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

April 26, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Apr-26 (PDF)

L043 - Thu 26 Apr 2012 / Jeu 26 avr 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 26 April 2012 Jeudi 26 avril 2012

WEARING OF PINS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO’S CREDIT RATING

ONTARIO’S CREDIT RATING

JOB CREATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

RENT REGULATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CASINOS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TREE PLANTING

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

ONTARIO PLACE

LAFLÈCHE FAMILY FOUNDATION /

FONDATION FAMILLE LAFLÈCHE

BASKETBALL

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HUCK FINN YOUTH FISHING DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

ENSURING LOCAL VOICES

IN NEW CASINO GAMBLING

DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT

À GARANTIR LA CONSULTATION

DES POPULATIONS LOCALES

AVANT LA CRÉATION

DE NOUVEAUX CASINOS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING /

RESTRUCTURATION DU SECTEUR

DE L’ÉLECTRICITÉ

CANCER CARE

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

CANCER CARE

ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING

CANCER CARE

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

UTILITY CHARGES

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TOURISM

SCHOOL FACILITIES

SOCIAL WORK

ONTARIO PLACE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

NEW DRIVERS’ INSURANCE

RATE REDUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

POUR LES NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

NEW DRIVERS’ INSURANCE

RATE REDUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

POUR LES NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS

ALZHEIMER ADVISORY

COUNCIL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 CRÉANT

LE CONSEIL CONSULTATIF

DE LA MALADIE D’ALZHEIMER

NEW DRIVERS’ INSURANCE

RATE REDUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

POUR LES NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT (RENT

INCREASE GUIDELINE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D’HABITATION

(TAUX LÉGAL D’AUGMENTATION

DES LOYERS)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

WEARING OF PINS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The chief government whip on a point of order.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would move unanimous consent that we can all wear our daffodils in honour of the Canadian Cancer Society and the event that they are holding here today at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Unanimous consent has been requested. Do we agree? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 25, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to bullying and other matters / Projet de loi 13, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l’éducation en ce qui a trait à l’intimidation et à d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to respond to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, Mr. Arnott. I wasn’t here for all of his remarks, but I’m quite confident in saying that he felt that the emphasis should be placed on Bill 14. Bill 14 was the initial bill that was introduced by our member from Kitchener–Waterloo, Ms. Witmer. Ms. Witmer had worked for over two years to bring together some clear

definitions. I believe that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills was, in his remarks, respecting that. We know that Bill 14 is before the committee now, and I think it’s in some kind of procedural—but what we want here is to end bullying. We don’t need to be bullying each other in this process of Bill 13 and Bill 14. What we need to do is find consensus. Initially, it was my impression that they would work together, the minister and Ms. Witmer, and try to get it right. Most of the comments I’ve heard from the public—they see it in a balanced way of not prioritizing any form of bullying, but respecting that all students need to be protected from any form of bullying.

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills, I believe, made a very good point: The ideal solution here is to put Bill 13 into committee with Bill 14. I know there will be further remarks this morning on this, because everyone in this Legislature wants to have a role in ending bullying and making our schools a safer place for all—not just these students, but for all people, whatever exposure they have.

I think if you clarify it, there’s no agenda in Bill 14 at all that I’m aware of, other than protecting children from bullying and setting up a process of accountability and a reporting mechanism for the school boards to clarify that that would happen. With that respect, I look for others’ remarks on Bill 13 and ask them to look at Bill 14. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It is really my great desire to believe the sincerity of the party opposite, but it’s hard to, sometimes. I was very proudly standing here with all of my colleagues on this side to vote for Bill 14, their party bill—no fuss, no muss, right to committee; we said this was important. When it got to committee—I haven’t been here as long as the member for Durham, but it didn’t take me long to figure out how to read the rule book. And when you go to committee, if the same matter in substance is before the House—

Mr. Jim Wilson: You could have done it through the subcommittee.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I didn’t interrupt you, sir, and I would like the same courtesy, especially coming from you, Jim.

They cannot have it. Rather than dealing with the substance of the matter, which is more important in getting this bill to committee—that would also be extremely helpful.

Second, Bill 14 is a very good bill. You have not heard people on this side criticize it. Bill 13 is a very good bill. As a matter of fact, they’re complementary bills. I have heard the opposition with some of the most ridiculous pieces.

The member for Durham also made the comment—which, quite frankly, I find quite disturbing. The biggest cause of bullying is the impression that kids are gay or lesbian or transgendered or in fact that they are—overwhelming statistics. The suicide rates among gay and lesbian youth are running 30% higher.

When I was in school, I played football, I was president of student council. I didn’t get bullied because I figured out that the most common thing I ever heard was, “That’s so gay.” My poor friend Geoff Creighton, who was not gay, got beaten up. He was tall, he had red hair, he was a straight young kid, grew up to have a family, but he was a little awkward-looking, a little effeminate, so he was the one who was sort of the gay kid in class.

The other thing is, we’re not prioritizing gays. There are people out there who said, “You can’t have a gay-straight alliance.” They don’t say you can’t have a straight alliance. No one’s saying you can’t have a black kids’ alliance. Not—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills has two minutes for a response.

Mr. Ted Arnott: It’s an interesting process we have here, when a member speaks to an issue the day before and, if the House adjourns, we then have questions and comments the next day. I’m not sure the member for Durham had an opportunity to hear what I did say yesterday, but I appreciate his comments. I’m not sure if the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities was here for my speech yesterday, but I appreciate his comments as well. But it is always interesting to have these kinds of things. Again, I would thank the members for their responses to my comments yesterday.

The fact is that Bill 14, the bill that was brought forward by the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, was passed by this House on March 29. I spoke in favour of it. It has been languishing in the Standing Committee on Social Policy since that time. I realize there are some procedural issues but, again, I would encourage the government to get moving on Bill 14. I think there have been a number of expressions of confidence in that bill on both sides of the House, obviously, including the Premier’s public statement in the newspaper a few weeks ago.

I would commend the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, former Minister of Education, former Deputy Premier, former school board trustee, a long-serving member of this House. She studied this issue for many, many months, if not years, to bring forward a comprehensive bill that covers off the whole issue. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a superior bill and would in fact address the issues that are of concern to all of us. I would suggest that it should be the bill that is passed by this Legislature in its current form.

But at the same time, there is debate on Bill 13, and the government is continuing to call it for debate. There has been, I believe, 15 hours of debate. The government accuses us of delaying it, but the fact is, we’re doing our job in opposition and there’s a significant number of members of our caucus who wish to speak to this important issue so that we make sure we get it right.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence this morning in terms of listening to my follow-up remarks and I look forward to the continued debate on Bill 13 and Bill 14. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member from York–Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It’s my pleasure to be able to join the debate this morning. I think that one of the things that has happened in the development of Bill 13 and Bill 14 is, sadly, a huge growth in awareness of the extent of the problem. We know that people have been dealing with this in isolation and on their own through a mixed bag of resources and protocols and things like that, but it’s very clear from the two bills, Bill 13 and Bill 14, that the time has come for it to be much more organized.

I want to just step back a bit and think about how did we get to this point, and when does it start? I remember asking my mother about the question of kids fighting in the schoolyard—nothing is new. I said, “But what is different? Why is it that it seems to be such a more difficult issue, and frankly more damaging?” Her answer was quite interesting. She said, “Well, there were always kids who would get into fisticuffs with each other, usually boys,” but I’m not going to go there.

But she said, “What was different was that everybody would stand around and watch, and the idea that you would need someone else to come in on your behalf, so it was two against one or five against one, was absolutely wrong. It was a demonstration of your cowardliness, and you would not want anybody to think that you couldn’t stand up for yourself.” I sort of tucked that away for a while, because I started to think about it in terms of what has now become a much more serious issue of numbers, in terms of involvement.

I want to tell another little story that I think demonstrates how these things can start. A friend of my daughter’s in public school was about six feet tall. You can imagine that to be six feet in grade 7 certainly made you stand out in the group, and some of the kids started calling her Tree. She was very unhappy about this, because obviously it brought attention to something about which she already felt very self-conscious.

My daughter happened to mention one time about her friend Tree. I said, “Whose idea was it to call her Tree? Was it hers?” “Well, no.” My daughter is quite short and was very self-conscious about being short, and I said to her, “So it will be okay if Tree calls you Stump.” That put an entirely different focus on what, quite frankly, wasn’t meant in a particularly malicious way. This was her friend, and this was her nickname. But it obviously had an impact on her and was something about which she felt very self-conscious. Let me assure you that Tree and Stump are both friends now, but neither refers to the other in that pejorative way.

I think that over time what has happened is that, at the risk of opening up another can of worms, we seem to see more of a kind of group think. So if somebody comes up with a decision about someone, whether they’re too fat or too thin or they have red hair or they have a funny name or any number of things people could find that distinguish that person, then you have the escalation of group think. The other part of it is that we have the problem of this escalation, as people then become more marginalized by whatever has been the initial act.

So it’s everyone’s responsibility, I would argue, to look for opportunities. I realize, as I think back on it, that the innocence of my daughter telling me the story about Tree gave me a really good defining moment in which to throw it back on her as to her size, which she liked to be identified by. So it is everyone’s responsibility. It certainly is parents, the daycares and the schools, but it’s the schools that we’re looking at here and the importance of providing a mechanism for assisting—and I want to emphasize—both the perpetrator and the victim.

A final story on the importance of the perpetrator and the kind of need that they may have: I had a student who had the reputation, justifiably, of beating up other kids. She was warned by the school that the next time she did that she would face consequences in the legal system. You just can’t go around even threatening, and certainly not beating up, anyone.

So I had a reasonably good relationship with her and I said, “What are you doing? Come on, you’re too big. That’s something kids do maybe in kindergarten, but you’re in grade 10. What are you doing beating up?” And she turned on me and she said, “Well, what do you do when you’re mad?” And I thought, “Uh-oh, this is the problem.” Of course, in conversation with her it turned out that in her family experience everyone who was bigger than anyone else got a chance to beat up whoever was smaller. That was the way you solved problems and established your hierarchy.

When I think back on her story I think this was certainly a time when help was required. Her experiences then were something that, clearly, gave her the opportunity to express herself. She had no suite of options as to what to say when she was mad; all she knew was to beat up whoever happened to be handy.

There are a number of things, then, that I think are really important. There’s been much conversation about the merits of Bills 13 and 14, and I want to make sure that I have time to do that. But the bigger issue for us as parliamentarians is the importance of having a select committee on Ornge, and I want to move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from York–Simcoe has moved adjournment of the debate. Agreed? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those against, say “nay.”

I believe the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0918 to 0948.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would all members please take their seats.

Ms. Munro has moved adjournment of the debate. All in favour, please stand and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

Those against, please stand and remain standing.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 20; the nays are 33.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I declare the motion lost.

Ms. Munro.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to use the time remaining just to talk very briefly about the role of Karen Sebben, who is a constituent of mine in York–Simcoe and the founder of the York Region Anti-Bullying Coalition. In advocating for Bill 14, she says, “My son’s three years of bullying took the form of homophobia. But as parents, it didn’t matter to us what form the bullying took. The fact remains that aggression and assault were taking place regardless of the reason. This is the focus of any anti-bullying legislation, and the PCs’ Elizabeth Witmer got it right with Bill 14.”

I also want to, in the moment that remains, refer to a part of Bill 14 that I think is an important omission in Bill 13, and that’s the question of cyberbullying. This takes bullying to new heights. This means that it’s 24/7, that it is relentless, and it is in that spirit that we have to look at the merits of Bill 14 as well as Bill 13.

I would just conclude by saying that it’s important that we get it right, it’s important that we get the best piece of legislation, because we owe our children, at the very least, a safe environment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to stand and rise and support the member from York–Simcoe, a former teacher. I was quite impressed how she related it in a personal way to her daughter and her friend. I think they should refer to them, that story, Tree and Stump, one being tall, one being short.

It’s in that vein when we can relate this to our lives, our own personal lives. I was always called tall because I was so short. No, we won’t go into that self-deprecating mode but I think that’s what this is about: showing respect for our differences. That’s really a theme that I think we can all agree on, and that’s what I’d like to leave—I think Mrs. Munro’s remarks were in that vein. Trying to find more things that we could agree on in this House, in this Legislature, is a good signal to the pages who are here, to the youth or the educators that might be listening or watching and trying to understand.

What I do have a problem with, though, is the fact that we have been trying to establish a select committee to deal with scandalous waste. Mr. Klees, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, made a very impassioned speech yesterday. I would refer people to the Hansard of yesterday with respect to Bill 50, which is a bill from the Ministry of Health dealing with ambulances. In that, he was refuting a lot of stuff that the bill was artificially putting on the table. What we’ve been calling for, procedurally, is a select committee of this Legislature of all parties to deal with the—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to direct his comments to the previous speaker.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much. I’ll get to that as well—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Actually, get to it right away.

Mr. John O’Toole: —get to deal with the fact that this Bill 13 is—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: —Bill 13, I’ve said it twice now—a select committee to deal with Ornge—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to respond to the comments by the member from York–Simcoe on Bill 13, the anti-bullying bill. I was very pleased to hear the member’s comments because I think she recognized that what we need to do is take the bill, Bill 14, from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, who the members on this side of the House supported. I know that the Minister of Education and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo have been working very closely on how to merge Bill 13 and Bill 14, and I thank the member for York–Simcoe for recognizing that the two bills really need to be merged.

But the problem is, we can’t merge these two bills at committee if every time we try to have a debate and actually get Bill 13 passed, what we have is bells ringing, because time after time after time, when Bill 13 has been called for debate, what we’ve ended up with is 30 minutes of bells ringing about something that has absolutely nothing to do with Bill 13. Although I must say, what I’m really beginning to understand is that the members opposite in the official opposition actually can’t agree that we need to compromise, so as a front they’re ringing bells. We want to compromise on this.

Please pass Bill 13 and get both bills into committee so we can actually compromise. We can’t compromise if you keep ringing bells.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob Leone: I would like to congratulate the member for York–Simcoe on her remarks on Bill 13. I think that she made some passionate points that reflect some of her background on the issue, and experience and discussions with actual students who have been bullied. Those are important stories that I think all members have, at some point, experienced or seen, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge those ideas.

I also want to reference, since the member for Guelph referenced proceeding and moving forward—you know, I think it’s just a simple request. The reason why these bells have been ringing has absolutely nothing to do with Bill 13. What it has to do with is that we have to seek some co-operation on seeing through what the will of the House actually has been, which is that we had a motion on this floor that wants to see a select committee on Ornge, which we simply haven’t seen to date—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to restrict his comments to the previous speaker.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just referring to, in reference to the comments from the member for Guelph—I think we need to, to the greatest extent possible, set politics aside. Bullying is about the kids, it’s about the children, and certainly in my comments on this bill that we’ve talked about—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: So they’re just collateral damage, right? You ring the bells and they’re collateral damage.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister of Agriculture, would you come to order, please.

Mr. Rob Leone: The heckling that we’re seeing from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is exemplary of the kind of bullying that we’ve seen from that side. All I would ask is that we seek a little bit of co-operation in terms of trying to get these things moved forward. Certainly they have no interest in that co-operation, Mr. Speaker. I think that exemplifies the kind of bullying that we’ve been seeing since last October.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I only have two minutes to make comments. I think the opposition, by ringing the bells—it is a form of bullying. A bully wants to get their way. I remember that in school. We had bullies like everyone else would have, and the bullies wanted their way. I have nephews and nieces, and they tell me about the environment now in schools. Someone will steal someone’s iPod or iPhone because they want it themselves. They want to have it for themselves. Or they’ll steal someone’s lunch because they don’t have a lunch or they know that the lunch of the person being bullied is better than their lunch.

I remember in school so many incidents. I remember someone who came into the same classroom that I was in. People knew that he was gay. The teacher stepped out for a bit, and what happened was that a textbook was thrown from the back of the room and hit this person who was gay right in the back of the head. He got up, picked up his binders, left the room and never came back again. We were studying King Lear at that time; I remember it very well. It was a King Lear textbook, hardcover, and it was just thrown right into the back of the head. The person, unfortunately, had to leave.

So what we’re trying to do is eliminate that in this bill, so that people can live in a free and just society, without having people attack—verbally, physically or by any other means—someone that may be vulnerable.

The world has changed a lot. The United States is discussing the same issue, the very same issue. Society is advancing, becoming more aware of these issues. That’s why this bill’s important. We all have the right to an education, we all have the right to move freely, and we’re addressing that in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member for York–Simcoe, you have two minutes for a response.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I wish to thank the members for Durham, Guelph, Cambridge and Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to ask for your indulgence. In fact, in the comments and questions, there seem to be mixed messages here between the use of bells and the actual piece of legislation, so I’m going to respond to those as well. I think, perhaps, that it is what I said: a mixed message.

We have a very serious issue on the floor of this chamber: the question of Bill 13 and the question of Bill 14. No one, I think, misunderstands that we also have a very serious issue in the need for a select committee. The bells are simply an opportunity to demonstrate the dissatisfaction of the opposition, and serve as a reminder of the need to look at the issue of Ornge. I certainly don’t think that I mixed those messages in my remarks.

The important thing, I think, is how I left my comments, which were on the value of a safe environment. We spend a great deal of money and time on various other methods of making sure our children have a safe environment. We have what are notionally referred to as “the helicopter parents.” Well, I think that it’s time to look at the issue of those children who are identified, for whatever reason, as outsiders, as being different. That’s what this bill is all about—both of them—and it is an opportunity for us to move forward on something that is so important.

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 13 in the time that I have. There are a number of issues that I wish to bring forward that I hope the government will be able to pay attention to. There are some issues I want to bring to their attention, as there are a number of questions that haven’t been answered as of yet.

I can recall, and each of us has mentioned, many aspects of our lives that have come forward that have actually been part of our building blocks in order to make us individuals and stronger. I can recall being in grade 9, walking home, and I happened to see an individual I knew who was in grade 9 being picked on by two older kids in grade 12. He was walking away as best he could, and these kids picked on him and just punched him. I didn’t know what to do. I have to tell you, he just continued to walk, and he was almost in tears doing the very best he could. I never, ever forgot that moment.

As a matter of fact, it was about a year and a half ago when I met the individual again, and I apologized to him for not standing up for him at that time.

Although I was intimidated by the bullies that were picking on the individual, I didn’t have the courage or the understanding of what process to go by which to assist in the situation. But what took place, though, Mr. Speaker, was that I brought it upon myself that I wouldn’t allow it to happen to other children or other kids if it was ever in my presence again.

As a result of that, later on while in high school, I was working, believe it or not, as a chicken picker on a chicken farm. There was one tough guy that was picking on all the little kids in there, because they brought everybody in of any age. What we’d do is load chickens in the bins to be carried off to—this particular place was Colonel Sanders. Anyway, one kid was picking on one of the young guys there, and he thought it was great fun and all the other kids were laughing at him. I told myself, as I did when I saw the individual in grade 9 being picked on, that I wouldn’t let it happen.

I went over, I picked him up and I held him up against the ceiling of the top floor of that chicken barn and I said, “You ever pick on that kid again and you’re going to deal with me.” He stopped. Nobody ever did, and nobody ever picked on anybody while I was in there ever again.

Not only that, but later on while I was playing hockey, I can recall we were playing some pick-up shinny hockey and there was one guy that was a pretty good skater. He felt great pride in checking and flattening every single kid that he could there, because he was a big, tough guy. The next shift, I went out and I warned him. I said, “Don’t ever do it again.” He went out and continued on, he thought, in defiance. Well, the next time I had a chance, I completely levelled him, and he said, “What did you do that for?” I said, “How do you think he likes it and he likes it? Don’t ever do it again.” He was doing it to intimidate the other kids.

What happened, though, Mr. Speaker, is what I’m trying to express here: that as a result of the bullying actions, it builds stronger characters in those individuals who are willing to stand up for those individuals being bullied. Quite frankly, probably every one of us in here is standing up for beliefs that we have, and that’s one of the reasons we came to Queen’s Park.

It goes on to mention a number of other aspects where it specifically says, “In my philosophy the community, an institution itself, has no rights. It has rights by delegation from the individuals. You give equality to the individuals and you give rights to the individuals. Then they will organize in societies to make sure that these rights are respected.”

The individual goes on to talk about a hierarchy of rights, whereby the recognition of single entities or aspects that are mentioned in legislation are given a perceived hierarchy of rights, and that’s one of the concerns here in Bill 13, that a hierarchy of rights is being established because one single aspect is mentioned where there are other aspects that are not mentioned.

Quite frankly, it’s important for the individuals to know who it was who spoke that, because that was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, who went into great depth and spoke about ensuring that all rights are equal.

Now, in this Bill 13, one of the aspects was—in my own riding, my old alma mater, R.S. McLaughlin Collegiate and Vocational Institute, in which I have great pride and which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, denied allowing to have a faith organization in the school because, according to the principal at that time, religion was the basis of all wars in the world. That principal would not allow anything that promoted war in her school, and that organization was denied. So by mentioning certain organizations and others, there’s a perceived hierarchy of rights that is being established within the legislation, and that’s where a lot of individuals or groups have concerns about that.

Not only that. I met with senior officials from one of the largest, if not—well, quite frankly, it will be the largest implementer of the legislation in Bill 13, because there are certain aspects that already have it in place. The statement that was quite shocking was that, for the first time ever, they had never been consulted prior to the actual introduction of the legislation. The first time they ever heard anything about it was after it was introduced in the Legislature, and they had no ability to have comment or input on a consultation basis, which is the normal practice within this Legislature.

Quite frankly, they were very concerned and didn’t know how to handle it, so they contacted me and asked, “What do we do and how do we go about this?” As a result of that action, a document was brought forward by the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association called Respecting Difference. When you’re respecting difference, it’s the ability to come forward and ensure that the contents of it are reflective of all aspects being brought forward.

It’s an attempt to reach out, to say, “Look, we’ll find an understanding on how we can work together and move forward.” Quite frankly, they were very concerned about the whole thing in that they’d never had any ability to influence or been given an opportunity to have input on that.

Also, I should say that I, as many members do here, have met with principals in my riding. Quite frankly, I asked them when they came forward in regard to Bill 13 about the aspects of implementing it. Their comments were quite surprising to me. I found it rather interesting that they stated to me that they already had the authority to do what was taking place and being implemented in Bill 13. So I asked, then, why they would be bringing Bill 13 forward? They didn’t have an answer. Quite possibly, the lack of consultation with the implementation organizations may be part of the reason.

However, that’s not for me to decide. It’s for the implementers or the government who have moved the aspects forward.

I looked up under the Education Act and, according to

section 306(1), it specifically states, “A principal shall consider whether to suspend a pupil if he or she believes that the pupil has engaged in any of the following activities while at school, at a school-related activity or in other circumstances where engaging in the activity will have an impact on the school climate....” What they stated to me was that that

section allowed them to make sure that anything that took place regarding bullying could be dealt with at the school level.

Some of the aspects mentioned were:

“1. Uttering a threat to inflict serious bodily harm on another person.

“2. Possessing alcohol or illegal drugs.

“3. Being under the influence of alcohol.

“4. Swearing at a teacher or at another person in a position of authority.

“5. Committing

an act of vandalism that causes extensive damage to school property at the pupil’s school or to property located on the premises of the pupil’s school.

“6. Bullying.”

So, under

section 306 of the legislation, it already states that bullying is already enacted and that the principals of the schools have the authority, whether it’s on or off school property, to enact the legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize there’s a very limited amount of time here. There’s another couple of things I wanted to mention. I was invited to a constitutional briefing at U of T on the legislation, and there was a significant number of concerns that were brought forward in regard to this. One of them, very specifically, was that, should Bill 13 be enacted in the way it is, it will effectively stop what’s taking place in the riding of Oshawa, as in other locations. Pastor Jarret of the Affinity Church preaches at Norman G.

Powers School—and this is one of the questions I am hoping the government will be able to answer and answer to these individuals. Bill 13, the way it has come out now, will disallow that church from practising in that school, at Norman G. Powers, as is the practice in many churches. They need to hear these answers to give them some security that they know they can continue on with this aspect, because they are very concerned about that.

Another aspect that was brought forward in that constitutional briefing at U of T was very specifically that under subsection 2(1), paragraph 29.1 of subsection 8(1) of the act is repealed. They give the example that the Toronto District School Board’s EIE policy explicitly states that parents shall not be provided with advance notification of what material is being taught to their children, and that the parents shall not be permitted to withdraw their children from classes covering material which conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

Now, I understand that there is a potential court case in Hamilton—if it has not been brought forward—about to take place dealing with this because a parent tried to remove their child from the classes that they didn’t believe were appropriate in accordance with their beliefs. I also understand that there is a Quebec precedent that was set in regard to this that had taken place. However, according to the constitutional lawyers who potentially will be dealing with this or are dealing with it now, they are substantially different in that the parent was completely denied and disallowed from removing their child from there.

There is a significant number of questions that need to be answered. Unfortunately, I only have a few seconds left. I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to the bill moving forward to committee so that these issues can be brought forward and these people have the ability to come forward and get their questions answered about a serious aspect of our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’d like to take a moment to recognize a young man, Will White, from Akron University in Ohio, in the west members’ gallery. Will has been an intern in my office here at Queen’s Park for the past couple of months and he leaves Queen’s Park tomorrow. Will’s major project was working on a private member’s bill, which I will look forward to introducing later in the term.

Based on our experience in working with Will, I can confidently say that he has a very bright and exciting future ahead of him. So on behalf of myself and my staff and, I hope, all of you at Queen’s Park, I’d like to say great good luck to Will White.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to welcome Kevin Maloney. He’s an individual who bid at a recent Rotary Club of Brampton-Heart Lake auction for charity, and he’s having lunch with me today.

Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for all members to wear ribbons in recognition of the National Day of Mourning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I believe we have a unanimous consent request for wearing the ribbon for national mourning. Do we agree? Agreed.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome today to Queen’s Park Kathy Kennedy, representative of the Canadian Cancer Society in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and thank her for the great work she does and the great work the society does there and elsewhere.

M me France Gélinas: I am so pleased to introduce a huge delegation from the cancer society: John Atkinson, Julie Datta, Sharon Chandler, Mary Ransom; Cathy Burns, from Sudbury; Janice Hodgson, Lori Synes-Taraba, Joanne Di Nardo, Kate Neale; Diana Barclay-Neale, who happens to be Kate’s mother; Mary Hobbs, Janice Cunningham, Linda Constant, Elizabeth Holmes, Lera Ryan, Maureen Tourangeau, and Lynne O’Neil. We also have Rowena Pinto, Sherri Cicirello, Shadi Mousavi Nia, Dave Nidumolu, Diana Barclay—sorry, introduced her already—Daniel Paquette, and I have Dr.

Cheryl Rosen, and Martin Kabat, the CEO of the cancer society, Ontario division. They are all here today to support my private member’s bill banning tanning beds.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I, too, want to recognize some individuals from my riding of Niagara Falls who are here on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society for MPP education week. In the east gallery we have Lori Taraba—thank you, Lori—and we have Angela Daley. I want to simply say, Mr. Speaker, as a survivor of cancer, thank you so much to the Canadian Cancer Society for all the good work that you do.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce to you a friend of mine, Paul Howe from the community of Penetanguishene. Paul’s here with the Canadian Cancer Society, and he’s also a member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation and I think about 12 other community organizations in our area. Thank you very much for being here, Paul.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Of course, we’re very fortunate to have Sarah McPherson here, page for the Thunder Bay–Atikokan riding. Today we also have her mother, Tracy Shields. I’d like you to welcome her. She’s in the east gallery. Welcome, Tracy.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’m thrilled to welcome Sharon Burns. She’s the manager of the Halton Canadian Cancer Society and she’s also a Burlingtonian.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome Margaret Eaton, the president and CEO of ABC Life Literacy, who’s joining us in the members’ gallery today, and I’d like to recognize the great work that their organization is doing to help the literacy cause in Canada.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m so happy to introduce a great friend of mine and a great friend to fighting cancer in this province. Maureen Tourangeau is here. She has been a lifelong volunteer with the Ottawa cancer society, which I used to be a board member with. I’m very happy she’s at Queen’s Park today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature today Mary Ransom of the Canadian Cancer Society in Niagara.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a great pleasure for me today to welcome Helen Cole, president of the Sarnia Canadian Cancer Society. Accompanying her is Kilby McGarry, a recent volunteer to the Canadian Cancer Society. We welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’d like to welcome Anita Record and Will Camm from the Peterborough branch of the Canadian Cancer Society, who are with us today.

Mr. Peter Shurman: In the west members’ gallery, I would like to welcome my lovely wife, Carole, and our friends Eva and Andrew Kordysz. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to welcome Janis Cunningham to the Legislature. She’s a hard-working member of the Canadian Cancer Society in my riding.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d ask all members to help me welcome Janice Hodgson, who is here representing the Holland River unit of the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, supporting page Sarah McPherson is mother Tracy Shields—thank you very much—in the members’ gallery.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO’S CREDIT RATING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Two days ago our leader, Tim Hudak, and the Ontario PC caucus voted against a budget that did nothing to save Ontario from a $30-billion deficit, from further debt and more unemployment. We took that stand because we are worried about the future of our province. We took that stand because you did not take the urgent action that our province needs.

Yesterday’s S&P negative outlook throws your government’s incompetence in managing our province into high relief, Deputy Premier. In fact, Kevin O’Leary on The Lang and O’Leary Exchange yesterday had this to say regarding the downgrading: “This is further evidence that this government is probably past its shelf life.”

With all indications to the contrary, can you still stand up here and claim that you and your budget are what Ontario needs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, Standard and Poor’s affirmed the credit rating and put Ontario on a negative outlook, and they cited the challenge of meeting our deficit targets, which this government is prepared to embrace, and we want to meet those targets, obviously.

We welcome the independent analysis which cited, among other factors, a number of great strengths that this economy has, Mr. Speaker, and a number of challenges we have, including the global economy and including, in their words, the fact that we are in a minority Parliament. That’s why we hope that we can work together on issues in the future to continue to meet those targets.

We adopted a number of initiatives in the budget which I think are certainly consistent with Conservative points of view. I look forward to hearing from other agencies. These are not easy things, but I think Ontarians are prepared to embrace the challenge in front of us. We’ve laid out a plan to get us back to balance, Mr. Speaker. The expense challenges are real, but we will—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I think the Deputy Premier may get his wish in hearing from other agencies. The Standard and Poor’s negative outlook on Ontario is an indictment of this government’s performance and of its fiscal plan.

On April 4 this year, this finance minister himself said, “‘We’re worried about costs when we have a proposal to raise taxes and expenditures.’ Duncan told reporters.

“‘That’s one thing that in my view, given what the demands of the credit agencies are, we have to be very cautious about. That’s not what credit agencies are looking for.’”

Really? Our party and our leader have repeatedly called on your government to correct your course. You refused because you just didn’t get it, Deputy Premier.

Do you get it now? Or are you going to wait until we get downgraded and interest rates make your budget completely obsolete?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, Standard and Poor’s affirmed the rating for the next two years, and they are looking to this Legislature to meet those challenges. They cited a number of great strengths in the Ontario economy, which we concur with, and they quite correctly cited the challenges that we are faced with. So we welcome their unbiased, balanced perspective on what is happening. We will likely hear from other agencies in the near future. We will welcome their advice as well.

I’m pleased to report that Ontario’s debt continues to be among the most in-demand debt in the world because it’s seen as strong debt. There are real challenges on the expenditure side, and this government is committed to dealing with those challenges. We’re doing that, and we will meet the challenges.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order.

Question?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Let’s review, Deputy Premier, what Standard and Poor’s actually had to say yesterday, and I’m quoting again: “We believe the province’s main credit challenges include its continuing weak budgetary ... metrics and its challenging cost-containment plan required to achieve budgetary balance by fiscal 2018.”

Deputy Premier, this is the second credit rating agency in four months to put you on negative credit watch. If we want to get our economy moving again to create jobs, you must get our fiscal House in order.

You responded to the last negative credit outlook by stubbornly doubling down on the same failed path. How do you intend to respond this time?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, by implementing the budget and the fiscal plan we have laid out, by attempting to work in this Legislature in a minority parliament to address the very real challenges that face this economy that have built up over many years. One simply has to look at the history of debt accumulation in Ontario to see where and when it happened. These numbers are all well understood.

I will remind you that the Globe and Mail reminds us this morning—they called the Leader of the Opposition the forgotten man of Queen’s Park because of the very wrong response to the need for this Legislature to work together in challenging times.

The plan we’ve laid out is the right plan, Mr. Speaker. Standard and Poor’s quite properly says we have to meet the spending targets. We will do that with or without the help of the opposition.

ONTARIO’S CREDIT RATING

Mr. Peter Shurman: Back to the Deputy Premier: This is not the first time that Standard and Poor’s has issued a very direct warning to your government. In the summer of 2009, Standard and Poor’s put us on negative watch. In the fall of 2009, they downgraded Ontario. Now, in the spring of 2012, they put Ontario on negative watch again.

In their move yesterday, they issued a stern warning to the Premier: “The negative outlook reflects our view that there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating one notch....” We warned you last week that a 1% increase in interest rates means $500 million wiped away to service a $280-billion debt.

Will the Deputy Premier finally listen? What are you prepared to do to make sure we avoid a further downgrade to Ontario’s credit rating?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to remind the people of Ontario that Standard and Poor’s affirmed our credit rating. They did not affirm the credit rating of the United States. They did not affirm the credit rating of France. There’s a variety of other jurisdictions they did not affirm the credit rating. We take their advice very seriously.

The member is right. At the depth of the most recent recession, they did put us on negative outlook, as they did with virtually every jurisdiction in North America that doesn’t have oil, doesn’t have natural gas and doesn’t have potash.

The challenges to our economy are real. I think the people of Ontario expect the members of this Legislature to work together in a minority situation, not to play games, not to ring bells, not to not show up, and do the people’s business. We look forward to working with both parties in this Legislature as we move—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Yesterday, and I see again today, this finance minister was quick to do what he always does. He points the blame anywhere else. But there is no one left to blame, Speaker. Standard and Poor’s was clear. This is your responsibility, sir: “Ontario’s large budgetary deficits since the recession have significantly boosted the debt burden.”

It’s black and white, Deputy Premier. Your uncontrollable spending, your debt, is what got us into this mess. Will your government continue to invent excuses, or are you finally ready to accept responsibility?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I accept responsibility that we stepped in and helped save General Motors and Chrysler. I accept responsibility that we accelerated capital projects across the province to build more hospitals that needed to be built, to build new roads that needed to be built, to build municipal infrastructure, to put people to work at a time when jobs were scarce.

It is now time to get that deficit back. We have brought it down. We have exceeded our targets, as Standard and Poor’s pointed out, in each of the first three years. I welcome their advice. We embrace it. We’re prepared to continue to make the right choices for the best future for Ontario.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Well, you do have to get the deficit under control. We’ve been telling you that. Now they’re telling you that. When are you going to listen? Without a doubt, yesterday’s decision is an indictment of your government’s fiscal policy. The verdict is in, Deputy Premier. Tax hikes and irresponsible spending will not get Ontario moving out of this economic downturn. Now more than ever, you need to change your ways. You need to show that you’re willing to do the right thing.

Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC caucus are committed to taking this province on a different path, a path that leads to jobs, a path that leads to a strong economy, to stability. The question is, are you? If so, then the time is now. If you refuse to listen to us, will you please, please listen to Moody’s, listen to Standard and Poor’s, and change your course?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve taken the deficit from just over $19 billion to $15 billion. That’s going to continue to go down, according to the path we’ve laid out. We laid out in 2010 the path back to balance. We’ve overachieved in each year so far.

There is no doubt that there are expenditure challenges. I think, working together, this Legislature can address these challenges. I think the official opposition ought to follow the advice of this morning’s Globe and Mail and say, “Don’t be irrelevant.” Please come to the table and work with this government. We do need to get back to balance. I think Ontarians expect that of us. I think a number of Conservatives expect that of us.

I’m reminded that some Tories remain puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition came out against the budget as soon as it was introduced. “Tim’s position has left him out of being any relevant part” of the news. I just wonder which Tory it was. Was it you? Was it her? Was it him? I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. We’re prepared to get this—

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

JOB CREATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Over the past month, New Democrats have brought the issues of real, everyday people to this Legislature, and I’m happy to say that over the course of this last month, we’ve been able to get real results for them. By doing our best to make this Legislature work, we’ve put a little fairness into this budget and avoided an election.

But there’s a lot more work that needs to be done. This morning we learned about more job losses in Mississauga. When will we see a real jobs plan from this government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll refer the member opposite to the budget. We have created a jobs and prosperity task force. The Minister of Economic Development will be announcing the membership of that.

I would remind the member that since the bottom of the recession, we’ve had more than 340,000 net new jobs in Ontario. I’ll remind the member opposite that in the month of March this year we had 46,000 net new jobs in Ontario, full-time jobs that will contribute to the future growth of this province.

There’s more work to do; we remain committed to that. We remain committed to working with all parties in this Legislature, not just to get Ontario’s deficit under control, which we believe is one of the most important things we can do to create jobs, but indeed to take the funds that we have available and make better use of them to create more jobs still.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The people of Ontario are looking for action, not more task force studies. This government is finally and grudgingly conceding that corporate tax giveaways and the HST are not creating the 600,000 jobs that they were supposed to.

We’ve put forward a simple idea: that companies that aren’t creating jobs shouldn’t be getting tax breaks. The government says it’s ready to consider constructive ideas like this. What we want to know is, when is this going to happen?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The third party is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say, “Don’t give corporate tax cuts.” On the other hand, they stand up and say, “Create a new corporate tax cut.” That’s what he’s proposing, and it’s a worthy idea; I don’t deny that. I think it is worthy of looking at, but you can’t have it both ways. Leave the rhetoric at home. Come to the Legislature and let’s work together.

Mr. Drummond pointed out that a number of our existing tax credits don’t work well. Most economists say that. But don’t stand up and say, “No more corporate tax cuts,” and then look the other way and say, “Create a new corporate tax cut.” Let’s have some consistency. Let’s hear some real ideas. Let’s leave the rhetoric at the door, and let’s work together for a better future for Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I hardly think this is rhetoric. What we are saying is to reward those that do the right thing.

This week, we saw the United Kingdom head back into recession, thanks to an unbalanced and reckless plan for them to balance their books. We need to do better here in Ontario. On this side of the House, we plan to work hard, not just to make this minority work but to make it work for ordinary, everyday people who sent us here.

The question: Is the government ready to get to work on a jobs plan that actually creates work for the people who need it, people like those in Mississauga who lost their jobs yesterday?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I just remind the member opposite of last month: 46,000 net new jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 7.4%, the lowest in three years. There’s still more to do. We’ve got to get that lower.

Employment has increased by 348,000 net new jobs from the low in May 2009, recovering all of the jobs lost. The member referred to the UK. He’s right. We’ve recovered more than 100% of the lost jobs; the United Kingdom, only 38% of the lost jobs. Last year, 121,000 net new jobs in Ontario and 45.7% of all the new jobs created in Canada, which is larger than our share of the gross domestic product.

We have a plan. We’re implementing it. We look forward to working with the third party to build on that and still build a better province for all of our families.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ma question sera pour le premier ministre par intérim. The Premier has talked a lot in the past few days about making a minority government work. I think by working together, we made some good progress on making the budget a bit more fair for everyday Ontarians, but that’s only one part of making a minority government work. Making it work means listening to the will of the Legislature. When will the Premier and Deputy Premier listen to the will of the Legislature and strike a select committee on Ornge?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I think the member is well aware, considering she sits on the public accounts committee, that right now we have hearings into the Ornge matter that are taking place here in the Ontario Legislature. It’s the public accounts committee, a standing committee of the Legislature, which is undergoing a thorough review of the Ornge situation. They also have a robust list of witnesses that are coming forward and a list of witnesses moving forward. It’s an opportunity for them, with the guidance of the Auditor General and guidance I know, too, of counsel because of the current OPP situation, to do a thorough examination of Ornge and move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Deputy Premier: The story goes that, after the fall election, the Premier called Bill Davis to get advice as to how you make a minority government work. We hadn’t had one in Ontario for a long time. If the story is true, Bill Davis told the Premier to work with other parties in the Legislature, to be ready to compromise.

Premier, we have heard a lot of flowery language about working together, but I think it’s time to get down to brass tacks. Will the Premier agree to respect the will of the majority in this House and strike a select committee for Ornge?

Hon. John Milloy: I take a very different perspective when it comes to co-operation in this House. I’m very proud of the good work that was done by the government and the New Democratic Party to reach a compromise on the recent budget that has come forward.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the honourable member who has raised this question has served for a number of years here in the Legislature, and I know that she would never want to leave the wrong impression, with this Legislature or with individuals watching on TV, that somehow there is a difference in the powers of a standing committee or a select committee. We have nine standing committees of the Legislature, including public accounts, which are given all the tools they need to look into matters like Ornge. Public accounts is currently seized with the matter. They have a robust list of witnesses, and they are continuing to undertake the type of investigation that she’s asking for.

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

M me France Gélinas: Back to the deputy: Earlier this week, the Premier talked about a perfect marriage. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? New Democrats want to stay single. I don’t know too many women who are looking for a spouse who doesn’t listen. Not too many women are looking for a spouse who ignores the rules whenever he or she feels like it. Working together means compromising on the things you want to work together on, but it also means compromising on the things you don’t want to work together on, and the Premier is not doing that.

Will the Premier respect the will of the majority of the House and strike a select committee to look into Ornge?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, once again, I’m proud of the very good work that we did with the New Democratic Party and what we accomplished in terms of the budget. Our government is open to working with both opposition parties, but when I look across the aisle at the Progressive Conservative Party—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, when I look across at the official opposition—not the NDP but the official opposition—I see a party that has gone to great lengths to obstruct the business of this Legislature through their bell ringing.

We right now have the Accepting Schools Act, Bill 13, which is being obstructed by the official opposition. We have the rent increase guideline, Bill 19, which is being obstructed by the Conservative Party. We have the healthy homes renovation tax credit, which is right now being held up in committee because of the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, that is not—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. What I want to do is, I want to point out—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your own member wants to ask the question.

Mr. Frank Klees: —I want to point out to the people who are observing the proceedings here that there’s only one party here, one caucus, that is obstructing the will of the Legislature, and that is the government caucus.

What we’re seeing is that every committee hearing that we have, witnesses are coming forward. We have eight minutes per witness to question these people on a very serious issue. Even witnesses say that the eight minutes that they have is not enough. We have called for a select committee for that very reason. Why is this government obstructing the will of this Legislature that will allow us to get to the bottom of this issue?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, I know the honourable member who stands up is a parliamentarian of some experience. He would never want to leave the impression with this House or with the viewers watching that there is a difference between the powers of a select committee or a standing committee. He talks about the amount of time that a witness has in front of a standing committee of the Legislature. That is a decision of the committee itself, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with the nature of it.

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is seized with this matter. They have all the tools that any committee of this Legislature would have, select, standing or otherwise. They are undertaking a very thorough review of the Ornge situation, including the testimony of the Minister of Health and the good work that she is doing. But the real question, the final piece of the puzzle, is Bill 50, and I ask the member, in his supplementary, to commit right now to passing that piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Mr. Speaker, I heard the government House leader very clearly. I now want to ask the government House leader to agree to this: If he does not want to give us a select committee, will he agree that we adopt within the public accounts committee the terms of reference that we proposed for a select committee, so that we could get on with the business of properly getting witnesses forward with the appropriate whistle-blower protection? We’re going to ask for a very simple commitment today. Will the government House leader agree to give us those terms of reference? If he will do that, we will co-operate and we’ll move forward and we’ll get to the bottom of this issue.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve already mentioned the names of some people here. I will continue to do that, and if I have to do it a second time, I’ll get close to the naming situation that I told you before: warning, then naming.

Answer?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think the public accounts committee is doing outstanding work. In fact, do you know what we learned yesterday? We learned that two of Canada’s best-connected Conservatives—Guy Giorno, the former chief of staff to Mike Harris, and Lynne Golding, a prominent PC Party activist—were the ones responsible for providing advice to Chris Mazza, advice to not put his salary on the sunshine list, which he didn’t; that they didn’t have to co-operate with the Auditor General, which he didn’t; and how to create the web of for-profit entities which are right now being examined by that committee.

I have confidence in the public accounts committee. I have confidence in the members and their questioning of the witnesses, and I believe they are doing a great job in terms of getting to the bottom of Ornge and bringing to light some of these issues which my friend across the way doesn’t seem to want to talk about very much.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. Minister, there’s a disturbing pattern at Ornge of well-connected insiders lining their pockets with limited health care dollars. First we learned of former Liberal Party president Alfred Apps, whose firm billed Ornge and the public over $9 million. Now we hear of the Premier’s former chief of staff and head strategist, Don Guy, whose “professional services” earned him a cool $107,000. Why is this government, time and time again, putting well-connected insiders ahead of front-line care to people in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: As I’ve said, the public accounts committee is doing an excellent job in terms of meeting with witnesses, questioning witnesses and getting to the bottom of Ornge. But if the honourable members of the opposition, as I say, want to hold hearings during the course of question period, then again I talk about what we found out yesterday about two prominent Conservatives: Guy Giorno, a former chief of staff to Mike Harris; Lynne Golding, a very prominent PC Party lawyer. We found out that they billed Ornge some $11 million to give them the type of advice which is in fact under question right now.

They told Dr. Chris Mazza that it was fine to refuse to put his $1.4-million salary on the sunshine list, and he hid that salary. They told him that they didn’t have to co-operate with the Auditor General, and they did not. They told him how to create a web of for-profit entities, which they did, and it’s the subject of investigation right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, Don Guy’s relationship to the Premier has been described in newspaper articles as “joined at the hip.” Some say that despite leaving the Premier’s office years ago, he still has a say on how things are run there. Mr. Guy’s last bill, for $16,950, was to one of Ornge’s for-profit companies, Ornge Global Holdings Ltd., on December 17, 2011, right when the news about Ornge’s high-flying executives hit the news. He didn’t take the cash. Was that because the Liberal Party’s campaign chair knew that what the government was doing was completely wrong and ill-advised?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, these are all matters that the committee is seized with in terms of Ornge, in terms of the various billings that went on, and there are going to be opportunities to question witnesses. But if the member insists upon holding these types of hearings during question period, then again, let’s talk about Guy Giorno and Lynne Golding and the fact that these lawyers with intimate links to the PC Party—I don’t think you can get any more intimate than being Mike Harris’s chief of staff—billed 22,000 hours of work to Ornge. That’s 916 days, working around the clock, or 2.5 years every day around the clock.

We’re learning about disturbing things that went on there with these PC-connected lawyers. We’re looking forward to the testimony of Mr. Kelly Mitchell, another well-connected Conservative, who was paid $400,000 to schmooze and lobby opposition members across the way.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, this past November you introduced the Accepting Schools Act, legislation that would help make our schools safer and create a more welcoming environment for all students.

As a former educator and a parent, I’m disappointed that five months later, the bill is still stuck in second reading. When it comes to the welfare of our kids in the province, we need to put politics aside and do what’s right.

Now, the MPP for Kitchener–Waterloo introduced a similar bill on anti-bullying, which government members supported because we believe in doing everything we can to help protect students. Unfortunately, Conservative members are continuing to obstruct what is good public policy.

Minister, what are you doing to make sure this important legislation is passed?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The member from Sault Ste. Marie is right: Taking steps in our schools to eradicate bullying is critically important to families and children in this province. There have been many times where this Legislature has come together to help kids. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.

Liberal members, as the member from Sault Ste. Marie has said, did not play games with the member for Kitchener–Waterloo’s bill. I have publicly and repeatedly said I want to incorporate over half of that bill. The goal is to make Bill 13 the strongest possible bill that we can have. Let’s take good ideas from all sides of the House. Let’s get this bill to committee. I call on the opposition: Stop delaying. Stop playing politics. Put kids first.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am going to comment on my concern that we stick with government policy in the questioning. I would ask the member to make sure that you don’t try to slip a sentence in there that doesn’t.

Supplementary.

Mr. David Orazietti: Thank you, Speaker. Minister, I appreciate your commitment to moving this legislation forward. I think it’s important that we focus on good education policy and what Bill 13 does to protect students across the province. Members of the Legislature all agree that bullying in our schools is wrong and we need to do more to prevent it, yet the opposition have chosen to disrupt debate on this issue 10 times. They’ve decided to put procedural games ahead of good public policy.

Bill 13 needs to move forward. Minister, can you tell us how we’re going to continue to move this legislation forward?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me be very clear: We want to make Bill 13, our government bill, the best possible bill to protect students. That’s why I’ve provided the member for Kitchener–Waterloo with amendments to our Accepting Schools Act, Bill 13, drafted in legislative language, which include more than one half of the provisions in Bill 14. We did this because we can only fight bullying in Ontario schools if this House stands together.

But the opposition stands in the way. Tim Hudak, the leader of the PC Party, hasn’t shown leadership. He needs to put aside partisan politics. He needs to put aside—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I remind the member to refer to people in this place either by their riding or their ministry.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you, Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition needs to support the movement of Bill 13 to committee. We need to put aside partisan politics and ideology. We need to work across party lines for our kids—

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

Applause.

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

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the government House leader: The government House leader knows full well that we only have five more days left between now and the recess. That’s five more days of hearings with witnesses who are given only eight minutes of questioning per caucus. What we want to do now—I’m going to take at his word the government House leader, who said that he trusts the committee to do the work. I will do this: I will present to the subcommittee the proposal that we adopt the terms of reference that had been adopted and proposed for the select committee.

I want to know from the government House leader, will you support a motion from the subcommittee that we adopt the terms of reference for the select committee?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, the public accounts committee is doing an excellent job. It’s a standing committee of the Legislature and it’s appropriate that it’s looking into the Ornge situation, as there was a report from the Auditor General that came forward. But if the member wants to talk about the procedures here, I have a question for him. Bill 50 is before this House. Bill 50 is the most important piece, the final piece of the puzzle, in terms of addressing the Ornge issue, which the Minister of Health has taken leadership on in putting forward a number of measures.

My question to him and to his opposition colleagues is, are they going to continue to obstruct this Legislature and obstruct this important bill which would allow the Ornge situation to evolve and address the concerns that were raised by the Auditor General?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, it’s very clear that the House leader knows nothing about this issue. I spoke in our lead-off debate yesterday on Bill 50. He should read the transcript. He’ll find out that that legislation is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

What we need to do is get to the bottom of the scandal itself. What has been proven is that the minister’s two major objections as to why the government did not act were taken out from under her by testimony at the committee yesterday. The fact that it’s federally incorporated, the fact of the performance agreement—neither of those issues is real.

I want to ask this: Rather than continue to obstruct, all we’re asking is that you agree to allow that public accounts committee to adopt the broad terms of reference. When that motion comes forward, will you—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve pointed out, the public accounts committee is a committee of this Legislature which has the full powers to investigate these matters and come up with the rules and administration of how it goes forward.

But you know what, Mr. Speaker? I am not going to stand here and listen to that member undermine the very, very important work of the Auditor General. I will take the word of the Auditor General over a lawyer who advised Chris Mazza on how to hide his salary any day of the week. You know what the Auditor General said? I quote: “The performance agreement was weak and it was not adequate. It needed to be significantly strengthened. The additional corporate entities that Ornge unilaterally created were not covered by the performance agreement. The performance agreement does not allow the ministry”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. The Auditor General pointed out the flaws in the Ornge agreement. I will take his word any day rather than a group of Conservative lawyers who billed for thousands and thousands of hours and advised them on how to go around many of the issues that are before the House right now.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Minister of Health has blamed the performance agreement for her government’s inaction with Ornge. But yesterday in committee it was very clear: Ms. Lynne Golding, one of Ornge’s legal advisors, said that the performance agreement that was in place while the executives at Ornge were lining their pockets gave the Ministry of Health the power it needed to keep Ornge in line. Why did the minister mislead Ontarians by stating—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m standing.

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Withdrawn.

Why did the minister indicate that the previous performance agreement made her powerless to control Ornge?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: The very direct answer is, because the Auditor General confirmed what the minister said. As I just indicated to the Conservatives, I will take the word of the Auditor General, a respected officer of this House—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Oxford, come to order. Member from Simcoe South, come to order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order—second time.

Hon. John Milloy: —over the word of two prominent Conservatives who admitted yesterday that they advised Chris Mazza on how to hide his $1.4 million salary, something that he did; they advised Chris Mazza that he did not have to co-operate with the Auditor General, and he didn’t; they advised how to create the web of for-profit entities which are right now the subject of committee and OPP investigations—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. My frustration is the arguments that are taking place across the aisle, with no relationship whatsoever to what is being questioned or answered. First of all, knock that off. Second, when I ask you for your attention and you give it to me and then you proceed to start up again, it’s only going to get under my skin, and you’re not going to like that.

Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Speaker, again to the Acting Premier: Just yesterday in this House, the Minister of Health said, “The original performance agreement with Ornge did not give us the tools we needed to address these concerns.” But it became very clear in the committee that Ornge’s legal adviser says that’s not true, and that the province had great moral suasion over Ornge—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —not to mention pages of legal covenants, but didn’t choose to use it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Guelph, take your seat.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Was blaming the performance agreement just an easy way for this government and this Minister of Health to hide her failure to do her job?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m quite frankly a little disappointed that the NDP is falling into the trap of defending PC lawyers. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, a very respected officer of this Legislature, outlined in his report the problems with the performance agreement.

Here’s what he said: “The additional corporate entities that Ornge unilaterally created were not covered by the performance agreement….” The performance agreement “does not allow the ministry to recover any unspent air ambulance funding….” The performance agreement “does not entitle the Ministry to access the books and records of any of the entities that Ornge ... controls….” The performance agreement “has only two specific and measurable response-time requirements relating to requests for air ambulance services.” The Minister of Health and the government is taking action to clean up the mess that was created with the advice of these well-connected PC lawyers, and we ask the NDP to join us.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The western Mississauga neighbourhoods are known for single-family houses. Thousands of households in Meadowvale and Streetsville rent their accommodation. Many people struggle to pay their monthly rent. Ontarians need affordable rents, and tenants do not need to suffer from unjustified rent increases. Legislation stands before this House that, if passed, will help provide a more balanced and transparent approach to rent increases for both tenants and landlords. Will the minister describe this legislation and how it will assist tenants in Ontario in finding stable housing costs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank my colleague for the question. We’ve consistently demonstrated our commitment to protecting tenants across Ontario. In fact, as further evidence of that commitment, I tabled Bill 19, legislation which, if passed, will further strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act. What it will do is ensure that the annual rent increase guideline falls between 1% and 2.5%, and that will allow some stability and predictability for Ontarians who are renters—those hundreds of thousands of people across the province who are watching this Legislature and are interested in this legislation because they know it will provide some stability.

My concern is that the party opposite apparently doesn’t agree with this, apparently doesn’t think this is a concern and, in fact, is disrupting and delaying the debate so it’s impossible for us to move forward with this legislation. I think the people of Ontario need to understand that we owe it to the landlords and tenants of this province to have an intelligent debate on this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, western Mississauga tenants need the security proposed in Bill 19. We have our struggles with the recent recession, just like so many other Ontarians, and people need to know what annual rent increases they’re planning for. Western Mississauga tenants were happy to learn of this legislation last fall. My neighbours in Meadowvale and Streetsville expect its swift implementation.

I’ve sat in this legislative chamber with my MPP colleagues anticipating the debate on this and other important legislation, only to see these important measures bogged down by such procedural delays as the needless ringing of division bells.

Minister, my constituents want results on rent increases and not tired, right-wing excuses. What are the long-term consequences of the delay in this Legislature in the debate and the passage of Bill 19?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really want to thank the member for his concern, and I am honestly concerned about this, because many of us on this side of the House ran in 2003 because of our concerns for tenants. We changed the Residential Tenancies Act, we’ve introduced changes, and we continue to modify the legislation to fix some of the damage that was done under the previous government.

We need to ensure that the amendments are in place to affect the 2013 rent increase guideline, but those changes need to be approved by the Legislature prior to September 1. That means that Bill 19 has to make its way through the legislative process this session.

I am asking the party opposite, in the name of all of the tenants in this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Some of you have already been mentioned by riding.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m asking the party opposite to rise above itself and to listen to the tenants across the province, of whom you have many in your ridings, and to move this—

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

Interjections.

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Ornge scandal is a tale of greed, corruption and incompetence. While the true story continues to unfold, yesterday the plot thickened. Not only did witnesses refute and flatly reject each and every one of Minister Matthews’ excuses, we learned that the Ornge scandal has also entangled senior cabinet ministers.

Minister Duncan and Sandra Pupatello attended a private dinner with Rainer Beltzner and executives from AgustaWestland. Ontarians deserve to know what the nature of this dinner was. Specifically, did they discuss the $300-million bond offering, the $6.7-million kickback, or maybe the scheme to defraud taxpayers? Perhaps they discussed Agusta’s long history of bribery and crooked dealings.

So I ask the minister, will he share with this House the exact nature and topic of conversation at this private dinner?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The testimony given yesterday was accurate, Mr. Speaker. We were invited to meet with them. In fact, they had organized a meeting with a helicopter supplier who was interested in getting a federal government contract to supply the defence industry. They wanted to advise Ontario about that because there was a potential at the time for jobs to be created in Ontario.

I did attend that meeting. There were a number of people at that meeting and there was no follow-up done on it. At the time it was a very short dinner about purchasing helicopters—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the finance minister: The Ornge scandal is knocking at the Premier’s door. The list of Liberal insiders directly connected to the Ornge scandal is growing: Liberal Party president Alf Apps; the Premier’s right-hand man, Jamison Steeve; Liberal campaign manager, Don Guy; senior Liberal staffer Jennifer Tracey; Warren Kinsella’s girlfriend, Lisa Kirbie; Minister Matthews’ former chief of staff, Mary Lowe; and the actual architect of the whole eHealth boondoggle, George Smitherman, again; Minister Matthews herself; Sandra Pupatello; and now Minister Duncan.

Speaker, will the finance minister come clean and admit that he and his government knew full well what was happening at Ornge but chose to look away?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: You know, Mr. Speaker, I wish that we would let the committee do its work and not engage in these drive-by smears. The fact of the matter is, what we learned yesterday is that that Guy Giorno and Lynne Golding, two of the most prominent Conservative—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings has now been warned.

Hon. John Milloy: —join the ranks of—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Peterborough has now been warned.

Hon. John Milloy: —join the ranks of Kelly Mitchell, a very prominent PC loyalist and lobbyist who was paid $400,000 to schmooze members. Mr. Speaker, what we heard yesterday is that two of the most prominent members of the Progressive Conservative Party, people with long ties to that party across the way, were the ones who advised Chris Mazza how to hide his salary—and he did. They advised him how to—

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

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Families whose livelihoods are connected to the horse racing industry are still feeling burned by this government’s decision, made without any consultation, to end the horse racing revenue-sharing program. New Democrats earlier this week forced the government to come to the table with the horse racing industry and to commit to support. Given the dire predicaments that these families and people find themselves in, they’re looking for more details. Will the Minister of Finance tell those in the horse racing community when he plans to meet with them and what shape this support will take?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, let me set the record straight. In fact, the industry was consulted extensively as part of the land-based gaming review. Second of all, at the end of the day, the NDP did not make anything in the agreement conditional upon that. Third, I said, the day of the announcement, that we would discuss opportunities for mitigation with the industry at an appropriate time.

There will continue to be a horse racing industry in Ontario. I’m advised that five, possibly six, tracks will survive and that, indeed, the industry will still be there. We have a year; we’re continuing the program for another year. I believe probably the Ministry of Agriculture will work with them in some fashion to deal with this.

But I wish you would have forced harder to—

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would actually say to the Deputy Premier that that’s not our understanding about the agreement.

For families in Fort Erie, Essex, Sudbury, Kingston and countless other communities, the Liberal decision to end the revenue-sharing program has put people’s jobs and livelihoods at risk. When is the minister planning to sit down with the horse racing industry and get to work on a plan that retains jobs in hard-hit communities?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: At the beginning of question period, the NDP said, “Don’t subsidize business.” Now they’re saying, “Subsidize the horse racing industry.” You know, I would refer the member opposite to a very good piece of work that appeared in the Windsor Star last week that pointed out how much of that subsidy not only is not coming to Ontario, it’s leaving the country.

They’re trying to have it both ways. At the beginning, they get up and the critic for finance talked about, “Don’t subsidize business.” Now they stand up at the end of the day and they say, “Subsidize the horse racing industry.” You can’t have it both ways. We’ve made our choices. We’re investing in health and education so that we have better schools and health care.

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

Mr. David Zimmer: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, on December 8, you introduced legislation, Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act, that would provide up to eight weeks of unpaid job leave for employees to provide care and support for their sick and injured family members. This is important legislation. It protects the jobs of working Ontarians who need to care for their loved ones. Minister, it’s now April 26. The bill is only at second reading. This is legislation that helps Ontario families. My constituents are asking and asking about the delay.

Minister, why hasn’t the bill gone to committee? What is going on here? My constituents want this done. They want the bill passed. They want to be able to look after their loved ones in their time of need.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Speaker, I want to thank this member. This is a very important question. Whether it’s a child who has to spend time in the hospital or an elderly parent who is suffering a broken hip, caregivers should be able to focus on what matters most when your family is in crisis: providing care to support their loved ones without fear of losing their jobs.

I’m very disappointed that this bill is only at second reading, and I’m even more disappointed by the delaying tactics the PC Party has been using. This legislation is something that caregivers across Ontario have been asking us for. We’re at 11 hours of debate, and the official opposition has rung the bells six times. Ontario families who need this support unfortunately will continue to have to wait.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I know these delays are holding up other important legislation. I see it around here every day. There’s huge support for Bill 30 outside of this place—organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. They want the time to care for their loved ones who are sick and dying. They don’t want to be victims of petty Conservative politics, the games, the obstruction and the bell ringing.

Minister, what can we do to see that the Family Caregiver Leave Act actually gets to committee, in spite of this Tory obstructionism?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Family caregiver leave is a matter of compassion, and we believe it’s the right thing to do for Ontario families. This piece of legislation is too important to play games with. Bill 30 is a critical part of our government’s commitment to ensure families across Ontario have the support they need when they need it the most. It’s distressing to me that the PC Party fails to participate or offer constructive ideas.

You know, it’s an important piece of legislation that we introduced. We think it has the gravity that requires that kind of participation. It seems that they’re taking every opportunity to disrupt or obstruct or delay the work of the legislature. This issue isn’t about partisan politics; it’s about an opportunity for all parties to come together and make the right decision for Ontarians. I will continue to reach out to the PC Party and ask them to help get this bill passed.

Applause.

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, to the Deputy Premier: Last week, the day after I asked in this House about former chief of staff Don Guy’s involvement in the Ornge scandal, someone had his lawyer send me an intimidating letter referencing a lawsuit. It seems someone over there is finally listening, so I’ll try again.

Yesterday, in the public accounts committee, Lynne Golding, of Fasken Martineau, tabled a series of invoices totalling close to $125,000 paid out to Don Guy’s Artisan Research and Communications firm for professional services with respect to Ornge, dating back to 2007.

Deputy Premier, I’ll ask again: Can you confirm for this House with certainty that Don Guy was abiding by all the requirements of the lobbyist act?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, there are committee hearings that are taking place, and I think these kinds of drive-by smears on the part of the opposition are unnecessary.

What we found out yesterday, though, if the honourable member wants to talk about billing and if he wants, as I say, to hold hearings here during question period, is that lawyers Guy Giorno and Lynne Golding, who were brought forward by Ornge, two of the most prominent Conservative lawyers in the country, billed Ornge for 22,000 hours of work. That’s 916 days if you were working around the clock, or 2.5 years, if you were working every day.

What’s interesting is what advice these two prominent Conservatives gave.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Milloy: Well, they advised Dr. Chris Mazza on how to hide his salary, and he did. They advised him on how not to co-operate with the Auditor General—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’ll go back, earlier this week, to the lobbyist registrar’s opinion on federal Liberal leader Alf Apps’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Ornge, despite his denials in committee. Now we learn that just months after leaving as the Premier’s most senior adviser and election guru, Don Guy is courted by the federal Liberal president to lobby on behalf of Ornge to the tune of $125,000. It seems your Premier’s former chief of staff was providing advice on Ornge, he was being paid to run the Liberal campaign, he was advising other companies on how to lobby the McGuinty government—this Guy really gets around.

Deputy Premier, will you commit today to produce and table any and all correspondence and emails that were sent or received relating to—

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: This is getting a little bit beyond the pale. We have a committee of the Legislature, the public accounts committee, which in fact is chaired by a Conservative member, which is right now seized with the issue of Ornge. We have a robust list of witnesses who are coming forward, and the member has an opportunity, he and other colleagues in his party, to ask questions.

But the more important question is, when the Minister of Health went forward and outlined the plans that she is taking in order to correct the problems at Ornge, the key missing piece of the puzzle was legislation. I want to know, why did that member stand here in the House yesterday and admit that he was going to block, through childish bell-ringing, the passage of a very important bill which would address the issues related to Ornge?

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: Can you tell me why it’s okay to subsidize transportation in southern Ontario and not with the ONTC?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The reality is, over the years, we have been subsidizing the ONTC. Now, to use the example you used in the House earlier on when you compared it to GO Transit, GO Transit has 57 million riders and a subsidy of approximately $2 per ride. The ONTC has a ridership of 320,000, on average, a year, with a subsidy of $403—

Interjection.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: A year. That’s a $2 subsidy compared to a $403 subsidy. The reality is, we cannot afford a subsidy of $100 million any longer per year. So what we are going to do is, we’re going to divest the ONTC, we’re going to ensure that we have in place—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, people in northern Ontario are disappointed with you. You know as well as everybody else that it costs more money to deliver services in northern Ontario. Why? Because it’s a large geography with a small population base. Running an ambulance in northern Ontario costs as much as 10 times as much as running the ambulance in Toronto, but do we stop running ambulances? Hospitals in northern Ontario cost more money to run. Do we shut down our hospitals? Highways in northern Ontario cost more money. Why? Because there’s more miles. Do we stop spending money? No, because it’s part of the infrastructure.

So I say again, why is it that we can subsidize something in Toronto but we can’t subsidize it in northern Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: You know, the bluster doesn’t impress anybody. The bluster from the member, I guess, is clouding his memory, because let’s see what happened when they were in power. They reduced bus service, losing jobs from Timmins to Chapleau to Wawa; docked a new ferry in Tobermory, scratching jobs; cut northern Ontario services from 21 to six communities; and sold off Star Transfer immediately. It wasn’t a divestment with them; it was a foreclosure.

Ours is a far more reasonable approach. We will divest, and we will have in place a much stronger transportation system, a much more effective transportation system, a much more realistic transportation system, and we will do it without having to have a subsidy of $403 per rider.

VISITORS

Point of order, the member for—

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I have a question.

Interjection.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: We’re done, out of time?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, no.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Coteau: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Anton Peiris, who’s the operational coordinator of the Rouge Valley Naturalists. Welcome to the House.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome again the people from the Canadian Cancer Society. Certainly anyone here from Durham or Durham region, I’m happy to acknowledge. But I also met Paul Howe—he’s from Penetanguishene—who’s here again this afternoon. I hope he’s enjoying the entertainment here today at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Speaker, I know that you’ll appreciate that I’ve had the chance to attend the Grand River Conservation Authority reception, and you did a great job helping to organize it. I think that we should express our appreciation to the members of the Grand River Conservation Authority who are here today and welcome them to the Ontario Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wholeheartedly agree.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to welcome to this House, and they’re arriving as I speak, a huge delegation—actually lots of them are there already—from the Canadian Cancer Society. I will start with Joanne Di Nardo, senior manager at the Cancer Society; Florentina Stancu-Soare, also with the Canadian Cancer Society; Elizabeth Rovichaud, Lindsey Collins, Michael Sheiner, all from the Canadian Cancer Society; as well as their CEO, Mr. Martin Kabat.

I want to welcome Kate Neale, a very brave young woman. I want to thank Lera Ryan; Elizabeth Holmes; Linda Constant; Janice Cunningham; Mary Hobbs; Diane Barclay-Neale, the mother of the very brave young woman; Lori Synes-Taraba; Janice Hodgson; Cathy Burns from my riding of Nickel Belt, from Sudbury; Mary Ransom; Sharon Chandler; Julie Datta; John Atkinson, and many more who have made the trip down to Queen’s Park with the Canadian Cancer Society and in support of the bill I’ll be introducing in a few minutes.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Yesterday marked the 38th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, a non-violent uprising of the country against a fascist dictatorship. This last weekend, Carlos Morgadinho came to our office and helped us recognize that event. He’s here today with guests Mr. Aniceto Afonso, Mrs. Marilia Afonso, Mr. Francisco Sousa Mendes and his wife, Fernanda Sousa Mendes. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature. Thank you for coming here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. We welcome our guests.

Further introductions? The member from Stormont–Dundas—

Mr. Jim McDonell: South Glengarry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —South Glengarry. I used to call it Charlottenburgh.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I used to, too.

It’s a great privilege as I rise today to introduce Rose Spero and Carolyn Bourassa from the Canadian Cancer Society in our riding. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to introduce Lera Ryan and Mr. Van Geem from the Canadian Cancer Society in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce to the House and welcome to the Legislative Assembly Mary Ransom from the Canadian Cancer Society in Niagara.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I did, this morning, speak about Sharon Burns, but I do see her here right now so I wanted to welcome her. She’s a Burlingtonian and she is the manager for Halton Canadian Cancer Society.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CASINOS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Speaker, later today I will introduce my private member’s bill, a bill entitled the Ensuring Local Voices in New Casino Gambling Development Act.

As you know, new casino development provides opportunities, but it also raises great debate amongst portions of the population. With recent plans to modernize the OLG, it is widely expected that there will be additional casino site development proposed throughout Ontario.

In response to this, we have heard from residents throughout the province that they would like to have a direct voice as to the potential development of new casinos in their community. My bill would legislate that a mandatory municipal referendum be completed and passed before any new casino development is allowed to proceed. We believe that, collectively, local communities and residents are best suited to make important decisions on issues like these.

It has long been our party’s position to ensure local decision-making before casinos move forward. My bill will ensure that local communities are willing partners and hosts for all new casino development.

I would ask all of my honourable colleagues to stand up for their local communities and support this important piece of legislation.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission provides passenger and freight rail service, motor coach lines, communication and ferry services to the north. They also operate a railcar refurbishment division. The ONTC was created to provide vital services which private companies would not provide in the north. That’s why we’re shocked that the government would, without warning, abandon the ONTC.

In the budget negotiations, the Liberals refused to move on the ONR. They were willing to force an election on this issue, knowing full well that the people outside the north would blame the NDP for causing the election. Not only are the Liberals trying to eliminate public service in the north, but they’re also willing to use northerners as pawns in their election strategy.

The Conservatives voted against the budget, and are attacking the NDP because we did not. But if an election had been called, would the Conservatives, if they formed government, save the ONTC? Well, they tried to kill it once already, and the current member for Nipissing is on record as wanting to privatize it. So they, like the Liberals, are willing to use northerners as election pawns.

The NDP let the budget motion pass because we negotiated concessions that made it more fair to all Ontarians, but the ONTC was not part of that package. Northerners are frustrated and angry—justifiably so. But the fight for the ONTC is not over. The NDP will continue to work alongside northern councils, unions and others so that we have access to public transportation. Northerners can win this fight if we stand together.

TREE PLANTING

Mr. Michael Coteau: Many members in the House may know that this year’s Earth Day theme is Mobilize the Earth. As part of the many Earth Day events that are taking place throughout this great province, I’d like to recognize the tremendous efforts of the students in my riding of Don Valley East, who have played and continue to play a significant role in protecting our environment.

As a former school board trustee, I’ve witnessed first-hand thousands of students in our riding trek to the Rouge Valley conservation area to plant nearly 50,000 trees in partnership with the Rouge Valley Naturalists. The Rouge Valley Naturalists, a not-for-profit organization, continues to implement curriculum-based outdoor education programs for schools and communities in order to protect, preserve and restore the natural heritage of the Rouge Valley.

This year, once again, I’ll be joining students who will be participating in our annual tree planting event, which will be held on May 4. In addition, residents and families from my riding will be heading to the Rouge Valley on Saturday, May 5, to play their

part in preserving that natural heritage.

We all must continue to mobilize our efforts in order to increase awareness and appreciation of the natural environment. Future generations depend on our actions to preserve and sustain our environment.

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr. Rod Jackson: Today I’d like to make a statement about a practice that was implemented in the Simcoe County District School Board in the fall of 2010. The use of large foam blocker pads on children with special needs unequivocally compromises their dignity and the progress made in the integration of these students into our school in the first place.

Adverse effects are already emerging. Advocates are telling me school board trustees are calling children with special needs “the SEAC kids,” or rather the kids of the special education advisory committee. Some teachers are reporting fear towards children with special needs because these students are being managed with riot gear. A group of self-advocates with disabilities themselves write, “We want to be safe and supported in school and to be able to make friends ... now you have separated [us] apart even more.”

The only thing these mats are actually accomplishing is the undoing of community integration, the labelling and public humiliation of our most vulnerable students, and the creation of a culture of fear in our classrooms.

These blocker mats are generally out of practice countrywide for their ill effects on dignity, lessons learned over a decade ago. In 1998, a child with special needs was accidentally smothered with a blocker mat at a Hamilton group home. This is why insurance companies require special training for their use. Yet training itself can also prevent their use by equipping professionals with a host of other tools instead, just like in other school boards.

Blocker mats are not an acceptable management system for children with special needs, full stop. They’re a violation of their human rights.

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The debate over a casino at Ontario Place gets more and more intense. The public has spoken out against placing a casino at Ontario Place. Torontonians were clear in the 1997 referendum: “No casino,” they said.

Now MGM would like to turn Ontario Place into a Las Vegas-style beachfront. I fully oppose this proposal and any other that would bring gambling to Toronto’s public spaces.

Ontario Place has been an affordable, family-friendly destination for over 40 years, and the tradition is worth preserving. Rather than encourage our youth to take up gambling to pay off our deficit, we should be saving public spaces like this one.

The younger someone begins gambling, the more likely they are to develop an addiction later on. Our youth already have higher rates of problem gambling—it’s about 7%—without a waterfront casino.

We keep hearing that this government won’t impose a casino on an unwilling community. If it takes a referendum for the province to listen to the people, fine, let’s have one, but let’s not make the city pay the full cost. This is a provincially driven idea, so the province should either take responsibility by sharing the cost of a referendum, or they could just listen to what we’ve been saying all along: no casino.

Let’s keep Ontario Place a public space for children and families, not megamalls, Ferris wheels or casinos.

LAFLÈCHE FAMILY FOUNDATION /

FONDATION FAMILLE LAFLÈCHE

Mr. Grant Crack: I’d like to take this moment to introduce to this House a special family from eastern Ontario, the Laflèche family.

Recently, the Laflèche Family Foundation donated $300,000 to the Cornwall Community Hospital Foundation’s To Your Health campaign in their efforts to purchase a new MRI scanner and digital urology table. The foundation hopes to raise $3.5 million by the end of the year in order to equip an expanded and renovated McConnell Avenue site of the Cornwall Community Hospital.

I’ve known Mr. André Laflèche personally and professionally for 25 years. He’s a successful businessman in eastern Ontario, and he wants to recognize his extensive family roots that extend right into my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

Mr. Laflèche continues to say that he wishes to share some of the values embraced by his family, which are respect for all, dignity, inclusivity and understanding, all contributing toward a strong and healthy community.

I agree with Mr. Laflèche, and I would like to acknowledge the Laflèche family’s humble appreciation of the values of Ontarians in all matters of life, and particularly toward the importance of quality public health care for all, in both official languages.

Les valeurs estimées par la famille Laflèche sont les mêmes que celles qui sont importantes pour le gouvernement de l’Ontario. Nous remercions très sincèrement la famille Laflèche pour leur don généreux. Thank you to the Laflèche family.

BASKETBALL

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I may need some glasses. I think I see Carole Watson here from the Canadian Cancer Society. Welcome, Carole.

Last month, I made a statement regarding the London Lightning winning the National Basketball League of Canada. Well, we have something just as important occurring: The St. Thomas Shock under-13 girls’ basketball team won the provincials this past week.

The Shock headed into the finals to face Scarborough, a team they had lost to earlier by one point. The team worked well but trailed Scarborough by four points throughout the game.

Finally, with three minutes remaining, team veterans Faith Bisson and Emily Deven stepped up, using their experience under pressure to drop some crucial baskets, giving the girls a one-point lead, which they maintained. Leading up to the provincials, this team had taken home a bronze and two silver medals.

I congratulate team members Emily Deven, Faith Bisson, Abby Waterhouse, Breena Struthers, Kacey Pallister, Callista Tryon, Abigail Leslie, Taylor Bogart, Caitlin Douglass, Miranda Gowdey and Ally Carr.

I’d like to congratulate the coaches who volunteer their time: Steve Bogart, Chris Deven and Kevin Gowdey.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Jeff Leal: Like parents across Ontario, our government understands that creating a safe and positive learning environment is essential to helping students succeed. That’s why we introduced legislation that, if passed, would help end bullying in our schools for all children.

I’m proud to support Bill 13 and, like my colleagues on this side of the House, I want to see it pass quickly so that due protections can get into schools in time for September 2012. That’s why I’m dismayed that, despite every effort to work with the official opposition, the PCs are engaging in shameful delaying tactics and refusing to debate. It’s clear the Conservatives were absent without leadership during the budget. Now they’re absent without leadership in the Legislature and they’re playing games with important issues to protect all vulnerable children.

On this bill alone they’ve delayed 15 hours and 37 minutes with nine bells. That could mean that kids getting bullied might not get the help they need come this September.

I was elected by the families in my riding to work hard and tackle very important issues; so is every other member in this House. With many challenges facing our province today, it’s time for the members of the opposition to stop playing games and do the right thing for the families and kids they were elected to serve.

HUCK FINN YOUTH FISHING DAY

Mr. John O’Toole: Each year, my community of Uxbridge in my riding of Durham welcomes spring with the Huck Finn Youth Fishing Day. This Saturday, April 28, marks the 10th anniversary of this outstanding family event at Elgin Pond in Uxbridge.

I’d like to commend Pat Higgins and his team from the Canadian Tire store in Uxbridge for hosting the day. The many sponsors and volunteers will ensure that children and teens have fun while learning about conservation and our natural environment. Proud fishing day supporters include the Uxbridge Legion, the Optimist Club, the Uxbridge Times Journal, the Uxbridge Standard, Durham Regional Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto Sportsmen’s Show, and Zehrs.

Amanda Ferraro from the municipality of Uxbridge and Bob Izumi of Fishing Forever are also among the fishing day organizers.

Local youth aged 15 and under will be invited to try their luck in catching one of the hundreds of brook trout that have been stocked in the Elgin Pond. There’s a parade, prizes, gift bags, food, and experienced anglers ready to help the next generation learn how to fish.

This is an outstanding community event. I would encourage everyone to support youth and outdoor activities, and I would welcome everyone to kids’ fishing day in Uxbridge this Saturday.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I stand on a point of order, Speaker. Thank you. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane recently spoke of my record on Ontario Northland, and I want to remind—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will take his seat, please. The member knows that correcting the record is only the purview of the member herself. That is not a point of order.

I do want to make a point, and the point that I would like to make now is, I’m becoming a little dismayed at how statements could be used for other purposes than to announce what’s going on in your riding or to announce something that is satisfactory in terms of policy or procedure of the House. I would ask all of us to reconsider, when making statements, that it’s about how good things are happening in the province.

Applause.

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

What I’ll also say is, that was a statement for all members.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

M me Gélinas moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act to help prevent skin cancer / Projet de loi 74, Loi aidant à prévenir le cancer de la peau.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

M me France Gélinas: The bill prohibits marketing and selling tanning services to persons under the age of 18. The bill also requires the establishment and maintenance of a registry relating to the use of tanning equipment. Persons who own or operate an establishment at which tanning services are provided are required to ensure that persons involved in providing the service or treatment receive training and that signage respecting the health effects of the service or treatment are posted at the establishment where the services or treatment are provided. The bill also makes it an offence to contravene certain provisions.

La loi est très simple : pas de marketing ou de lit de bronzage pour les moins de 18 ans; enregistrement de tous ceux qui ont de l’équipement de bronzage; de la formation pour ceux qui offrent des sessions de bronzage; et des enseignes claires qui démontrent le lien entre les lits de bronzage et le cancer. Merci, monsieur le Président.

ONTARIO ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

OPERATOR ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ

D’EXPLOITATION DU RÉSEAU

D’ÉLECTRICITÉ DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Bentley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to amalgamate the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Power Authority, to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l’électricité pour fusionner la Société indépendante d’exploitation du réseau d’électricité et l’Office de l’électricité de l’Ontario, modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d’autres lois.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister for a short statement.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: During ministerial statements.

ENSURING LOCAL VOICES

IN NEW CASINO GAMBLING

DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT

À GARANTIR LA CONSULTATIO