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

November 6, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-06 (PDF)

L083 - Wed 6 Nov 2013 / Mer 6 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 November 2013 Mercredi 6 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

PAN AM GAMES

SECURITY AT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

CANCER TREATMENT

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

PENSION PLANS

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

4-H

SHINE THE LIGHT

ON WOMAN ABUSE CAMPAIGN

CAREFIRST ONE-STOP

MULTI-SERVICES CENTRE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

REMEMBRANCE DAY

TASTE OF STREETSVILLE

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY

SUPPLEMENTS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(SUPPLÉMENT POUR INVALIDITÉ

PARTIELLE À CARACTÈRE PERMANENT)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ABORIGINAL VETERANS

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK /

SEMAINE DE LA PRÉVENTION

DU CRIME

MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES WEEK

ABORIGINAL VETERANS

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES WEEK

ABORIGINAL VETERANS

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

MEDICAL RADIATION

SCIENCES WEEK

PETITIONS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

LONG-TERM CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

FISHING REGULATIONS

MINIMUM WAGE

WIND TURBINES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

HOME CARE

LYME DISEASE

OPPOSITION DAY

POWER PLANTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act respecting collective bargaining in Ontario’s school system / Projet de loi 122, Loi concernant la négociation collective dans le système scolaire de l’Ontario.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to join the debate and offer the PC lead on Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act. Mr. Speaker, when I became the critic for education, just more than a month ago, I expected that I would be engaged in the government’s education agenda quite readily and speedily as the critic. But what I thought we would be talking about in education are some of the things that are perhaps lacking in our school systems. We have, certainly, some questions related to how our teachers are being hired with regulation 274.

We have questions with respect to our test scores and what seems to be happening in our schools today with test scores not performing as well as they might.

We could talk about a number of different things that are problematic in our education system, yet since I’ve been appointed as the PC critic for education, we’ve been faced with two particular pieces of legislation. This piece of legislation, which is called the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, deals with the collective bargaining process for teachers and their schools, and school boards and the government. We’re also dealing with an Ontario College of Teachers bill which talks about strengthening the process and the regulations by which we entrust the Ontario College of Teachers.

These are two pieces of legislation that the government has brought forward in the education field, and I would suggest that contrary to my previously stated objective, which is to help improve our education system here in the province of Ontario, what we’re dealing with are really what amount to process bills: a process for collective bargaining and a process for disputing whether we should license certain teachers or not in the Ontario College of Teachers bill that we’ve started debate on already in this Legislature. Nothing has been said, nothing has been done to talk about some of the ailments in our system.

I’m going to talk a bit about those in a few minutes, but I think that if we are to have an honest conversation about education—and we like to have conversations in this Legislature—we should talk about those matters which are perhaps not all well and good in our education system, and try to address those problems and those concerns.

Ultimately, when we hear about education from our constituents, it’s often coming from parents who have certain concerns about what’s happening in our schools: whether our schools are safe and nurturing places to foster and nurture a child’s natural curiosity to learn, whether parents are happy with what their students are learning. These are the kinds of concerns that are brought to members of this Legislature all the time in their constituency work, yet we’re confronted with two pieces of legislation that essentially do not address some of those prevailing concerns. That, by way of introductory remarks, is a criticism I’m going to level at this government.

Let’s start getting on with fixing our education system. Let’s try to have some legislation in place that will actually improve test scores. Let’s do that, and we need to do that sooner rather than later. So I hope that the next time the government introduces an education bill, they’re doing so with the lens of trying to fix the problems that are inherent—the problems that exist—in our education system.

I also have to say, by the way of introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, that our PC caucus has done what I think has been a pretty historic move with a programming motion that we had passed in this Legislature to clear the decks, to try to see whether the government does in fact have an economic plan, to see whether those ideas about kick-starting the private sector and the job growth that needs to happen in our private sector are brought forward. This is another example of a piece of legislation that does not address the prevailing jobs crisis, economic crisis and fiscal crisis in the province of Ontario.

This is what we hoped the government would do, once we passed that programming motion. We hoped they would say, “Yes, we need to act on the economy.”

I guess, Mr. Speaker, we’re pinning our hopes that in tomorrow’s economic update we’re going to have some semblance of an idea that the government is prepared to fix the economy. But we’ve already heard from the finance minister that he’s not tabling any legislation that’s going to actually do that. If that’s the case, Mr. Speaker, I think we owe it to the people of Ontario to roll up our sleeves and talk about the kinds of laws and policies that will enable job growth in the private sector to happen—that would be a good start—and to actually have a plan in place to balance this province’s books when the time indeed does come.

In debating the context of Bill 122, we can’t ignore what’s transpiring in this Legislature as we speak today: no jobs plan and no education policy that’s actually going to address the prevailing problems we face in our education system.

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to talk about its partners in education, and obviously this piece of legislation is designed to make peace with those partners in education. I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about exactly the scope of what is happening in our education system today.

As of 2012-13, the year that just passed, the number of students in Ontario was 2,031,205. That’s a lot of students. That’s a lot of families who have their children in the education system. I think what I would suggest is that if we are talking about partners in education, we obviously have to be addressing the kinds of concerns our students in the system are facing—2,031,205 as of last year. We also had, at the end of last year, 3,978 elementary schools and 913 secondary schools in the province of Ontario. The government’s total investment in education is $21 billion, and a total capital investment of $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the scope of this ministry is very big. It affects moms and dads. It obviously affects the ability of a government to manage the fiscal issues it has incurred. Those fiscal issues have been voiced by many members, particularly in the opposition, who believe we need to do something to fix and avert our fiscal crisis before we have to make some difficult decisions. That’s what the members of the PC caucus are very concerned about. We want a well-funded and well-resourced education system. That’s going to be challenged by the lack of fiscal discipline on that side of the House.

We’re not going to be able to do what we want in education if we continue to spend money we don’t have and kick the can further down the road of economic ruin.

We have in our system approximately 115,000 full-time teachers, full-time equivalents. We have 7,326 administrators: principals and vice-principals. We have 4,390 ECEs, or early childhood educators, in our school system. That’s a large number of people who are affected by the kinds of policies we are creating in this Legislature. Not only do we have more than 2 million students, our kids, in the system, but we have more than 100,000 people who are directly employed in this sector. So it’s a very big issue that we have to face here, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the growing demands of our elementary and secondary schools.

The Ministry of Education is responsible for overseeing all aspects of Ontario’s public education system. Ontario’s Education Act sets out the duties and responsibilities of the minister, the school boards, supervisory officers, principals, teachers, parents and students. It’s important, as this piece of legislation talks about solidifying the role of the crown or the role of the ministry in the collective bargaining process, to understand exactly what they do.

The ministry is responsible for setting policies and guidelines for school boards; for allocating funding to school boards using a funding formula; for establishing the provincial curriculum; for setting the requirements for graduation, for diplomas and certificates; and for creating lists of approved textbooks and other resources to be used by teachers and by students in the classroom.

In addition to the ministry obviously having a role in our system, they are also the funder of how we pay for the system. More than $20 billion, as I previously noted, is being spent in our education system today. That number is more than $8.5 billion more than occurred in 2003, so spending is significantly up in this sector. The question we’re going to talk about and explore a little bit more is whether we have in fact received our bang for the buck, whether that increased investment has led to what I think all parents want, which is improving the quality of education for our students and our kids.

I think the jury’s out on that. I know the government likes to talk about gains in the system, but I’m going to spend some time talking about some of the, maybe, myths about the gains they have currently. It is what it is.

Another aspect of this bill talks about the partners of education being the school boards. The school boards are the people who are entrusted, the employers of our teachers and our administrators and our early childhood educators in all regions of the province of Ontario. They obviously perform a particular task and particular role.

In terms of who does what, we talked a bit about what the Ministry of Education does; perhaps it’s instructive to talk a little bit about what school boards are responsible for. They’re responsible for deciding how to spend the funds they receive from the province for things like hiring teachers and other staff, building and maintaining schools, and purchasing school supplies. School boards are responsible for deciding where new schools should be built, and when and if schools should close.

School boards provide programs in schools such as special education, programs for newcomers and French immersion programs that I think a lot of people take advantage of. They’re responsible for developing local educational policy. Local educational policy is particularly related to safe schools, to homework guidelines and the like. They’re responsible for setting an annual balanced budget for the school board.

I know some school boards have complained about their lack of ability, given the resources provided by the government, to actually do that, and particularly when we see governments coming into the collective bargaining process and ignoring what school boards are dealing with, as happened through Bill 115.

Our school boards are also responsible for ensuring schools follow the rules that are set out by the Education Act. Obviously, that is

an act of this Legislature. Certainly, the Ministry of Education is very concerned about making sure that the Education Act is followed, and school boards are in many ways the police that make sure that it happens.

Finally—at least finally on this page—school boards are responsible for establishing a school council at each school and a parent involvement committee of the board. I think that this is obviously a very important component of this, particularly when we’re talking about partners in education.

The government has instituted a process through Bill 122, the bill that we’re debating today, where the government’s going to be a party to the negotiations, the school boards are going to be party to the negotiations and the respective teachers’ federations are going to be party to the negotiations that we face. Three parties to the negotiation process will be institutionalized should Bill 122 pass this Legislature.

One growing concern that I have is the fact that those very parents, many of whom volunteer their time after completing a day’s work, who try to make sure their students and their schools have the kinds of things that parents expect from their schools, have been seemingly shut out of this process and this discussion of being included as partners in this whole discussion about partners in education.

I’m concerned about the fact that the very people who are going to be most affected by the kinds of things that are going to be talked about have very little role in the setting of education policy in the province of Ontario. We should be doing more to consult parents, not less. We shouldn’t be shutting them out of the process; we should be including them.

I think that if we’re looking at how we can address the contents of this bill, we might well think about the role of our parents and our students in our education system and including them among the list of who we would consider as partners in the education system.

My water arrived a little late, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping I would have a cup before I started.

We also have trustees. I know that the bill talks about the role of trustee associations in the collective bargaining process, obviously something we need to consider as well. School trustees are officials, elected every four years during municipal elections, who serve on school boards. Their cycle is every four years, and their elections are about to occur next year, which I think is an important marker. Trustees are responsible for setting the school board’s overall policy direction and the board’s budget, and they represent the interests of the community, parents and students in their area.

I don’t know how many members of the Legislature have actually visited their local school board in the course of being the MPP for their area, but I would certainly encourage that to happen, because there are interesting things that are brought up at those meetings that, in the absence of actually attending, you probably wouldn’t know about. I learned a lot. I think it has been about half a year since I’ve been to one of our school boards in a school board meeting where—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m having trouble hearing your own member. If you would like a little trio talk, go outside and do it, please.

Continue.

Mr. Rob Leone: Would it help, Mr. Speaker, if I spoke a little louder?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You might want to talk to your friends.

Mr. Rob Leone: Okay.

As I mentioned, trustees are responsible for setting the school board’s overall policy direction. They represent the interests of the community, parents and students in their communities. Like I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by you and my colleagues—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s my job to interrupt you when you’re doing something wrong. Thank you for that notification.

Continue.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I said that, I realized I had made a little bit of a mistake, so I will slap myself on the wrist.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —ever, ever, ever, ever do that again.

Mr. Rob Leone: The member for Nepean–Carleton suggests that I should apologize to the Speaker, and I will take that offer, Mr. Speaker. I’m very sorry for perhaps questioning your authority, which I wasn’t intending to do in the first place, and I won’t ever, ever, ever, ever do it again—I think that was the other part.

Back to Bill 122, I think, would be a better place to start. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think that what the government is trying to do with Bill 122 is certainly to grab hold of this monstrosity of a ministry that deals with lots of students, lots of teachers, lots of trustees and, most importantly, I think, lots of families who are deeply wedded to what’s happening in our schools.

I would say that if we are to set some priorities, we should do so in the following manner: We should do so by judging each and every piece of legislation by how it improves test scores and the quality of education of our students, and the respect we afford and allot to our educators, who are certainly performing miracles every day in our classrooms, and how we can properly resource our teachers to not only do the job they’re currently doing, but do it even better. How we can discuss mechanisms by which that occurs, I think, is very important in how we can judge and assess education policy going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I think we also have to judge the policies that come before us based on what parents might be saying. I think we have to have a mechanism by which we understand precisely what parents are saying about what’s happening in our schools. You know, I’m deeply concerned about some of the things I’m hearing as an MPP. I hope that some of the things I’m hearing aren’t actually happening in my son’s school, and I think that is the case, to a large degree.

But when we hear some of these disturbing stories that are happening in our schools, we have to have the ability to talk about policies and the direction of policies that can actually eliminate those problems. Through the process we’ve seen, which has unfolded, we’re dealing with legislation, again, that I think strays from those priorities.

We cannot ignore the context by which Bill 122 has been introduced in this Legislature. I know that the government has done its best effort and has conducted its best efforts, in the last round of negotiation, to try and rein in the seemingly endless increases in expenses in our education system, which is what led to Bill 115. One cannot ignore, in debating this piece of legislation, Bill 122, the context in which Bill 115 had occurred.

I will state very clearly that our party did support Bill 115. We supported Bill 115 because it was the first acknowledgement by this government that we actually have a fiscal crisis in the province of Ontario, and that there needed to be corrective action taken to ensure that we would actually protect education by making sure we’re making prudent financial decisions today so that my kids, when they’re going through their school, have an education system that we all can be proud of.

So we supported that piece of legislation, even though it wasn’t our preferred piece of legislation. We don’t want to be pitting teachers against nurses against police officers against MPPs and other public servants. We believe that it was the appropriate move to freeze public sector wages across the board for two years. I think that approach was an approach that would have been a lot easier to swallow if everyone was in the battle together, if we all joined hands, if we’re arm in arm battling the fiscal crisis that is still before us.

In the course of doing that, Mr. Speaker, in the process of doing what they did with Bill 115, of course, the government irritated its partners in education. We’re not just simply talking about the teachers’ federations. I know my friends in the NDP will probably have a lot more to say about this particular part. The teachers’ federations were upset about the process that they were forced to submit to. But the school boards themselves were also upset. They were sidestepped; they had to implement an agreement without actually having any input into the process.

I realize what the government is trying to do here. They obviously want to make sure that we are correcting some of the issues that have emerged since Bill 115 and in the process that unfolded therefrom. I will say that one of the things I like about this legislation is that it actually does that. It sets out the roles and responsibilities of the government, of the teachers’ federations and of the school boards. Now, whether the government has it right in terms of every little bit that’s in this bill—I think the jury is still out on that; I don’t know.

Like I said earlier, I was in this position to talk about education policy and improving our schools and improving our students’ test scores, not about debating the minutiae of collective bargaining. I would say that I’m more of an expert in education policy and less in understanding of how collective bargaining works. I’ve never been at the central table. I’m not a labour lawyer. I think the labour lawyers and the negotiators are probably going to have more to say about this piece of legislation than I could, and I think that is an important aspect that we have to understand.

We are trying to institutionalize, in this bill, the process that unfolded prior to Bill 115, which is that there were voluntary framework agreements that happened between the government and the teachers’ federations that ended up being the basis by which local collective agreements would occur. Now we are institutionalizing that process and formalizing the government’s role in doing that. I think the government actually needs to be there; I’ve said that a couple of times already. The government funds education in the province of Ontario. They need to have a say in how it transpires. From that perspective, it’s something that I like about the bill.

But what I will suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that if we are looking at how this bill might transpire and what we can say about the various aspects of this legislation, we aren’t going to really know how this bill will play out until we’ve actually done a complete negotiation, a cycle of negotiation. I would say that.

I’m not a labour expert, but I would say that given the people whom I’ve talked to on this piece of legislation, whether it’s the teachers’ federations, whether it’s school board officials, whether it’s parents, the one thing that I would say is that we’re actually not going to know the details of how this legislation is going to unfold and whether the rules actually make sense to the parties that are involved until we actually complete one round of negotiation.

So I would suggest, by way of improving this piece of legislation, that we should include some provision to review this legislation after one cycle of bargaining is complete. I think including a sunset provision or a review clause in this piece of legislation will strengthen it. It would give an opportunity for the “partners in education” to come before the legislative committee or to consult with the ministry officials about the kinds of things that worked with this piece of legislation and the kinds of things that perhaps need to be modified.

I think if the government is really interested in improving this piece of legislation, they would actually focus on perhaps this idea. Let’s call everybody in after the process is done. Let’s see what worked.

Perhaps we could do it in a legislative committee; perhaps we could do it by way of ministerial consultation and conversation. I’d like to use that word—have kind of sullied the word in my vocabulary, but I’ll still use the word “conversation” with these partners to see whether or not it’s transpired and it’s worked out in quite the way they intended.

As a member of the Legislature who has not participated directly at the negotiation table, the kinds of rules that are established in this piece of legislation—and it’s a lengthy piece of legislation; I think I picked it up on the way in. I’m going to be searching quite a while for the pieces of paper here, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have a copy, but it’s quite a lengthy piece of legislation. You can’t actually read this piece of legislation without understanding labour law and the Labour Relations Act, which I think, certainly, the Minister of Labour is probably the noted expert here on that.

It’s a very technical bill, and I think that is certainly—I wouldn’t say a problem I have with it, because obviously you need to have some of these rules established, but it’s hard to, in some ways, criticize a bill without having the expertise and knowledge and wherewithal to see how these kinds of rules play out. So I would suggest that there’s some room for improvement on this piece of legislation coming forward—here it is; it’s a few pages long.

As I mentioned, Bill 122 talks about the role of central versus local bargaining. I listened intently when the minister was making her remarks and when the parliamentary assistant was making her remarks on this. It talks about the various roles, the central versus local bargaining. There is obviously a need and a role for the government to be a party to this. I think we would say, on this side of the House, that there’s some reasonable expectation as the people paying the bills that we’re actually going to do this. Like I said, there’s a part of the bill that I think we can certainly have some agreement on.

It establishes the bargaining representatives, so there’s a

section of the bill that talks about the bargaining representatives from the labour perspective, the AEFO, ETFO, OECTA and the OSSTF, which are four broadly defined teacher federations that will be party to the central negotiating table with the corresponding trustee associations that are going to be party to it as well, as well as the crown.

There is a local bargaining component that’s still maintained between the school board and their teacher federation locals that I understand the teacher federations want to preserve and to maintain. I think that the bill reflects at least that acknowledgement that local bargaining still needs to take place, and I think that’s well established.

I think that there are issues around the support staff in central bargaining that obviously were previously left out. I know sometimes we talk to these organizations and support staff directly. It always seems that it’s about the teacher federations and not the support staff and to what extent support staff need to have an ability to negotiate as well.

These are the sorts of things that the bill includes, that are obviously—as I suggest, I think we need to see it play out before we can actually understand whether things are going in a particular direction.

I want to talk about some of the things that I think the bill is lacking. First of all, as I suggested earlier, this is about process. It’s about setting out the rules and establishing the authority.

I know that some of the criticism I’ve heard, particularly on this bill, is that there’s too much left to the discretion of the Minister of Education with respect to some of the rules that are at play. I don’t know, again, not being a party to the negotiating process, how that criticism actually plays out in real life. That’s why I would like to see the process unfold before we come back and review whether the latitude we’ve been giving to the Minister of Education has been and is appropriate to the process itself.

Mr. Speaker, what I’ve tried to assert several times during the last half hour is that I think what parents want to talk about is improving the schools. Since we’re talking about process, we’re not talking about how we can do that: how we can improve student test scores, how we can improve our schools, how we can help our teachers do the tasks that we entrust them with by teaching our students. We haven’t seen that in this bill.

This isn’t about improving any gains that the government purports to have made in education. We have no understanding of how this bill will actually encourage that. It’s not about understanding how we grapple with the fiscal pressures that we find in the province of Ontario today. We’re spending $8.5 billion more in education in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, we have 250,000 fewer students in our schools. Do the purported gains that the government likes to talk about correspond with that increase in money spent? Do we see our test scores improving?

I want to spend a little bit of time talking about that particular issue. What this bill does not do, when we’re talking about the fiscal pressures this government faces, is understand how we can actually deal with those problems. This bill does not talk about that at all. In fact, what I think I’m hearing from the government is quite the opposite: that when it comes to regulation 274 and amending it, that’s going to be subject to the negotiating table. Well, if that’s going to be subject to the negotiating table, and if we’re going to talk about everything else with education policy being subjected to the negotiating table, then what are we doing in this Legislature?

We’re supposed to be debating what we can do to improve our schools, to improve our student test scores, to help build confidence with parents in our education system. If those tools are going to be taken away because we’re relegating all of this to the collective bargaining process, then I would suggest that we have some significant issues with respect to that, because there is legislation that we can implement in this Legislature that actually does improve schools, that will improve student test scores and will do a whole lot more than simply taking a hands-off approach on this.

And if this bill is intended to ensure that all aspects of education policy will not be subjected to legislation from this Legislature and actually be totally removed from this Legislature and only at the hands of the collective bargaining table, then, again, Mr. Speaker, there are certain issues that we would have with that process.

Let’s talk about those gains. I note with interest that I have been looking at some of the test scores, and the international comparisons of those test scores. We can talk about the PISA test scores, which we’re going to get to in a little bit. But at least five countries and provinces performed better than the province of Ontario, which is, I think, pretty good. We’re at least among the top, which is important. That’s for reading.

For mathematics—which is a growing concern; I know that our test scores or results in mathematics are on the decline—our PISA results show that Ontario is the 12th highest jurisdiction. So we’re obviously faring a lot worse in mathematics. International statistics are suggesting that we are lacking in our math skills. I think there’s certainly a concern that is expressed with that.

I know in the remarks that the member from Trinity–Spadina made on Bill 122, he addressed the problem about declining math scores, and he suggested an idea that I think is worthy of consideration: whether we should have specialized math teachers in our schools teaching mathematics. I think that’s an idea that I would like to actually have a debate about in this Legislature. But at the end of the day, we’re talking about process. We’re not talking about how we can improve results in math. I think the member raises a very interesting point.

If we look at the change of our PISA test scores over the last number of years, our reading scores since 2000—and you have to remember who was in power in the year 2000—have actually declined. They’ve gone down by two points—on a raw score of two points on a year-over-year comparison. Our mathematics score has gone up just slightly by, again, two points. Our science scores have improved as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I noticed in one of the trends in the TIMSS test results is, if we look at the trends in Canadian provinces for grade 8 mathematics achievement, the best scores that we received—continually, from 1995 to 2003, our scores were going up. In 1995, the year we took power, the score was at 501. By 1999, it improved to 517. By 2003, our test scores in grade 8 mathematics got up to 521. Today, it’s down to 512. So during our time in power, we saw grade 8 math scores actually improve.

Yet, despite spending $8.5 billion more in education today, we’re seeing our grade 8 math scores decline under this government. Grade 4 science scores: 18 jurisdictions in the world scored better on grade 4 science than the province of Ontario. Florida, the Russian Federation, Finland and Singapore all scored better than the province of Ontario.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Florida?

Mr. Rob Leone: Yes, Florida. Florida used to be at the very bottom of the US test scores and has now surpassed even Ontario.

Grade 8 science tests, the TIMSS scores for 2011: 19 jurisdictions fared better than the province of Ontario. If we look at trends in Canadian provinces for science, the same trend appears to have taken place. In Ontario from 1995 to 2003, we saw test scores increase, but from 2003 to 2011, we’ve seen them decrease, this despite the fact that we spend today $8.5 billion more in education. Where are the results going, Mr. Speaker?

Grade 8 science achievement: Again, the trends show a particular phenomenon. The raw score in 1995 for grade 8 science achievement was 496, in 1999 it was 518 and in 2003 it was 533. In 2007 it went down to 526 and in 2011 it went down to 521, this despite spending $8.5 billion more in education today than they did 10 years ago. Where has the money gone?

All the while, we see that we have these EQAO test results, and every year, for reading and writing, those scores have gone up. The EQAO, which is a provincial standardized test instituted by our government, has shown a significant increase, which is contrary to what these international results, the PISA and the TIMSS results, are showing right here in the province of Ontario. One has to wonder, when looking at this data, how can that possibly be? How could it possibly be that the international comparisons are showing that Ontario is on the decline, but our provincial standards show us going up?

One has to have a serious and honest debate about why this might be the case. The potential answer to that may well be that we’re relaxing the standards on our standardized tests. If the international scores are showing a decline while our own tests are showing an increase, there’s something that is seriously wrong with the “gains” that this government purports to be making in education, and this despite—we have to say it once again—that we spend $8.5 billion more in education today than we did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, we have 250,000 fewer students. Where has the money gone?

Have we seen any appreciation on test scores going forward?

I read with interest, I think members of this Legislature should know, that this government created the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. The title: Making the Grade? Troubling Trends in Postsecondary Student Literacy.

I know all members of the Legislature will know that prior to entering this Legislature, I was a university professor. I have talked to the university professors that had been there before I got there and who had taught for a span of 15 or 20 years. They told me that the quality of the student now coming into university has deteriorated, has declined. Their reading and writing skills are certainly not what they were even a generation before. Well, Mr. Speaker, we now have a HEQCO report that actually talks about that. Let me take a little bit of time to outline what some of these reports have said.

The executive

summary suggests that “there is growing concern that Canadians’ literacy skills, including those of students attending post-secondary institutions in Ontario, are not meeting expectations.”

They go on to talk about the timing of this. The “troubling trends in literacy achievement and a lack of consistency in expectations for high school students who go on to post-secondary education” are very real.

“According to IALS, not even a quarter of respondents aged 18 to 65 scored above level 3—the minimum level of proficiency.” I think level 3 is related to the PISA scores—oh, sorry, the IALS. I made a mistake there.

“The most recent literacy results from PIAAC also registered no improvement but rather a slight deterioration in Canadians’ scores at both ends of the literacy spectrum, with a greater number of Canadians scoring at level 1 and below and fewer Canadians scoring at levels 4 and 5.” This is certainly a trend that we’re seeing right across the country, Mr. Speaker.

But what interested me about this report was a

section that we find on page 16: “Are High School Graduates Prepared for PSE?”—for post-secondary education.

I’ll quote from the report: “The literature abounds with examples of college and university faculty bemoaning the perceived underpreparation of their first-year students…. In one survey of professors at Western University”—this is at Western University, right here in London, Ontario—“91% agreed that high schools do not sufficiently prepare students to write essays at a university level.” And we’re talking about gains in our system.

It goes on to suggest that “prose remains inelegant and unsophisticated, document structure is rudimentary and is often limited to the ‘five-paragraph essay’ taught in Ontario’s high schools, and critical thought often seems to be nonexistent.” These are what our professors are saying, once our students exit our elementary and secondary schools and go on to college and university.

“When a focus group of students at an Ontario university was asked how prepared they felt for university upon entry, most students stated that they were not at all prepared.” Again, we spend $8.5 billion on education today, and there is a discrepancy between what these gains mean for the preparation of our students to succeed in our colleges and universities.

“A recent HEQCO-funded project at George Brown College recognizes outright”—this is a quote from this HEQCO-funded project—“that the ‘Ontario secondary school diploma or equivalent does not guarantee that all students are prepared for the rigors of post-secondary academic work.’” Again, we spend $8.5 billion in the province of Ontario and we’re seeing a decline.

It concludes, on page 24: “The gap in expectations between high school graduation and post-secondary admission needs to be reconciled.”

Mr. Speaker, this seems to point to a troubling trend and an issue I have with our education system that I’ve expressed, and these international test scores actually show a lack of improvement. In fact, we’re doing worse today than we were 10 years ago. But we’re setting these standards lower for students, actually. Our EQAO scores might have gone up on a couple of indicators, but our international test scores don’t reflect that. And when these students leave our elementary and secondary schools, they’re not prepared to succeed in college or university. And at the end of the day, they’re calling these gains.

Despite spending $8.5 billion more on education today, they are met with modest success. You can read the report yourselves, if you would like.

I also read with interest—I love how in education you get lots of reports. I know the government is very happy with this report, which is the Final Report: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Ontario Full-Day Early Learning-Kindergarten Program. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to state very succinctly that, as a member of this Legislature, I actually believe in early literacy. I think we should be making investments in improving early literacy and making sure our students are well prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.

But if we actually go into this report and the details of the report, we’re finding some troubling things, that despite the fact the government likes to say that everything is hunky-dory in education, it may not actually be the case.

There’s a number of aspects that have been studied here, but the fact that our special-needs students—the kinds of students that we’re hoping to improve with the introduction of full-day kindergarten—actually perform better in non-FDK schools is, for me, a very troubling trend. These are the very people we’re trying to help, and the report actually looks at the fact that for example, on social competence, students performed better overall in non-FDK schools, but that trend was even more pronounced for students with special educational needs. That’s a troubling trend.

In emotional maturity, again, the overall trend is that students actually performed a little better in emotional maturity in non-FDK schools, but that trend was even more pronounced for students with special educational needs.

The report talks about a number of results indicating that kindergarten students from FDK—sorry, that’s not the one I want.

On page 85 of the report, it states: “A final observation of the findings worth noting is that on several measures, the non-FDELK programs were associated with more positive outcomes. This was especially true for non-FDELK programs in low needs schools, on the EDI measures of emotional maturity and communications skills and general knowledge. To be clear, some children appear to have done worse with the FDELK than with non-FDELK.”

What we’ve suggested all along is that we actually have to understand the results and to modify the program to address these kinds of concerns. We’re spending $1.5 billion on full-day kindergarten in the province of Ontario, and we’re just starting to see the results. There have been some positive results—I will acknowledge that—but there are some troubling trends as well.

“The children with special educational needs showed superior outcomes on the measures of social competence and emotional maturity in non-FDELK programs.” The basis of this difference is unclear, of course, but nonetheless, this is what the study found, and if we are going to be honest about the program, we should be addressing these concerns.

So at the end of the day, we have a lot to talk about with respect to gains, but one thing that I want to focus on in my remaining time is what I think is the priority of the Ontario PC caucus, and it involves regulation 274. We have stated—and we had a private member’s bill in the name of my friend from Nepean–Carleton, who wanted to modify regulation 274. We think it’s a priority of our party and should be the priority of the government.

We are increasingly troubled by what we’re hearing from the Minister of Education with respect to modifying regulation 274. We don’t think this should be something subject to collective bargaining. We think that legislators in this assembly have a role and a responsibility to ensure that we are putting the best teachers in front of our students. That best teacher might be the most experienced teacher, and quite often it is the most experienced teacher, but we shouldn’t limit the opportunity for our younger teachers to have a crack, particularly if they are showing superior skills in leading in the classroom.

We should enable our principals to make those decisions on who is best able to fulfill a vacancy in that school based on their ability to teach effectively in the core subject matter, based on whatever holes that school needs to fill, if it’s with extracurricular activities or the like. We shouldn’t be limiting our teachers and our principals in finding the best teacher in front of the classroom.

I know the minister has also talked about the fact that we’re trying to root out nepotism and that there are actually some things in regulation 274 that are actually good, and I agree. Posting positions: great. Eliminating nepotism, which our bill actually suggests, can be fulfilled by modifying hiring practices.

What we suggest—and I know the minister wants to talk about fast and speedy passage of this legislation.

I would suggest in this Legislature, right here, right now, that if the minister is sincere about that, if they are sincere about putting this legislation forward and getting this into committee so that the federations can come in and the school boards can come in, so that everybody who has a perspective, a point of view, can come in, and they want to do that as expeditiously as possible and before the next round of collective bargaining begins, which will happen early next year—then what I am asking the Minister of Education to do right here and commit to is to modify regulation 274 so that we can have merit-based hiring back in our schools, so we can ensure that the best teachers are in front of the classroom, so that we can ensure that principals in our school system are the ones who are going to determine the best person to fill that job—not based on seniority, not based on anything but the quality and the qualifications of that teacher.

If the government is willing to meet us on that request, then we will meet them in their request to move this bill to committee as fast as possible. But if they are unwilling to talk about modifying regulation 274, then we’re going to have a serious discussion about the merits of this piece of legislation.

So I would suggest, in my final comments on this piece of legislation, let’s talk about putting regulation 274 back on the table. Let’s make sure that legislators in this assembly have a say on what happens and ensure that our students have the best teacher in front of the classroom. Then we can make peace with this legislation.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: While I applaud the intentions of the member from Cambridge—I think it’s clear that he’s concerned about the education system and the services that we provide for our students, and so I applaud the member for his intentions. I have some concern with the logic that he employs, and I simply suggest this as constructive criticism so that he can perhaps bolster his argument. The comparisons that he brought up, while I found them very interesting and certainly illuminative on the issue of how we fare internationally—the comparisons that the member from Cambridge drew were with science and math.

Certainly there are a number of jurisdictions that performed better, but comparing the EQAO test on reading and writing and suggesting that those are indicative of a decline or incline when comparing with science and math isn’t the best argument. But I certainly take his point that we need to do better if we are falling behind other jurisdictions internationally. I think it’s a great point, and I support that concern.

What I want to talk about in my remaining minute is the three areas of grave concern I find in our education system. One is that while we have a significantly increasing population of new Canadians coming from various parts of the world, we are failing those new Canadians when it comes to ESL. Many school boards have talked about the fact that there is funding set aside for ESL but there’s a clear reduction in terms of ESL classes and ESL education and ESL students. That’s an area that we need to address. Why is there a reduction when we know that, in terms of population and demographics, there is certainly no reduction? We see, instead, an increase.

Another two areas—I think we need to have a fulsome education system which supports music. Music and arts are a fundamental aspect of developing yourself as a well-rounded human being.

And finally, physical education: We can only look at our youth to see that physical education is something that we need to make a priority, to prevent some of the ailments and illnesses that happen, moving forward. We need to focus on physical education as well.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: Let me speak very briefly about the quality of education in Ontario. I think two things stand out very strongly. If you want to look at the pan-Canadian results, which are tests of all students in all jurisdictions in Canada, Ontario is the only province in which the students perform better than the Canadian average in math and science and literacy. So that’s a Canadian, not an Ontario test, an across-Canada test.

If you look at the graduation rate on a very strict measure of following individual kids for five years, in 2003 the Ontario high school graduation rate was 68%. It is now 83%, and that’s following individual children to see what individual kids have graduated. So we have made great strides in Ontario education.

Now, what the bill is actually about, of course, is school board collective bargaining. I know this is a highly technical bill, which may be why the member chose not to talk about it very much. But I do want to assure him that the Ministry of Labour experts have supported us greatly in terms of it, because it is a technical bill, and we’ve worked very closely with the labour relations experts from the Ministry of Labour to work out the details with both the school boards and the unions.

But what I really did find strange were the closing comments, in which I think what I heard was that for a bill on labour relations to figure out how to do collective bargaining, the support of that party is conditional on having the Legislature override something that was a result of collective bargaining. I find that very peculiar logic.

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

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: First off, I want to congratulate my colleague the fine member from Cambridge, Mr. Leone, on his new appointment as the critic for education. I know, as an educator myself, and Mr. Leone being a doctor, he obviously is more than qualified to address the issues or concerns around our education system.

I just want to make a few observations, if I may, on what the Minister of Education acknowledged. I think, though, that some of her facts are mis-skewed, if you will. What we see first-hand is—I was in the classroom when our graduation rates were such, and what this government has done is lowered the bar so low that my dog could graduate from high school as an honour student.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I think the comparative analysis was a little rough. I would suggest you withdraw that last one.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: His name is Shakespeare—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I said withdraw.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Withdraw. His name is Shakespeare, Mr. Speaker, by the way.

I saw and witnessed first-hand the standardized test, the EQAO testing, under Mr. Harris, the quality of testing that was brought forward and what was instructed. I also witnessed first-hand, as my wife has, who is an elementary teacher, the standardized testing under this government, and I can honestly tell you, Mr. Speaker, the differences are leaps and bounds.

I think Mr. Leone made it very clear that there is obviously a problem in the education system. That’s why Mr. Leone has left his profession as a professor and that’s why I have left my profession as a teacher: to improve those scores.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member for Cambridge for his comments. There was a lot of content in that speech, and several things I’d like to focus on.

The first is that I’m glad that the member for Cambridge recognized the loss to school boards of their right to participate in collective bargaining, which affected school boards as much as teachers. I hope that that indicates that they recognize the error of their ways in supporting Bill 115, which really triggered that loss of collective bargaining.

The second thing I wanted to say: As a researcher myself, someone who has written reports for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, I know how statistics can be taken out of context and used in ways to support whatever side of an argument you want to stand on. There has been research that has critiqued an overreliance on PISA and TIMSS scores, and EQAO testing scores, as these tests measure the extent to which the education system is delivering prescribed content.

There are other international measures. There is something called the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, or GEM, which is also conducted in over 50 countries internationally, and that global measure looks at the extent of the level of entrepreneurial activity, the level of start-ups, innovation within a country, and has found there is absolutely no correlation between PISA scores and the level of entrepreneurial activity. I think that’s something that all sides of this House can agree on, that we need to support a knowledge economy, we need to support students to become innovators and to participate in future economic development.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Cambridge has two minutes.

Mr. Rob Leone: I appreciate the comments and questions—I don’t know if I have any questions, but at least the comments—from the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton, the Minister of Education, my good friend the member from Northumberland–Quinte West and the new member from London West. I really appreciate the comments that were made.

I do want to address a couple of things. I know the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton suggested that I used comparisons of decline in math and science and TIMSS scores, but I also did mention that on the PISA scores, from 2000 to 2009 there actually has been a slight decline in the year-over-year comparisons. That was the reference I was making to that. I wanted to make sure he understood the context by which I was making those comments.

To the Minister of Education: I notice she mentioned that Ontario is performing well. I have to admit I was—I don’t have the latest statistics on this to know whether this is true or not. Still, it’s interesting. The PISA results from 2009 at least suggest that Alberta outperformed Ontario in reading, that Alberta and Quebec outperformed Ontario in math, and that—let’s see here—British Columbia and Alberta, in the 2009 PISA test results, outperformed Ontario as well.

We can obviously quibble about the statistics, but what I was trying to present today is the fact that we’re spending an increasing amount of money, and are the results going up in correspondence with those increased investments? I think the jury is still out on that, Mr. Speaker, which is why I wanted to present that to the members of this Legislature, to the people of Ontario, who I’m sure are watching this debate today. My concern is about improving test scores, improving the quality of our schools, improving the effect that teachers can have on our students. That’s what our priorities are on this side of the Legislature.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: This morning, it gives me great honour to welcome my aunt Diane Brewer to the Legislature today. Diane has been the reeve of our municipality for almost 30 years. Also a family friend of ours Claudia Cloke is here today too. So welcome.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome all the grade 9 students and young people from Don Valley West, who are here for Take Our Kids to Work Day: from Windfields Junior High School, Bella Rodriguez, Mateo Lopez and Alina Jing; and from St. Andrew’s Junior High School, Asil Uzuak, Bill Chen and Keith Marin. Welcome, everyone.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome Jakob Sundman to the House today. Jakob is a visiting co-op student from Åre, Sweden. He’s going to Centennial Secondary School in Belleville.

Joining Jakob is Ian Acton, who is my old producer on the OHL Tonight on TVCogeco with the Belleville Bulls. It’s good to see Ian.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome Michelle Billek from Mississauga–Erindale to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce two people in the members’ east gallery today as part of Take Our Kids to Work Day: Guy Skipworth and his son, Ian Skipworth. Guy Skipworth and I, in a previous career here at Queen’s Park, worked for the late John Eakins, who represented the riding of Victoria–Haliburton from 1975 to 1990. Mr. Eakins of course was a Royal Canadian Air Force veteran in the Second World War.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie. Let’s be brief, please.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to introduce Andrea Chiappetta, who was a former page here during the one-day prorogation page term. He has come back today to shadow me around and get a better taste of how the Legislature works. So I’d like him to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s my pleasure today to introduce my guests, Jay Peterson and his daughter Riley Peterson. Today is bring your daughter to work day, so Jay has brought Riley in. She attends grade 9 at Vaughan Road Academy in Toronto. She’s a dedicated hockey player, playing as goalie with the Aurora Panthers Bantam AA. I just want to say, welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Michael Chan: I’d like to welcome three constituents of mine from Markham–Unionville. They are Kosan, Hisan and Uswa Shafaque. They are the brother and sister of page Sarhan Shafaque.

Speaker, I would like to welcome five staff members from my ministry from the Ontario public service. They are joining us this morning in the public gallery with 23 grade 9 students as part of their Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome, everyone.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: As the Premier made reference to, it is Take Our Kids to Work Day today. It is my pleasure to introduce my son—he tells me that he is my greatest achievement—Dawson.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who are we to argue?

Introductions?

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to introduce Debbie Havill, a sonographer by profession, and Leonard Domino from the Ontario Association of Medical Radiation Sciences. The association is visiting the House today, so please join me in welcoming them to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased today to welcome Gary Burtch and Aggie Tose from the Haliburton County Home Builders Association. I want to mention that Aggie received from the Ontario Home Builders Association the David Horton Leadership Award for her outstanding achievements. So welcome in the public gallery.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais présenter Paul Grenier, ici de Welland, qui est avec sa fille Claire; Sébastien Goyer, who is the current chief administrative officer and clerk for the municipality of French River; and Brennan Kenny. They are here in the gallery with us today.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to welcome my assistant at Queen’s Park, Krystina DeRose, here today, along with my granddaughter, Rachel Rynard, who was a former page. She’s here for Take Our Kids to Work Day and I’m teaching her all about the Ontario College of Trades.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome my nephew Harry O’Malley who is here as part of Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Mr. Mike Colle: I would like to welcome, as part of take your kid to Queen’s Park day, Brigid Waddingham who’s here. She’s a grade 9 student at the amazing St. Clement’s School in my riding. Welcome, Brigid Waddingham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I welcome home builders here today. As well, from my riding the Durham home builders are here.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I would like to welcome Len Domino and Debbie Havill from the Ontario Association of Medical Radiation Sciences. They’re here today to meet with MPPs and I want to welcome them to the Legislature.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I would like to welcome Kadie Ward from London to question period today. This is Katie’s first question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

Just before we start, I would like to also remind members that I’ve made the commitment to try to get everyone’s introductions in. Please resist the temptation to enter into a short minister’s statement or a member’s statement. It would be helpful to all of us so that we can get our introductions in, and I would appreciate it very much.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: I have one very straightforward question to the Premier. Premier, when the NDP support our want of confidence motion in the House later this afternoon, will you obey the will of the House or will you put the Liberal Party first once again?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we are focusing on creating jobs, on making the investments that we know are needed for people to thrive, for communities to thrive, for infrastructure to be built and for businesses to be able to grow and expand in the province. That is our focus. I look forward to the response from the opposition parties on the fall economic statement tomorrow.

I look forward to explaining to people across the province our plan for those investments in people and in infrastructure and in a business climate that is going to be able to bring investment to the province, and what we’re going to do to stimulate that kind of investment, because I believe that is the way forward. It’s a sharp difference from what the party opposite would like to do, which is cut and slash. I do not believe that is the way forward. I believe that investing in our future is the way that we need to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, it’s just what I expected. It sounds just like Dalton McGuinty all over again. We have a party here that wasted $1.1 billion to save two Liberal seats. You didn’t care about somebody in Milton who could use some treatment to prolong her life and spend time with her family to fight cancer. That didn’t matter to you. What mattered to you was saving two Liberal seats in the last election campaign. That’s your priority.

This motion says that we simply do not trust the Liberals to run this province anymore, that the cries from seniors, men and women across the province that enough is enough have been heard by at least one party, the PC Party. If the NDP have the courage to do what’s right and support our motion, will you listen to the voice of the majority of members in the Legislature or will you again put the Liberal Party first each and every time?

Interjections.

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

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

I am listening to people across this province who are telling me that they elected a minority Parliament and they expect us to do everything in our power to make that minority Parliament work.

Let me just say that there has been a lot of legislation that has moved through in the last few weeks: the Local Food Act, passed yesterday, the Wireless Services Agreements Act, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, consumer protections, the Financial Accountability Officer legislation, family caregiver leave legislation, protecting kids from skin cancer. The Legislature is working, and it’s very gratifying that we’ve been able to find common ground and we’ve been able to bring those pieces of legislation to the House and move them through.

That’s because the opposition parties and our government have been able to find a way to work together. That’s what people expect of us, Mr. Speaker. That’s what we’re going to continue to do.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The only reason things moved through the House, Premier, is because we agreed to clear the decks to see your jobs plan. We’re the ones who said, “Pass that stuff through.” We cleared the decks to see what you’ve got. But 10 months later, Premier, all we see is a vacuous Liberal agenda putting more fluff into the system. You’ve got all kinds of balloon animals and card tricks to try to distract attention; you don’t have a plan for jobs.

We have a plan for jobs. We have a plan to put our economy back on track with more jobs and better take-home pay. My view: Let’s get on with the job. And if the NDP finally discovers their moral compass and says that they are on the side of taxpayers like we are, why don’t you actually listen to the will of the House when that happens later on this afternoon?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just don’t believe that those 2,000-plus young people who have been able to find positions because of our youth employment strategy think that’s not important.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t think the people who have jobs at the Ford plant think that the $70 million that we are investing to make sure that Ford can compete in the global economy don’t believe that’s important. I think the people who live in northern and rural communities think that the $100-million infrastructure fund that we’ve put in place is exactly what’s needed in order to be able to invest in their future. I think the people who are—and I will say this, Mr. Speaker—part of the horse racing industry, who see that they have a sustainable future, think that that is a very good thing. So we are doing the work that is necessary—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I need to hear.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the people who met with us yesterday from the chicken farmers are very pleased that our government has taken a strong position on supply management. We’ve made that position nationally and we will continue to advocate for that.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Look, I don’t even know how to answer that. I talked to the folks in the horse racing industry as soon as Monday. Premier, if they heard that answer, they would say “Horse feathers,” but not exactly—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock. I have two things in my head at the same time. I didn’t hear who it was directed to, and the Minister of the Environment will come to order.

Direction, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the Premier, Speaker. I think the Premier has lost touch. I think she has surrounded herself with Liberal insiders who are benefitting from the inside deals. I think the reason why she’s not answering my question on the want of confidence motion—the motion basically says Ontarians have lost trust in the Liberal government to run this province anymore, that enough is enough.

I think the reason why she’s dodging those questions is because the fix is in, that no matter what happens, no matter what they do, the NDP will give them a get-out-of-jail-free card every time because you’re basically one and the same. We’ll see what the vote is later today; we’ll see if the NDP has any kind of moral compass. But the bottom line for me is we need change for a better, stronger—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to be clear with the Leader of the Opposition: I do not take for granted the position that we are in. I believe very strongly that we have to earn the respect of the people of this province every single day. That is why we are working so hard to do what we believe is right based on the evidence that we see around us. We have constrained spending over the last number of years. We have overachieved on our deficit reduction targets.

We believe that now it is very important that we make the investments that are going to allow this economy to thrive, that we make the investments in infrastructure, in the future of people, making sure that people have a decent retirement, that they have a strong education system, a strong health care system, and making sure that we put in place the business conditions that will allow businesses to thrive. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to support us in getting the small business act—

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now we understand the problem. The Premier says the only problem is that the Liberals are a bunch of overachievers. Well, let’s look at what you have overachieved. We’ve lost 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs while you added 300,000 to the government payroll. Hydro rates have doubled and they’re going through the roof. The debt has doubled in our province—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The mighty province of Ontario that had always been the engine that drove this great country is now first in debt and last in jobs. I want to see Ontario have a turn-around plan to make us first in jobs and last in debt, a place where people come from all over the world to settle here.

I think the problem is that you’re out of ideas. You’ve got 36 panels going. You’re the same as Dalton McGuinty. You’ve got them in your back pocket and this province continues to spiral. I think it’s time for change. I think people across our province are saying enough is enough. Let’s get rid of the Liberals. Let’s build a stronger Ontario for our children and grandchildren.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as a province, we have created and attracted more jobs than other jurisdictions. The fact is that we went through a huge economic downturn and we have in the order of 400,000 net new jobs, so we have come a very long way.

I am not suggesting that there isn’t more to do. In fact, I’m suggesting the opposite. I’m suggesting that we have to take this moment in our history very seriously and we have to, as a province, make a decision. We have to decide collectively whether we are going to go down a path of cutting and slashing and diminishing the economy in this province, Mr. Speaker, which is what the PCs are advocating. They are advocating that we cut services, that we cut the public service, that we diminish the services that are available to people in health care and in education. I don’t believe that’s the way we should go.

I believe that we should make the investments that are necessary to allow the economy to expand to support businesses and—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The bottom line is, the people of Ontario don’t trust the Liberals anymore. You’ve bankrupted the province, you’ve chased jobs out of Ontario and you’ve put us deep, deep in provincial debt.

You know what, Premier? As I travel around the province, and I’m sure you do too, I hear two things about your gas plant scandal. I hear (1) somebody should go to jail over this, and

(2) I hear the Liberals should pay that money back, not the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

The problem is, I don’t know where the NDP draws the line. I don’t know why they give you a pass each and every time. I hope they will screw up the courage to actually be on the side of taxpayers like we are and say the time for the Liberal, corrupt government—it’s time to go. Let’s bring real change to our province of Ontario and follow the vote later on today.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t think there was a question in there, but the reality is that we are intent on making the investments and putting the supports in place so that people have what they need, the services that they need, so that businesses have a climate that they can thrive in. Part of that is the small businesses act, Mr. Speaker. We really very much believe that it would be important to get that act passed so we can support those small businesses and give them a break on their payroll taxes. That bill is being blocked in committee, and it would be of great assistance to the small businesses in this province if the opposition would work with us and get that through.

I also believe that making the investments in infrastructure that are necessary in our rural and northern—

Interjections.

Hon. Mario Sergio: The Walkerton days are over.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Minister responsible for seniors, I don’t need that. Thank you.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know we face challenges, and that’s why it’s extremely important that we make the right decisions at this point that will set us up for the future that Ontario can achieve. That’s why those investments are so important, Mr. Speaker. That’s why we’re going to continue to look for ways to support the economy and make sure that it can thrive.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Liberal government has for years insisted that policies of tax giveaways and harmonization would actually improve productivity and spur investment in our province. Can the Premier explain why, then, Ontario ranks ninth out of 10 provinces when it comes to productivity growth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party raises a very good question about the particular configuration of tax credits and so on that are in place. One of the things the finance minister will talk about tomorrow is that it’s important that we actually do make sure that those are working, that they are having the intended impact. It’s one of the things Don Drummond has spoken to us about and it’s something that I think is very important that we look at. I’m glad the leader of the third party has raised it, but we’re already on it, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Since the Liberals were first elected, Ontario has lost 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs, and despite promise after promise, those good jobs have not come back.

Today, 110 women and men who work at the Kellogg plant in London have learned that they’ll be losing their jobs come January.

Is the Premier admitting that the government’s policy of no-strings-attached giveaways hasn’t been working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker. What I’m saying is that there are a number of things at work here. One of them is that we need to look at the tax credit system and make sure the tax credits that are in place have the desired impact. We are doing that and the minister will talk about that tomorrow.

The other reality is that the manufacturing sector has changed. When I visit manufacturing plants across the province, as I have, whether it’s in food processing or whether it’s in another sector, what I see is that advanced manufacturing (

a) needs a different set of skills, and (

b) needs a different size of workforce.

We’re in a transition. It is a difficult transition, and that’s why it’s very important that in our diverse economy we play to our strengths and we make sure that we put in place the supports where we can thrive. That’s the work that we’re doing, Speaker, and I would welcome her support in that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over the last 10 years of Liberal government, 300,000 good manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Our province has the highest electricity rates in the country, the lowest productivity growth and an unemployment rate that is above the national average. The Premier still insists the plan is working, while at the same time her actions seem to suggest something different. When are people like the women and men losing jobs in London going to see some real action from the Liberal government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are jobs across the province that have come back. There are factories that are expanding, businesses that are expanding. But as I said before, it’s very important that we play to our strengths and we find those sectors that have the capacity to expand.

I will just say, wearing my hat as Minister of Agriculture and Food, that that is one of the sectors where there is huge potential to expand, and that’s why I’ve put a challenge in place to the food processing and the food producing industry to do what they can to expand, with our support. We are looking at the regulatory scheme. We’ve got in place risk management programs. We’re working with the sector through the Local Food Fund—$30 million over the next three years—to make sure we make those investments that are going to allow that agri-food sector to expand.

That’s what I mean by playing to our strengths, and that is how we are going to grow in Ontario.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier says she wants greater openness and transparency, but she doesn’t seem willing to walk the walk. Why did Liberal members just this morning vote against asking the Auditor General to look into the $180 million the government spent on their cancelled nuclear expansion plans?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question. I haven’t seen the Hansard from this morning, so I don’t know exactly what went on at the committee, but what I can say is that I have answered this question before about the $180 million, that the $180 million was spent in order to prepare for new nuclear build that we have determined, through the evidence, is not necessary. But that work that has been done is not for naught. It is absolutely work that can be used if and when we determine that we need to go ahead.

So I think that $180 million is money that was well spent. The information is necessary, and that work will stand us in good stead if the decision should change in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians know that the Liberals can’t be trusted to tell the whole story on money wasted in the energy sector. The Liberals claimed it would cost $40 million to cancel the Oakville gas plant. The auditor showed it would cost 20 times as much. The Liberals claimed it would cost $190 million to cancel the Mississauga gas plant. The auditor showed that was off by $85 million.

I’m disappointed that Mr. Hudak’s Conservatives chose to vote against transparency as well, but we know not to expect very much from them except for political games. But the Premier said she wants to be open, so why did Liberal members vote to stop the independent Auditor General of this province from determining the full costs of cancelling their nuclear expansion plans?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think the honourable leader of the NDP, in her question, points out the obvious fact that the Liberals do not have a majority on any legislative committee. In fact, we were joined by the opposition in opposing the motion, and the reason why is that the motion itself was flawed. The suppositions behind it in terms of the costing that had been put forward in the motion were incorrect, and the committee—and I think we all agree that committees should be free to do their work—deemed, with the support of the official opposition, that it was not an appropriate motion.

If the honourable member wants to talk about transparency, I will talk about our Premier, who asked the Auditor General to look into the Oakville gas plant, who has appeared in front of the justice committee—in fact, I understand, will be appearing again in front of the justice committee to answer questions—and comes to this House virtually every day to answer questions on a project that the leader of the NDP wanted cancelled herself.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For families and businesses paying the highest electricity bills in Canada, this is a pretty simple issue. They’re tired of watching the Liberal government use the hydro system as a political football, and then sticking them with the bill.

We called for the auditor to look at how much money was spent planning for a project that was shelved, and how much more would be spent if this government or a future government then takes that plan off the shelf again. Why is the Premier scared—afraid, frightened, worried—about an independent review of the decision they made?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: First of all, deferring new nuclear is the right decision. We’re not going to invest $15 billion in power that we don’t need, because we have a surplus at this time. All of OPG’s expenditures—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Stormont, come to order. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order. The member from Northumberland, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: All of OPG’s expenditures have been reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board, an independent semi-judicial agency, and posted publicly on their website. The information they are asking the committee to work on has been published on the OPA website. Please refer to the OPA website, and you will get the answer that you need.

Secondly, they have no plan for energy. All they do is criticize. Their base out there in the community is calling us and thanking us for the decisions that we’re doing, because they have no policy.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in justice committee, JoAnne Butler once again joined us. She confirmed, yet again, that everyone in cabinet, including yourself, knew that the true cost of the cancelled Oakville power plant would have been more than $40 million.

I’m troubled by the fact that you stand here, day in and day out, and deny that. You refuse to call a judicial inquiry, you refuse to appear before committee and you refuse to put forward a confidence motion on the floor of this House. The only thing we can do as the official opposition is table an opposition motion, which we are today, to talk about the trust of this government, which has been lost by the public. We’ll be having a vote on whether or not the majority of the House, including the people of Ontario, have had their confidence in you drained. It’s going to be up to you whether or not you’re going to ignore or listen to the will of the people.

If it passes, will you do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the House leader is going to want to speak to the technicalities of the committee in the supplementary, but if the reason that the opposition is bringing forward the motion is that I won’t appear at committee, then they can cancel their motion, because I’ve got a date. I’m going in on December 3. I’ve been there once, I’ve told the committee everything that I know, I’ve been asked to come back again; I am going back again on December 3. I will answer the questions again, but the fact is, I have given the committee all the information that I have.

As I said, we have a date now for December 3. It was just a matter of arranging our schedules. I will be there on December 3 to answer those questions again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The last time the Premier appeared, I was actually there, and she really didn’t answer any of our questions. In fact, she stuck to that $40-million claim that she had, which JoAnne Butler debunked yesterday.

It’s very clear that you would do anything to cling to power. You wasted $1.1 billion, and you refuse to be held accountable for that massive scandal. The moral bankruptcy of this Liberal Party is so patently obvious that you are only able to stay in government because the NDP are enabling you.

Unlike the NDP, we in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party have been listening to constituents. My leader is right: People want someone to go to jail, and they want the Liberal Party to pay that money back.

While we are here today holding this Liberal government accountable, it is the NDP who are standing on their heads and spitting nickels and sending little trinkets and trash to the horse racing community. We want—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let’s review the facts. It was this Premier who asked the Auditor General to look at the Oakville plant, who asked the justice committee—expanded the scope—asked them to look into the situation, has appeared in front of committee and has taken responsibility for what happened and put a plan to correct it moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, it was that party that spent the last election going around saying that the only way—the only way—to have the gas plant cancelled was to vote for the Progressive Conservatives. It was that party that put out press releases and went on the Twitterverse and made YouTube videos. It is that party which refuses to talk about their plan and about their costing. It is that party which is not allowing five of their candidates to come forward to the committee and talk about costing.

If you want to talk about a lack of accountability, you have to look no further than the official opposition.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Speaker, New Democrats have repeatedly asked this government to take action to protect cancer services in Windsor and Essex county. Despite grand assurances, cancer patients are set to lose all thoracic surgeries next spring. It seems to the people in Windsor and Essex county that this Liberal government is not listening to their concerns.

I ask the Premier: Is she prepared to stand by and do nothing as Windsor and Essex county lose essential health care services?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the question. I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care actually answered this question yesterday and acknowledged, as I want to, the advocacy that the member for Windsor West has done on this issue, both with the Minister of Health and with me, to make sure that the decisions that are being made are in the best interests of all of the constituents in the community.

The experts at Cancer Care Ontario are working to ensure that all patients, including those in Windsor, get the highest quality of care. What that means is that they are looking for ways and assurances that outcomes for cancer patients will continue to improve. That means that hospitals have to meet a minimum volume of surgeries in order for those outcomes to continue to improve and in order to be designated, in this case, as a thoracic centre. We know that the more surgeries that are performed, the better the outcomes are, and that’s why the decisions that are being made have been made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, the residents of Windsor and Essex county are mobilizing in order to protect health care services. They’re asking the government to listen to the hospitals, listen to the physicians and listen to the patients, who know that moving thoracic surgery to London is the wrong thing to do.

Exceptions have been made before. Yet this time the government seems unwilling to consider that the number of surgeries isn’t as important as the access to those life-saving cancer surgeries.

I ask this government yet again: Will they take action to protect health services in Windsor and Essex county or are they determined to sit back and do nothing as the public outcry grows and grows and grows?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are not going to sit back; we have not been sitting back. It is of primary concern to us that those services are the best services and that they are available to all of the constituents in your riding and the ridings in the community. It’s very important to us that the people of Windsor have the very highest-quality services, so we continue to work with the community.

The Ministry of Health continues to work to make sure that the best and highest-quality services are available. That is exactly what the member for Windsor West has been advocating for. She has raised the issue with us. We will continue to work with her and with the member opposite to make sure that those services are available and of the highest quality.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I know that our government is committed to investing in youth through our youth employment fund. A large part of investing in our youth is making sure that, while working, they are in a fair and safe workplace.

The constituents in my community of Scarborough–Guildwood are pleased that we’re helping youth as this is a top priority for our community. However, they are concerned about the use of internships, where they are not paid, and are speaking out about this issue.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Are such internships legal in Ontario, and what is the ministry doing to make sure that when young people in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood start a new job, they will be paid for the work that they do?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for asking a very important question and her advocacy on behalf of our young people.

The youth employment fund is a great investment, and I’m pleased that over 2,400 youths across our province have already found jobs through this initiative. That very much speaks to building a stronger workforce and about building safe and fair workplaces.

Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear to all members in this Legislature. In Ontario, it does not matter what your job title or your position is; if you work for someone, you are covered by the Employment Standards Act. There is no such thing as an unpaid internship. There is a narrow exemption for co-op students in accredited university and college programs, trainees and the self-employed.

Any concerns regarding working arrangements can be referred to the Ministry of Labour’s hotline at 1-800-531-5551. Help is available in 23 different languages.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you to the minister for his answer outlining the strong rules we have on internships in Ontario. I know the families and the young people in my community of Scarborough–Guildwood will also be pleased to know that their loved ones are protected and treated fairly. It is great to hear that over 2,400 young people have already found jobs through the youth employment fund and can begin building their careers.

But, Minister, I sometimes hear from constituents that even though they know the Ministry of Labour is there to help them, they are reluctant to reach out. Speaker, through you to the minister: Are formal complaints and reactive inspections the only way that the ministry will investigate?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again I want to repeat very clearly that under the law in Ontario, there is no such thing as an unpaid internship. If you work for someone, you are covered under the Employment Standards Act and you’re entitled to at least minimum wage, vacation pay etc.

The ministry has been very active on this issue. I, as the Minister of Labour, have been very actively writing to student groups, to post-secondary institutions, to employers and to job sites to make sure that they know what the rule is and that there’s no confusion around our rules. As I said, we will investigate any and all complaints to enforce our rules. In addition, our enforcement officers specifically ask about internships during our proactive inspections.

In fact, this past spring, in the budget—through that budget, we are investing an additional $3 million for proactive employment standards enforcement so that interns’ rights are protected. I encourage interns to go to ontario.ca/internshipstandards for clarification.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. Minister, security and transportation are linked, and your laissez-faire approach to security has me a little bit worried about transportation plans as well.

The GTA already experiences some of the worst gridlock in North America, yet there’s no plan and no extensive budget released yet. I am concerned because venues like the Pan Am park and the Pan Am villages are connected by one of Toronto’s top 10 worst roads or, alternatively, a streetcar that’s already the TTC’s busiest route. According to leaks, your curious solution is to add thousands more vehicles on this route during the Pan Am Games.

Minister, when are you exactly going to release the transportation master plan for the Pan Am Games?

Hon. Michael Chan: I think that in the last couple of weeks, I had two scheduled debates with the member opposite. They did not happen. Well, he did not show up, and up to this time, I do not know what the reason was for that.

But having said that, as has been our practice, once host jurisdiction responsibilities and plans are confirmed, we state them openly—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It has been pointed out that the microphone isn’t on or is not working. Can we try that, please? Is it on? It’s on.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker.

That speaks to our commitment to make these games the most open and transparent games.

Our government brought the organizing committee under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We required senior executives to publicly disclose their salaries on a yearly basis, and we will continue to communicate our progress on the games to the public.

Speaker, in terms of security, once plans are finalized, we will publicly disclose the parts of the plan that will not compromise citizens’ safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Speaker, you don’t start making the plan midway through the process. We know that we’re one and a half years out, as the minister keeps pointing out, but it’s never too early to become the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games.

I’ve figured out you won’t answer anything in question period, so I’ve attempted to extract answers through the order paper, and on April 29, I asked you for a transportation plan. You responded that you’re working on and it will be completed in “late 2013.” Minister, guess what? It’s late 2013. There’s no plan, there’s no budget, and we don’t have any word from you on what this is going to cost us.

To avoid transparency, you even desperately tried blocking a motion in committee by voting against an investigation into Pan Am. At any cost, you’re avoiding answering these simple questions. Why is that, Minister? Give us the exact date the public can see your transportation master plan and budget.

Hon. Michael Chan: This is not December 2013 yet, so it is not really that late.

Speaker, our transportation master plan will guide our operations as we prepare for the games. We’re also working together on an integrated stakeholder outreach and engagement plan which will be used to guide transportation-related communications to all stakeholders.

We cannot speculate what the costs of transportation will be at this moment; the costs will be revealed when the plan is finalized. In other games, transportation plans have come out 12 to 18 months before they are under way, and we are on pace to meet that timeline.

SECURITY AT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. This past weekend, Adam Kargus was brutally beaten and murdered at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. On Monday, the minister shared with this House the number of inmates at EMDC on the night of the murder but failed to tell us the number of correctional officers. We now learn that there were only two officers overseeing three units with a total of 150 inmates, when there should have been two officers in each unit that night. Does the minister believe that this is the right level of staffing to ensure inmate and officer safety?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The member is speculating on how many staff was there. I know that the EMDC capacity was under capacity that day. I also know that we have done a lot to improve the safety of both our inmates and our correctional officers in EMDC. I am going to continue to work with both the union and the management to make sure that the situation does improve at EMDC.

As I said, we have installed 350 security cameras, a new control module and six metal detectors, and we have increased correctional officers by 11 in the facility.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the minister: The minister is repeating what she told us on Monday, that these new security cameras and these new enhancements are the solution to violence at EMDC. It’s true that the cameras helped the police identify and lay charges against the suspects after the fact, but they did not prevent Adam Kargus from losing his life.

When is the ministry going to fix the design flaws at EMDC, implement direct supervision and prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, this is a tragedy; what happened at EMDC is a tragic situation. I know the police are doing the investigation as we speak, so we’re not going to speculate. The coroner’s office also will do its own investigation, and, internally, we are doing our investigation. That’s the situation, Mr. Speaker.

In our correctional facilities, on a daily basis, the correctional staff deal with and manage risk of inmate violence, and we have policies and procedures to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, what I’m glad about is that from last year to this year—

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Last year there were 244 inmate-on-inmate assaults, and this year we reduced it to—

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

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I understand that you announced the government’s intention to review the Development Charges Act on Friday. On October 18, I, along with all my Ottawa colleagues, joined Mayor Jim Watson to witness the official start of tunnelling for Ottawa’s new LRT. This line will transform downtown Ottawa, but also neighbourhoods like “the avenues” in Eastway Gardens and Cyrville, both in my riding of Ottawa South.

These investments could cause significant development, radically altering neighbourhoods in communities that my constituents call home. This increased density means additional strains on existing critical infrastructure such as bus routes like the 114, schools like Riverview Alternative and hospitals like the Ottawa Hospital and CHEO.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could the minister explain to my constituents and me how this review of development could help my community better prepare for it?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question. Communities across Ontario are experiencing some of the kinds of changes that are happening in Ottawa, and our government continues to work with municipalities to make sure that that development doesn’t mean existing taxpayers are on the hook for costs required for that new development.

We’ve heard that municipal leaders feel the current system limits their ability to recover all capital costs for some of the services and their ability to pay for those vital infrastructure projects. We’ve also heard from the development community that they want more accountability and transparency. At the end of the day, everybody wants more clarity when it comes to the costs the government imposes.

Our government believes it’s time for a refresh. It’s time to make sure the development charges system still answers our communities’ needs. I want to urge you and your constituents to participate in the review. We expect the review to include communities and municipal governments, because we want to hear their solid ideas for improvement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: It’s good to hear about our government’s continued respect for communities and municipalities, unlike the opposition party, who did not consult with municipalities when they forced amalgamations on communities across the province.

Development, whether it happens in Ottawa or Oliver Paipoonge, Niagara Falls or Northeastern Manitoulin, can be contentious. My constituents have numerous questions about land use planning, the appeals system and the Ontario Municipal Board. Some find the current process complicated, difficult to navigate and even harder to understand.

Minister, our government needs to ensure that our planning system works well for municipalities and community groups as well as developers while remaining responsive to the changing needs of our communities. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can you explain to my constituents about how they can get involved in this important review?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: As a former municipal city councillor, I know how challenging development can be for communities, no matter where they are in the province. However, our land use planning system gives municipalities the tools that they can use to manage growth so we can all build the kinds of cities and towns that we want to live, work and play in.

I, too, have heard from municipal leaders, from planners, from developers and from the public that the rules are too complex. They’re concerned about the delays, and appeals are also frustrating. That’s why our government will be holding regional workshops in Kitchener–Waterloo, Ottawa, Sault Ste.

Marie, Thunder Bay, Peel region and Toronto to hear from everyday Ontarians on how we can make the system more responsive to Ontario’s changing needs, because well-planned cities that balance Ontario’s needs to develop with the protection of our natural heritage mean that our cities are more able to ensure long-term prosperity, environmental health and the social well-being of all the residents of Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the people of Ontario love and rely on our health care system. Some say it’s one of the defining characteristics of what it means to be Canadian, as it represents a number of our core values as a nation. We define ourselves in terms of our shared responsibilities toward one another and our diverse and inclusive society. We especially help the most vulnerable in our society. It’s the Canadian thing to do.

Within that context, the Minister of Health bears a sacred trust and is the person of last resort to whom Ontarians turn in their hour of need. So, Premier, your government continues to refuse to help Kimm Fletcher and others like her.

Premier, my health care system includes Kimm Fletcher. Why doesn’t yours?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Health has addressed this issue a number of times, and I just want to say that it is, as she has said, a very sad and tragic situation that a young woman with children would be in this situation and would have such a frightening prognosis.

There is nothing more important than being able to save people’s lives and to have the health care system work. But part of that is taking the politics out of these kinds of decisions. That is exactly what we have had to do. We have all the drugs go through an expert committee that undertakes a thorough evaluation based on the best available evidence. That is the process that is in place, and we have to respect that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Premier, your health care system has devolved into one that creates winners and losers. It is one where you are content to stand back at arm’s length awaiting a decision to reach the health minister from a faceless committee that may or may not meet in a timely fashion.

However, time is not a resource that vulnerable individuals like Kimm Fletcher have in abundance. Not knowing whether your health minister’s committee will find in her favour, anxiety and worry eat up the time she has left to herself, her family and her friends.

Kimm Fletcher’s case also speaks to one of the core values of the role of the Minister of Health. If she can’t help vulnerable people like Kimm Fletcher, then what is the purpose of the Minister of Health?

Premier, my health care system includes Kimm Fletcher. If yours doesn’t, your Minister of Health is failing the people of Ontario and should be replaced. Premier, will you replace your Minister of Health?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Our Minister of Health is committed, as I believe previous Ministers of Health from other parties have been, to evidence-based practice, because that is the only way to have an objective system that weighs all of the alternatives. The Committee to Evaluate Drugs has twice reviewed Avastin, but even though that is the case, the Minister of Health has asked the committee to ensure that they’ve reviewed the most recent evidence on Avastin.

She has taken that action to make sure that that review happens, but it is imperative that we have some objective measures by which to make these decisions. Difficult and tragic as they are, it is absolutely imperative that we have a system in place in order to make decisions. That is what we will adhere to.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, 20 months ago, the Liberal government announced the divestment of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission without any consultation with northerners and, as it turns out, any thought about the real costs. Northerners united and forced the government to backtrack. In response, the minister created the minister’s advisory committee and has since repeatedly stated that divestment is not the only option for the ONTC.

The committee has released its recommendations. My question is simple: Will the minister act on those recommendations?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. I very much appreciated it. Indeed, we are very committed to seeing that the ONTC remains an efficient and sustainable transportation and telecommunications organization. We are very committed to working with the minister’s advisory committee, which we brought together in the early spring. We’ve had a number of meetings and had some very, very important—and, may I say, some very candid—discussions about the best course forward.

You’re right: At the FONOM gathering this past May, I was able to speak there. I wanted to say publicly at that time that we did not see divestment as necessarily being the only option. We’ve continued those discussions.

You mentioned recommendations coming forward. The fact is that we are still very much continuing our work with the ministerial advisory committee. I’m looking forward to getting together with them again relatively soon, hopefully sometime later this month—we haven’t got a date picked quite yet. But again, our commitment is to maintain a system that will work and be efficient and effective for northerners, something we understand how important it is in northeastern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: The minister’s advisory committee has released its recommendations and they show a clear plan forward. The committee and northerners are concerned because the status quo is preventing the company from bidding on contracts, and it’s leaving 900 families in turmoil.

Time is of the essence. My question is simple: Is the government going to listen to northerners and act on the recommendations of the minister’s advisory committee?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, certainly I will very much acknowledge that the minister’s advisory committee has recognized that the status quo is not an option. As I say, we’ve had significant discussions looking into all lines of the ONTC, and we recognize that the status quo is not an option.

We are determined to find a sustainable solution for all the lines of the ONTC. Indeed, there are opportunities, we believe, potentially in terms of the refurbishment division. Certainly we recognize how important the freight division is, and we’re very convinced that, indeed, there are ways that we can actually improve the operations of the ONTC.

We are continuing to work with the members of the minister’s advisory committee. They have been very dedicated, and they’ve worked very, very hard and listened very much to all the information that we’ve been able to bring together.

That work continues. Our commitment continues—something the Premier feels very strongly about as well. We recognize that the status quo is not an option, we recognize that the right decisions need to be made, and we’re committed to seeing that the right decisions are indeed made.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I’d like to ask the minister about one of the recommendations that came out of the Ipperwash Inquiry report.

Speaker, you will know that in 2008, the New Relationship Fund was established, with the intention to facilitate consultations between the government, the private sector, First Nations and Métis communities. Constituents in my riding routinely ask about what action the government is taking to ensure that all First Nations and Métis persons have the same access to opportunities that all Ontarians have.

The New Relationship Fund is obviously a great initiative. It’s a very worthwhile cause, but would the minister please tell us about how much progress has been made on this program to date?

Hon. David Zimmer: Thank you for that question. The New Relationship Fund provides communities with tools that will support sustainable economic growth, growth that needs to be in place if there’s going to be any kind of effective long-term and meaningful change with our aboriginal communities. The New Relationship Fund supports aboriginal communities and organizations to engage in consultation with government and the private sector.

There are three types of funding. Core consultation funding is available to First Nations and Métis communities so that they can better engage with government and the private sector on lands and resources issues. A second type of funding, enhanced capacity-building funding, is available to First Nations, Métis communities and aboriginal communities. This helps to build additional capacity over and above the core capacity funding.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the future prosperity of Ontario is dependent on the full participation of all Ontarians—First Nations, Inuit and Métis—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The fund sounds quite progressive. It appears to be a very solid step in ensuring that First Nations and Métis persons in Ontario have access to good opportunities.

What my constituents want to know, though, Speaker, is how the fund is actually working. What they really want to know is how the New Relationship Fund is delivering results, and they want to know that the funding is money well spent.

Can the minister tell the House of some very specific examples of the New Relationship Fund and how it’s working to link aboriginal communities in a meaningful engagement with the government and the private sector?

Hon. David Zimmer: Quite specifically, between 2008 and 2013, the New Relationship Fund has invested $77.4 million to support over 520 projects in 137 First Nations, 33 Métis communities and 23 aboriginal organizations. That’s a total of 193 recipients. We’ve created more than 540 jobs.

A further $14.5 million in funding has been allocated for the 2013-14 year to fund another 50 new projects and the existing core consultation multi-year agreements. There are three new core capacity multi-year agreements and 47 enhanced capacity projects, which include, for the first time, three First Nations and aboriginal organizations.

The New Relationship Fund is just another step in strengthening our government’s relationship with aboriginal peoples.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are all in this together—all Ontarians—aboriginals, Métis and First Nations. We’re going to build a stronger Ontario for everyone.

PENSION PLANS

Mrs. Julia Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. You and your government have had 10 years to come forward with a plan on retirement security. You’ve had a decade to reform our public sector pension system to reduce the $100-billion unfunded liability. You’ve had a decade to address the lack of financial literacy in this province. You’ve had years to come forward with PRPP legislation. You have done nothing, while every year more and more people see their savings as inadequate for retirement.

Now, over the last few weeks, you are advocating CPP reform and possibly a new Ontario pension plan. Whichever it is, it amounts to more mandatory deductions from Ontario workers and businesses.

On Monday, you said that an enhanced CPP is your first choice to help Ontarians be ready for their retirement. What is your second choice?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. I appreciate the work and concerns that the member opposite and all members of this House share, and that’s the well-being of Ontarians in retirement. I think we can all agree, amongst the people in this House, and for that matter all across Ontario, all across Canada, Speaker, that there is a problem. The problem is, people don’t have enough to retire—for those who are relying on CPP alone. As a consequence, the Ministers of Finance gathered here in Toronto last week, and we came to an agreement that we need to address it.

We came to an agreement with principles that will be used when the Premiers meet at the Council of the Federation next week. That will also be the premise on which we speak with Minister Flaherty, your counterpart in the federal government, to encourage him to look at ways to enhance the CPP in a moderate way to protect Ontarians, while at the same time stimulating economic growth in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Well, that answer suggests to me that your second choice is the idea of a new Ontario pension plan, an OPP that would mimic the CPP. This idea of yours would be an additional payroll tax on employers. An Ontario plan would be new liability for the provincial government because it would pay the employer portion of the pension for its nearly 1.4 million employees.

You are aware that the province has a budget deficit of $10 billion and a $280-billion debt. Each year, the province pays nearly $11 billion in interest on its debt. It is time for cost containment and wage freezes, but you still want to spend your way out of economic difficulty.

Premier, are you aware that a new Ontario pension plan would cost taxpayers an additional $3.3 billion per year?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What I think the people of Ontario are looking for is leadership. They’re not looking for the short-sighted vision that’s being spewed by the opposition. What they’re afraid of is making some tough decisions today for the benefit of our children of tomorrow.

We recognize that we are in economic times where we’re trying to recover. We’re making everything possible to stimulate that growth, but we’re going to take leadership to try to protect the interest of Ontarians in the future, and, for that matter, all of Canada. The opposition would rather stay as it is and take things away from Ontarians and Canadians. The other side wants to give it away, no less. We have to take a balanced approach. We’ve got to look to the future. We will do that with or without you. We are looking at other opportunities. PRPPs are part of the mix, but we have to do better, and that’s why we need to encourage everyone to come together and look at enhancing the CPP.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food. Ontario’s small food processors have been hit with constant regulation changes that are unpractical, costly and do not improve food safety. Half of our 267 abattoirs in Ontario have shut down since 1998. The NDP included a motion in the Local Food Act that one of the goals and targets for the minister would be to reduce or streamline regulations, specifically for small abattoirs. That motion was defeated by the government.

You can’t have local food without local processors. Is the Premier prepared to ensure that small processors can keep their doors open?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite is asking this question in the aftermath of my most recent meeting with the Open for Business round table. That table is specifically geared to government and our ministry working with the sector to make sure that regulations that need to be changed—or that need to be loosened or tightened—that that happens at that table and we come to some agreement. It is working very well.

In fact, there were a number of regulations, things like waste water, that have been raised with me and that have been changed, that are being changed because we heard from the sector that they weren’t working. I can think of no better process than actually working with the people who are in the business giving us information about what government is doing that is either hampering them or helping them. We’re going to continue in that manner.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, to the Minister of Agriculture and F