including myself and the former Premier. The committee continues to do its work. The OPP is doing its investigation, and the committee is continuing to ask questions and to provide information for the public. That’s as it should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question was whether anyone has been investigated, has anyone been interviewed. I didn’t really hear an answer to that. I heard a lot of spinning. We are learning from former staff that they’re refusing to be interviewed by the OPP.

Will the Premier state now that she believes that the Liberals, both past staff and present staff, should be offering their full co-operation to the OPP as they conduct their investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, why will the opposition not deal with facts? The facts were outlined in a voluminous document that was released by the courts last week. If he wants to know the names of some of the individuals that were interviewed in there, I believe the member from Nipissing was interviewed by the police and the member from Cambridge was interviewed by the police.

The fact of the matter is, what this document concluded is that there were serious allegations against one individual: the former chief of staff of the Premier. This document asks for permission to get a warrant to continue the investigation to see if there is any basis for those allegations. I would think it would be prudent for all members of this Legislature to allow the OPP to do their work and to deal with the facts as outlined in this court document.

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

Nous sommes fiers que notre gouvernement a réussi à trouver une solution aussi rapidement. La ministre peut-elle éclairer la Chambre sur ce que signifie cette entente de principe pour la communauté francophone?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Samedi dernier, j’étais à Rockland pour le gala de la francophonie de Prescott-Russell, et tous les gens là-bas voulaient venir me parler pour remercier notre gouvernement, et surtout remercier le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour le travail extraordinaire qu’il a fait pour garder l’institution francophone d’Alfred ouverte.

Présentement, il y a un comité qui se penche sur—un comité de transition, qui est formé du Collège Boréal, de La Cité, du ministère et de l’Union des cultivateurs, qui va mettre en place un processus pour justement assurer la pérennité du collège.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Question supplémentaire?

La ministre peut-elle informer la Chambre sur le statut des demandes de désignation des institutions postsecondaires?

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Premier, once again you’ve been caught telling a story that just doesn’t add up, and Ontarians are seeing right through it. You told us Peter Faist wasn’t in your office, but you and your Liberal Party had a contract with him until he became politically inconvenient.

More than 80 witnesses, many of them Liberals, including you, have come before the gas plant hearings, but it took the threat of jail doors slamming for Lauren Ramey to cop to what was really going on in the Premier’s office. Now you’re using a lawyer to make arguments that you can’t make for yourself because you’ve lost the moral authority to lead, and no one believes you.

Premier, you continue to talk about these safe hands, but according to the OPP, the only Liberal safe hands are those in handcuffs.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just repeat what I have already said a couple of times today. The individual that the member opposite is talking about is someone who worked and did some work for the caucus office before I was the Premier, up until January 2013, and continued to do some work with the Liberal Party. That work was terminated on Sunday. That’s the reality.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 122,

An Act respecting collective bargaining in Ontario’s school system.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Would all members take their seats, please. Thank you.

Mr. Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 43. All those in favour, rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Balkissoon, Bas

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Crack, Grant

Damerla, Dipika

Del Duca, Steven

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dickson, Joe

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hunter, Mitzie

Jaczek, Helena

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

MacCharles, Tracy

Mangat, Amrit

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Piruzza, Teresa

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed, 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

Holyday, Douglas C.

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jones, Sylvia

Leone, Rob

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Martow, Gila

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

Smith, Todd

Thompson, Lisa M.

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 43; the nays are 36.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. On April Fool’s Day, I’m hoping the opposition will accept a pay freeze by the following:

I seek unanimous consent that the question on the motion of second reading of Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, be immediately put without further debate or amendment; and

That the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading of Bill 177 be immediately called; and

That the question on the motion for third reading of the bill be put without debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance is seeking unanimous consent that the question on the motion—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m getting through this before you say that.

The Minister of Finance is seeking unanimous consent that the question on the motion of second reading of Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, be immediately put without further debate or amendment; and

That the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading of Bill 177 be immediately called; and

That the question on the motion for third reading of the bill be put without debate or amendment.

Do we agree? I heard a no.

The member for Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I seek unanimous consent that the sponsorship of Bill 5,

An Act to freeze compensation for two years in the public sector, be transferred to the member for Nipissing, so that we all freeze our pay across the public sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent that the sponsorship of Bill 5,

An Act to freeze compensation for two years—

Interjections.

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

The member from Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent for the sponsorship of Bill 5,

An Act to freeze compensation for two years in the public sector, be transferred to the member for Nipissing.

Do we agree? I heard a no.

There are no deferred votes.

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1148 to 1500.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? Introduction of guests?

I’m going to be patient here, because I think I see a dialogue going on for the introduction of guests who have not arrived yet.

I’ll leave introduction of guests for a point of order from the member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Tonight, there’s a very important hockey game here in the city of Toronto. The Toronto Maple Leafs are up against the Calgary Flames, their playoff hopes hanging by a thread. I would just like all of us here in the Legislature to wish them the best of luck tonight against the Flames.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To avoid any kind of escalation of high emotions, as there are maybe different types of fans here in the building, I’ll just indicate to the member that it’s not a statement either.

The Minister of the Environment on a point of order.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member for Nipissing and I will be watching very carefully this evening, Mr. Speaker, as the Niagara IceDogs face the North Bay Battalion. I would like to make a prediction that the Niagara IceDogs will be winning, and I certainly wish them the very best.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wonder if the member for Nipissing wants some water.

Before I finish, I would like to tell the member that it’s not a statement, and it’s also not a point of order.

I understand that the member from Nipissing has a point of order as well.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Trust me, Speaker, when I say this is a point of order: I’m still choking over the minister’s statement about the Niagara something-or-other dogs down there.

North Bay has come from behind. It’s a 3-3 tie. We’re going to clean those dogs tonight.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You know what? I blame myself for this. The only reason I was delaying a little bit was that I got the impression there was somebody coming into the place who was going to be introduced. I don’t think I see that.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m still standing. I just thought I’d let the minister without portfolio know that.

We are almost prepared to move into members’ statements, and I will be as generous as I possibly can with the minister without portfolio on a point of order.

Hon. John Gerretsen: We have heard a lot about the other junior A teams, but actually the game of the night will take place in Kingston at the K-Rock Centre, when the Kingston Frontenacs will be meeting the Peterborough Petes. We in Kingston know that Kingston will be successful in the seventh game tonight.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thought you were going to say something about the Jerseyville Sweethearts or something that effect—the little five-year-olds are playing.

It’s time for members’ statements.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CURLING

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity today to congratulate four guys from Central Huron Secondary School in my riding on their victory in the OFSAA, Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations, boys’ curling gold medal game a couple of weeks ago.

Sault Ste. Marie has Team Jacobs, Winnipeg has Team Jones, and now Clinton celebrates Team Doig. Skip Ethan Doig, vice Adam Vincent, second Sam Steep and lead Alex Vincent were victorious in a close and exciting game against Kemptville’s St. Michael Catholic high school. The game was very tight, and Team Doig was able to pull off a dramatic come-from-behind victory.

I also want to congratulate all the teams from the secondary schools across the province that won the opportunity to participate in OFSAA this year. No matter what your season turned out to be, you have found a sport that will continue to enrich your lives for years to come.

Curling is how many people in my riding pass the winter months, but it’s so much more than that. It shows us the fun of friendly competition, but it also teaches teamwork, sportsmanship and good, old-fashioned community spirit.

I would be remiss if I didn’t share with this assembly that the cost of electricity has gotten out of control at the hands of this Liberal government. It threatens the very rinks that are homes to champions. They deserve better, as does all of Ontario.

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s with great pride that I rise to announce today being the first day of Sikh Heritage Month in Ontario. It’s the first legislation of its kind across Canada. It’s a very happy day for Sikhs across the province, as April is already a month where Sikhs celebrate Khalsa Day and the formalization of the Sikh faith. Sikhs have been in Canada for hundreds and hundreds of years. In fact, as early as the late 1800s, a Sikh regiment paraded in the CNE, one of the first exhibitions held in Toronto. In addition, there are Toronto Star articles indicating a Dr. Sundar Singh, who lived in Toronto and was an advocate for social rights as early as 1911.

Sikhs have been a fabric of this community, of this province, contributing in economics, in science, in the medical field, in the business field as well as the political arena, and will continue to do so. One of our hopes is that, through information and awareness, we can replace some of the fear and ignorance of all faiths with understanding and acceptance, creating a climate where people can feel free to express themselves, express their spirituality and their diversity, and create a society here in Toronto and Ontario where all faiths are accepted, people are accepted for who they are, and diversity is something that we celebrate.

I’m very proud that Ontario is the first province in Canada to have created and enacted Sikh Heritage Month.

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

Mr. Bob Delaney: The Sikh Heritage Month Act, 2013, declared April as Sikh Heritage Month in Ontario. It’s an opportunity to remember, celebrate and to educate future generations about Sikh Canadians and the important role that they play in all of our communities across the province of Ontario.

April is important to the Sikh community. Sikh Canadians across Ontario prepare to celebrate Vaisakhi, marking the creation of Khalsa and the Sikh articles of faith. Vaisakhi is also known as Khalsa Day. Everyone can participate in Khalsa Day celebrations by walking alongside the many thousands of members of the Sikh community in the procession route.

One of the main principles of Sikhism is the value of volunteering, charity work and giving back to the community. One sees the generosity of the Sikh community all over Mississauga, from hospital fundraisers to food bank support to blood donor clinics. The Sikh community has been prominent in supporting our local needs in our community and in community initiatives. An emphasis on education and awareness ensures that Sikhs work to enhance our vibrant, diverse and multicultural Ontario.

I am looking forward to continuing to participate in the many events surrounding Sikh Heritage Month in this, the year 2014.

NUISANCE BEARS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The municipality of Callander is concerned about the arbitrary limits that the Minister of Natural Resources placed on his spring bear hunt pilot project, announced last fall. The nuisance bear problem is well known across northern Ontario and rural Ontario and has been an issue for years as the government sat idly by, failing to act.

Now the government has adopted the stance that nuisance bears only affect the five major urban centres in the north, thus allowing spring bear hunt privileges to residents in the wildlife management units surrounding those centres. The aim, it would appear, is to allow the minister to say one thing about the bear hunt to northerners while saying another to those in the south.

The municipality of Callandar is excluded from the spring bear hunt area, and I can tell you, as I live in Corbeil next door, that nuisance bears are an issue there too. Council adopted a motion that “requests that the Ministry of Natural Resources include wildlife management unit 47” in the minister’s spring bear hunt experiment. I concur with this, Speaker. Those of us who live in the north and who have had bears in their own backyard in Corbeil know what the solution to the nuisance bear issue is. We just need a government that will do the right thing.

PARKDALE ACTIVITY-RECREATION CENTRE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak about a wonderful organization in Parkdale–High Park called Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre. They started as an idea in 1977 but just celebrated their 35th anniversary of actual incorporation. They are a community hub, a community living room, for those with mental health and addiction issues.

This incredible organization has many, many workers under the able direction of their executive director, Victor Willis, who does exemplary work in the community.

Toby Dancer, who Toby’s Law is named after—it had all-party support in this Legislature and has become law—was actually their music director, as well as the music director at our church when I was still in active ministry there, at Emanuel Howard Park. We actually shared some of the clients from PARC, who on Sunday evenings, when PARC would close, would come to our evening service and dinner as well.

It’s an amazing organization. I went to their celebration and they had a cake walk where all the members baked cakes and paraded them around PARC, this community hub and living room. There was even a dragon.

It’s also, I should say, a place where those with mental health and addiction issues can find work. Many of the PARC members have found work through them, employment through them, and I just want to give a shout out to the phenomenal social workers and others who work throughout PARC, and to their membership as well who work throughout our community.

ISABELLA LEONE

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I rise today to recognize an outstanding, courageous young girl who lives in my constituency of York South–Weston. Isabella Leone is just 5 years old, but has been battling leukemia since 2010. Thankfully, her leukemia has been in remission for over a year, but since being diagnosed, her family, and now her school, have undertaken incredible fundraising and awareness efforts.

Isabella was recognized by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society as an honoured hero for the 2012 Light the Night event fundraising initiative. As well, Isabella’s dad, Scott Leone, has helped fundraise close to $45,000 for the same organization, with a portion of the transactions from his real estate sales going towards the organization in care of Team Isabella.

This year Immaculate Conception Catholic Elementary School, which Isabella attends in York South–Weston, has kicked off the school’s Loonies for Lent fundraiser in support of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, with each student encouraged to donate at least a dollar—a loonie. Immaculate Conception’s fundraising drive intends to honour Isabella and another student who battled cancer last year.

The courage of Isabella herself in facing leukemia, and the wonderful leadership and support of her school and family in helping fundraise for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada, are to be applauded.

I want to thank Isabella for being a great example to all of us. I want to thank her, her family, her school, everyone involved, everyone who has donated, for helping them build hope in our community.

SERENA RYDER

Ms. Laurie Scott: I rise today to congratulate Serena Ryder on winning two 2014 Juno awards: artist of the year and songwriter of the year.

Raised in the small town of Millbrook, of course in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Serena Ryder’s love for music began at an early age. She started singing publicly as a young child and, having received a guitar from her father, began playing the instrument at the age of 13. After attending Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational Institute, Serena went on to record a demo at the age of 18, which helped launch her career. Serena Ryder won her first Juno for best new artist in 2008. Since then, her music has been celebrated from coast to coast.

This weekend, Serena Ryder had a very big presence at the 43rd Annual Juno Awards ceremony in Winnipeg, not only co-hosting and performing, but winning the two awards.

Even though Serena is on the big stage now, clearly her hometown remains close to her heart, mentioning Millbrook during her acceptance speech on Sunday.

Congratulations to Serena Ryder on this achievement. The town of Millbrook could not be more proud of her, and we continue to wish her success with her fantastic career.

HEALING HOPE

FUNDRAISING BRUNCH

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It is my pleasure to rise and speak in the House today. I had the opportunity to attend a wonderful event in Scarborough this past weekend: the second Healing Hope brunch to raise funds for the Rouge Valley Centenary hospital, a hospital in my riding which serves the majority of the people of Scarborough–Guildwood.

The fundraiser was hosted by Ms. Letna Allen-Rowe, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011. Rouge Valley Centenary provided her with the life-saving treatment she required. In 2013, she launched the Healing Hope brunch and raised $5,500.

Dr. Naresh Mohan, chief of staff with the Rouge Valley Health System, and Dr. Marietta Zorn, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon with Rouge Valley, addressed a crowd of more than 200 people this past weekend, all of whom were there in support of Ms. Letna, a cancer survivor, and in support of finding more effective cancer treatment methods.

Here in Ontario, diversity is our strength. Ms. Letna is a perfect example of the strong, vibrant, hard-working people in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood and one of the many people in Ontario who work together to strengthen our province and our communities socially, culturally and economically. Thank you, Ms. Letna, for spreading joy. It is a gift that strengthens us all.

NEWCASTLE FIRE HALL

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to have a statement on my riding of Durham today. Just this past week, they opened a brand new fire hall in the village of Newcastle. The fire hall is a state-of-the-art facility.

The municipality has been wrestling with the whole issue of whether or not to staff it with full-time firefighters or with volunteer firefighters. For over 40 years, the hall has been staffed by volunteers. It’s quite controversial, because the discussion in the paper has been that the council had approved about $400,000 to staff one shift and one truck. But if you went for seven days a week, 24 hours a day, it would be an expensive addition to the budget over a one-year period, so I wish them well.

Gord Weir is the fire chief of the new fire hall in Newcastle. It’s going to be called the Alfred Alldread Newcastle Fire Station. The opening was on Saturday. It’s interesting to note that the acting chief and one of the sergeants made a very good historic recount of the fire hall and its operation over the last 40 years out of a garage that had been modified to suit the purpose.

I want to commend the firefighters, especially the volunteer firefighters, and wish them well. I hope that some of them might be considered for full-time jobs in the future if and when they fund a full-time operation. That’s good news from my village of Newcastle.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank all members for their comments.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received a report on intended appointments dated April 1, 2014, from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 108(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a report on diluted chemotherapy drugs from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Hardeman presents the committee’s report and moves the adoption of the recommendations.

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, this report is the culmination of weeks of hearings and deliberations beginning in April of 2013, after the discovery that 1,212 patients in Ontario and New Brunswick had received diluted doses of two chemotherapy drugs. Key participants in the discovery and subsequent response appeared before the committees in April, May, June, September and October of 2013. The report contains the committee’s finding and makes recommendations to help ensure that this does not happen again.

I want to thank everyone who appeared before the committee for their contributions and commend the members of the committee for their diligence. I ask the assembly to give it full consideration.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Hardeman moves the adjournment of debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. James J. Bradley: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding the membership composition of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment is seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. Do we agree? Agreed.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I move that the following change be made to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs: Mrs. Albanese replaces Mr. Flynn; and

That the following change be made to the membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Ms. Wong replaces Mr. Mauro.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we agree? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I rise today to speak to the important contributions of the Parkinson Society Ontario. I’m pleased to be joined by some wonderful members of the Parkinson Society today at Queen’s Park. They are all with us here in the east members’ gallery.

Degenerative diseases affect tens of thousands of individuals across this country. Families are left struggling to deal with an illness which is neither preventable nor treatable. Without prevention or a cure, Parkinson’s robs an individual’s freedom of mobility. However, in light of this hardship, we bear witness to incredible fortitude.

Mr. Speaker, 40,000 Ontarians live with this condition every day. They epitomize strength in very difficult times. The government can help to provide the best care that it can to all of its citizens, but at times we must rely on community groups to bridge that gap. We have a societal duty to ensure that these individuals have the real supports that they need.

One way that the Ministry of Labour, as part of government, is working to bridge that gap is with Bill 21, Leaves to Help Families. This bill is all about compassion and would, if passed, ensure that Ontarians have the one thing they need most when a loved one is seriously ill: time to be there to support them. We hope that this bill, which is in third reading and has been for at least six hours, can come to the House for a vote very soon, so that hard-working families have more options to help and to be there for their loved ones.

In the meantime, I’d like to thank the Parkinson Society Ontario for all that they do to provide support to those who need it most in our communities. They offer 100 support groups, dealing with 8,000 cases a year, to the nearly 40,000 individuals affected by Parkinson’s from across this province. Parkinson Society Ontario is the backbone of Parkinson’s support in the province, and they are helping to ensure that those i