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

April 9, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Apr-09 (PDF)

L126 - Wed 9 Apr 2014 / Mer 9 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 April 2014 Mercredi 9 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR AND MPP

ACCOUNTABILITY

AND TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DU SECTEUR

PUBLIC ET DES DÉPUTÉS

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

POWER PLANTS

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

MINING SAFETY

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

POWER PLANTS

NATURAL GAS RATES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VIMY RIDGE ANNIVERSARY

WINDSOR SCULPTURE PARK

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

EVENTS IN HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES–BROCK

MINING SAFETY

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

HUNTER APPRENTICESHIP

SAFETY PROGRAM

MISSISSAUGA COMMUNITY THEATRE

AUTISM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BRUNO’S ALIGNMENT

LIMITED ACT, 2014

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES JURYS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CANCER CARE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

CANCER CARE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PINK

CANCER CARE

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

GREENBELT

PENSION PLAN

OSTOMY SUPPLIES

GREENBELT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

BREASTFEEDING

AIR QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT (KEEPING ONTARIO’S ROADS SAFE), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (ASSURER LA SÉCURITÉ

DES ROUTES DE L’ONTARIO)

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT (KEEPING ONTARIO’S ROADS SAFE), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (ASSURER LA SÉCURITÉ

DES ROUTES DE L’ONTARIO)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR AND MPP

ACCOUNTABILITY

AND TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

ET LA TRANSPARENCE DU SECTEUR

PUBLIC ET DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr. Milloy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 179,

An Act to promote public sector and MPP accountability and transparency by enacting the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 and amending various Acts / Projet de loi 179, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés par l’édiction de la Loi de 2014 sur la rémunération des cadres du secteur parapublic et la modification de diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it’s indeed a pleasure to be participating in the leadoff on this very important piece of legislation. I want to talk about how the bill fits into the overall context of a number of initiatives of our government. But for those members who have been here for many years—certainly I’ve spoken to those in the public service. When they take a look at the bill, this is one of the most comprehensive, far-reaching pieces of legislation that I think has been seen in this Legislature in quite a long time. It touches on so many aspects of government operations and initiatives, but it all comes back to the same theme of openness, accountability and transparency.

At the outset, acknowledging the breadth of this bill, I do want to thank a number of people who worked tirelessly on bringing this together. First, I am the sponsor of the bill, as Minister of Government Services, but those who have gone through the bill will note that it touches on a vast number of ministries. So I want to thank the team at the Ministry of Government Services who worked so hard on pulling the bill together, but also in terms of working with other ministries, with senior officials, with lawyers and with a whole group of people to make this bill a reality.

I want to thank, of course, my staff in my office and the Premier’s office—everyone who worked to pull together this very, very comprehensive piece of legislation.

I also want to extend a special thank you to one of our colleagues here in the Legislature: the member from Ottawa South. The member has been a huge, huge advocate for transparency in government. We’re aware, I think, of a private member’s bill that he brought forward to this Legislature some time ago on greater transparency when it came to MPP expenses. This has been one of his themes since his election in the recent by-election, and I want to congratulate him and thank him for the work he has undertaken, and in fact, Mr. Speaker, to give you notice that I’ll be sharing my time on this leadoff with the member from Ottawa South, Mr. Fraser.

I also want to give credit to my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Qaadri, the MPP from Etobicoke North, who is tied up with an announcement this morning but will be speaking to the bill later on. He, too, has had a hand in pulling it together.

As I said at the outset, I want to provide members with a bit of context of how this fits into the entire Open Government Initiative that was announced by the Premier last fall. It’s funny—those who heard about Open Government thought that it was somehow an invention by this government. Well, the fact is that the idea of Open Government is an international movement. You can go to western Europe, to the United States, states within the United States, virtually throughout the world and find this whole idea of Open Government. What Open Government means—there’s really a number of different parts to it.

The first part that I always like to talk about is, how do we make decisions? What is the decision-making process vis-à-vis the public? For too long, I think there’s been this view that government has all the answers and the role of the public is to sit back and call on government to solve all their problems. As you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, and members of the Legislature may know, one of the great secrets we have here at Queen’s Park is that we certainly don’t have all the answers. We live in a very complex society. Government does not have all the solutions to a problem.

In fact, in many ways government doesn’t have the wherewithal to solve all the problems that are happening. Often times, it has to be done in partnership with ordinary citizens, with NGOs, with the business community, with other levels of government. So we need a capacity to reach out and engage the public, to make sure that they understand that government, as I always say, is not an us-and-them proposition, that we’re all part of government, that everyone has a role and a responsibility.

When it comes to so many of the challenges that are facing government, how can we work together in partnership to find those solutions and to execute those solutions? That’s really the framework for Open Government.

Within that, though, there are a number of propositions. The first proposition is, if you want to engage the citizenry so that they can help be part of the solution, that they can have a role, you have to make sure that they have an understanding of the problems and challenges that are being faced. That leads to the second part of the Open Government pillar, and that is open information: to allow the public to have more information on the problems and solutions and proposals etc. that are held within government.

How can we have a whole different mindset where the public has access to that information and understands the sort of challenges that we’re facing, and, as I say, what are the proposed solutions, what are the facts of the matter?

The third part of that, one that’s related, is the whole idea of open data. As well as general information that government has, we have this whole issue of data. The government collects literally thousands and thousands and thousands of data sets. Those are everything ranging from geospatial information to, on the other end, the other extreme, the most common boys’ and girls’ names for new babies here in the province of Ontario. We collect thousands and thousands of data sets, and those data sets are of great value.

They’re of great value to researchers, to public policy advocates, to anyone who is interested in being a part of the public policy process. They’re also, as an important aside, very, very important to entrepreneurs, because much of that information can be taken and it can be meshed and melded with other types of information. You can come up with products and services which experts tell us—I’m not making this up—could lead to billions and billions of dollars of economic growth.

So part of having open data is not just making the data available, but making it available in a format that is machine-readable, that is user-friendly and, as I say, can be combined with other material and put together.

So there are the three principal pillars of Open Government. One of the initiatives that the Premier highlighted and began last year was appointing an Open Government panel. under the leadership of a noted expert particularly in the area of citizen engagement, Dr. Don Lenahan, who’s with the Public Policy Forum. The panel itself was composed of a number of leading experts, including our former colleague Norm Sterling, a former member of this Legislature, to look at this whole issue of Open Government. Their report was released about a week and a half ago, and certainly we’re taking their recommendations very seriously.

The reason why I began with that is, I think you can’t understand the bill before us today without understanding Open Government. The bill, I wouldn’t say, flows directly from the work that was done from the panel; instead, it complements the work that was done from the panel. As I said, the panel is looking at how to engage citizens more, how to make sure that they have access to the type of information and data that they need.

The genesis of Bill 179, as I say, complements very much what happened with Open Government. That is, we have the panel who are doing their work and we have a number of initiatives that are going on with the government, but at the same time, how can we make sure that we complement this work by ensuring that there’s a level of trust and a level of accountability between citizens and their government? Hence Bill 179, which, as I said at the outset, I think is one of the most comprehensive bills, which touches on so many areas of—I’ll put it in broad terms—accountability, transparency and openness.

What I wanted to do today, Mr. Speaker, is touch a little bit upon some of those areas and fill members in on what’s in this very comprehensive bill.

I’ll begin with ourselves: elected representatives. I think everyone realizes that the old adage is very true: You have to lead by example. The fact of the matter is that people look to their elected representatives to be accountable to them, particularly when it comes to the spending of taxpayers’ dollars, so one of the provisions of Bill 179 is a legislative provision that would mandate that we have expense reporting for elected representatives.

The proposed bill, if passed, would make it mandatory for cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants, opposition leaders and their staff to post their expense information online. Currently, this expense reporting is done on a voluntary basis. I know, having been both a minister and a parliamentary assistant, that over the years my expenses have been online. Although most people think it’s legislated, it is in fact only done on a voluntary basis. The opposition leaders have been a bit more spotty as to their posting, but at the end of the day it still is voluntary.

What this bill would do is it would make it mandatory that not only these expenses go to the Integrity Commissioner, who takes a look at them and makes sure that they are all aboveboard, but that in fact they are posted online so the public can see the way in which their tax dollars are being spent on the expenses of parliamentary assistants, cabinet ministers, obviously the Premier, and the leaders of the opposition and their staff.

Now, it doesn’t just stop there, with those members—we’d call it the executive on this side and the leadership across there. We are also proposing to extend this idea of reporting to all MPPs in the Legislature. The way it works right now is, every year, the Speaker of the Legislature actually publishes a broad expense reporting of all the members here in the Legislature: both their expenses tied to their duties here at Queen’s Park—perhaps they have a residence here at Queen’s Park, if they live more than 50 kilometres away—and, at the same time, the expenses that are incurred in their riding at a global level.

This document is published; it is made public. I understand it’s circulated to reporters in the press gallery. Certainly as an MPP I receive one. But I think members in this Legislature may be a little shocked to know that it’s never put online anywhere. Presumably, someone could call the Speaker or another legislative office and get a copy, but we don’t put it online. So the first step we want to do in terms of transparency is to put it online. In fact, I’ve reached out to the opposition parties—I’ve had some positive feedback; we’re still working on it—to put this document online.

I should add, before I go on, that we on the government side have taken the initiative of posting this information online already, as a sign of our wish to be more open and transparent.

The second point would be to broaden—and that’s what this legislation does. It broadens the information that is posted and made available. So the bill, if passed, would require the Speaker to move further than what he does right now, which is just more of a general overview of the expenses both at Queen’s Park and in the riding, and post online information on MPP expenses concerning out-of-riding travel, related hotel expenses, meals and hospitality expenses. Mr.

Speaker, I should explain that the reason these categories were chosen is that they mirror very much the types of reporting you’ve seen from cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants and now, of course, from the leaders of the opposition.

Many of the other expenses—I think members would agree; they, of course, are very familiar with them—are what you might want to call static expenses: the rent for your constituency office. As I say, there’s a global figure that you can look up. But in terms of expense item by expense item, these are key areas where there’s some genuine public interest on the ways in which members are spending taxpayers’ money. As I say, we’ve taken the first steps on this side by posting some of these general figures. We’re looking forward to the passage of this bill to have more specific iteration on a going-forward basis of some of these very specific expenses.

The third thing I’d like to talk about in this bill is the whole issue of compensation for senior executives in the broader public sector. We understand the concern on this side of the House. I think we all understand the concern. These have been tight times. The middle class has just gone through a very, very serious recession. People are struggling to make ends meet, and at the same time they are often outraged, in some cases, when they pick up the paper and learn the salaries of senior members of the broader public service.

It’s been a topic that’s been debated in this House, and there have been numerous bills that have come forward—private members’ bills and proposals that have come forward on this. As I say, I certainly have great sympathy for those who want to see something done about this. But the problem is that there’s an old saying that for every complex problem, there’s always one really, really attractive-sounding, simple solution that doesn’t work. Unfortunately, some of the solutions that have been brought forward in this Legislature really do fit that bill. They’re great for a bumper sticker, but they don’t work in reality.

The fact of the matter is that if we simply go forward and say that all salaries in the broader public service are capped at X or Y, it doesn’t work. The reason is that throughout the broader public sector we have a variety of positions and roles to which very, very specific expertise is needed. And I think we all recognize that when you want to go out and get the best people—I don’t think there’s anyone in the Legislature who doesn’t want to see the best people running various aspects of the public service.

If you want to get them, you have to often pay what is—call it a good market rate in order to get someone with that technical expertise and experience going forward. I’m not saying there aren’t many, many cases when I think we could level off what’s happening in the broader public sector, but to just go forward with a ham-fisted, “We’re going cut it off at X or Y,” is simply not going to work.

At the same time, we don’t have all the information as to how people are paid in the broader public sector, not just simply their salary—obviously we have the sunshine list where we see it, or other public documents—but are there issues around severance, are there issues around housing allowance, are there issues around certain expenses that they’ve received? What this bill does—it’s very comprehensive—is it gives us the authority to go out and collect all this information.

More importantly, it also gives us the authority to take a look at other jurisdictions and at different comparators, and come up with hard caps of what would be reasonable to pay different senior executives in different parts of the broader public sector. Then, again, this bill would give us the authority to impose them. It would also give us the authority to make sure they are enforced through certain mechanisms that hold the board accountable.

I think this is very, very important, because what I’ve just said does not fit nicely on a bumper sticker, but what it’s going to do is come up with something that’s reasonable and that’s going to allow us to hire people with the technical knowledge, expertise and experience in order to undertake a role. At the same time, it’s going to stop what, quite frankly, in some instances have been the outrageous packages that all of us read about in the paper every day.

Another area that I’d like to talk about today is the proposed reforms on record-keeping, obviously a very topical issue here in the Legislature. I’m certainly not going to run away from it. We have had a lot of very disturbing happenings over the last year or so. Last June, I believe it was, we saw the Information and Privacy Commissioner come out with a series of reports. As Minister of Government Services, I was very much involved in discussions with her and talks between our staffs about how we can improve the record-keeping regime here in the government.

I want to give full, full credit to the Premier, who took this situation very, very seriously, who worked with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

As Minister of Government Services, I was asked by the Premier to also work very closely with her to do two things.

The first was to adopt all the non-legislative recommendations that she had suggested, which include staff training and a whole framework to make sure that records are properly maintained here in government.

The second was to take a look at a number of legislative changes that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had put forward. Of these legislative changes, three of the principal ones she put forward are contained in this bill.

The legislation—I’ll just review it for members—would, if passed, act on three of the commissioner’s recommendations on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It would require all institutions subject to FIPPA and MFIPPA, as those two acts are called, to ensure that measures are in place to preserve records; to prohibit the wilful destruction of records with the intent to deny someone access to records; and to introduce a fine of up to $5,000 for the wilful destruction of records.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, our government consulted with the commissioner and her office about her recommendations to assist us in the development of this legislation. We wanted to make sure that we reached a consensus between the two of us on what we would put forward.

I’m going to be very transparent here with the House: We are not proposing an amendment with respect to the commissioner’s fourth recommendation. I want to be clear, and certainly I’ve been very open in my discussions with her. That recommendation was to legislatively require the duty to document all key decisions within government.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is no legislative duty to document, in either freedom-of-information or record-keeping legislation, in any other jurisdiction in Canada. Although I think we all understand the spirit behind the duty to document, I think we can also ask ourselves: What exactly does that mean?

Obviously, we keep cabinet records and treasury board records, and decision notes are kept. We keep many of the steps leading up to it. But at what point does the duty step in? At what point is something merely informal? I’ve spoken with the IPC, and I think she understands that these are questions that probably need more exploration.

What we have committed to do is to work through the various federal-provincial bodies that meet to discuss this, to work with other jurisdictions across Canada to explore this—as I say, I think everyone understands and accepts the spirit of it—to move forward. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, to give you more of the technical details, my ministry will be working with the information management subcommittee of the federal, provincial and territorial CIOs to determine the best path forward.

Regardless of how we proceed on this front, our recent and ongoing training on records management for staff continues to emphasize the need to manage and create public records in order to document key government decisions, activities and operations, and I want to stress that, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this fourth recommendation is not part of the legislation does not mean that we don’t take it seriously.

All major policy decisions are always documented through meeting minutes, briefing notes, House notes, management board and treasury board notes as well as cabinet minutes.

I highlighted in some detail a number of the key parts of the bill. I do want to allow time for my colleague from Ottawa South to speak, who, as I say, has a particular passion for this area, but there’s one final area that I want to touch on—and this bill is vast, so I’ve really just given you some of the highlights—and that’s the role of the Ombudsman.

I think all of us recognize the important role played by not only the provincial Ombudsman, but other individuals who act either in that role, have that title or serve that purpose—that third party that the public can go to when they feel that the obstacles they’ve encountered really can’t be moved aside, that they need to work their way through the red tape and find answers. We all know our provincial Ombudsman has been tireless in working through a variety of issues for citizens. He gets thousands and thousands of complaints a year that he deals with. He also looks at systemic issues within certain sectors and comes forward with special reports.

The Ombudsman in the province of Ontario has very broad authority over many of the activities of the government, but when it comes to the broader public sector, the Ombudsman’s role has been limited. There have been a number of individuals in this Legislature who have certainly called for his oversight in a number of areas. I think, of course, of children’s aid societies as one that there’s been discussion on here, going on 11 years. I’ve seen private members’ bills and questions in the Legislature, and that’s just one example.

What we did is we first of all worked with the Ombudsman—I want to put that on the record—and came up with a package that would extend his powers, and then more general Ombudsman powers throughout what we affectionately call the MUSH sector. The first step is that the provincial Ombudsman will now have authority over municipalities, over universities and over school boards.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on the record—because I think there’s been a little bit of confusion about this oversight. In many of these cases, we already have existing ombuds, as they are called. In the university system, many universities have an ombudsman and in the municipal system, there has been some media about the city of Toronto ombudsman. This is in no way trying to undermine their authority. The fact of the matter is, as I said at the outset, there are many, many people who deal with problems and disputes within the system who do an outstanding job.

When I spoke with the provincial Ombudsman, he made it clear that his philosophy—in fact, some of this reflected in the legislation—is that when you have a problem, you go through the dispute mechanism. You work your way up the line, so to speak. You go to the tribunal or the special office or, in the case of some of these other institutions, the front-line ombudsperson, you present them with your situation and you work with them to solve it.

But at the same time, having this provincial Ombudsman have an umbrella role over them does two things. First of all, in those rare cases where someone really feels that the system is working against them and wants a fresh pair of eyes, then we have the provincial Ombudsman there to help with it. The second thing, and I think this is important to note, is that in many cases, what the provincial Ombudsman is doing is taking a look across the line.

Yes, there may be something that’s very specific to one municipality but, in other cases, there may be problems of a similar nature, to use the municipal sector as an example, that are popping up in a variety of municipalities. What he would want to do is to investigate and put forward a report on some of the systemic problems that are happening and, in that way, provide a different sort of look than an individual ombudsman could do.

Again, to just comment on some of the media reports, this is in no way meant as a criticism of the fine, fine work that is done by a number of people in the system who serve the role of ombudsman. I think of the universities and I also think specifically of the city of Toronto, where they have an outstanding individual who is doing a great job. She is seen as a real leader in this field. She will be allowed to do her work. This is, just as I say, providing another pair of eyes in those rare instances, and also his ability to look at some systemic issues.

So that’s expanding the provincial Ombudsman’s role, but in two other areas, Mr. Speaker—and I’ll wrap up in a second on this note—we saw a need for a more specialized Ombudsman’s role. That was the whole area of children’s services—particularly, of course, children’s aid societies.

What this legislation would do is take an officer of Parliament, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, and give him the same power and authority as an ombudsman. Again, we put together the framework in consultation with the provincial Ombudsman to make sure that the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth had a similar role to that played by Mr. Marin.

Also, in the whole area of health care, we have a patient Ombudsman who will provide a similar role. The understanding is that in both of those areas—they’re very broad, they’re very specialized. By creating or giving these new powers to these individuals, they can specialize in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, that is only a quick look at a very, very detailed bill. For those of you who have had a chance to go through it, you’re going to find that there are a number of other initiatives that we could highlight and I’m sure will be highlighted during the course of debate. Together, it is a very, very comprehensive package.

I’ll just end where I began: This is about open government, and open government is about engaging citizens, giving citizens a sense of ownership of their government and giving citizens a sense of responsibility towards working to solve many of the problems and challenges that we face. But in order to do that, we have to make sure that they have the information, that they have access to the data and analysis that we have, but also, there has to be a level of trust. There has to be a level of accountability, openness and transparency, and that’s what this bill is about.

I cannot state enough that this is one of the most comprehensive packages that has ever been brought to this Legislature in terms of accountability. I think, in general, it’s a very, very comprehensive bill, and it outlines a lot of good work where a number of ministries came together.

I think this is a very, very important step. I look forward to the debate and discussion. Quite frankly, I look forward to support from all sides of this House, because I think it’s in all of our interests to continue to build trust and confidence with the people of Ontario. This bill goes a long way towards that.

As I said at the outset, I will be sharing my time with the member from Ottawa South. I know he, too, will want to speak upon the themes of this bill, but also its breadth. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and yield the floor to the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. Michael Harris: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent that all members of the Legislature be permitted to wear pins in honour and remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, as today is Vimy Ridge Day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga has asked for permission to wear the Vimy Ridge pin. Agreed? Agreed.

The member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in the leadoff to the debate on Bill 179, the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. I’d like to thank the Minister of Government Services for sharing his time with me.

Before I begin, I’d like to take a moment to thank my colleagues and friends here at Queen’s Park for their kind words and thoughts on the passing of my father, who died on Sunday. Over the last week and a half, I’ve had an opportunity to spend some time caring for him and being with him, and that would not have been possible without the support I’ve received from all of you. I thank you.

As a young man, the first and most important lesson my father taught me was about the keeping of a confidence. If someone shared something with you in confidence, you kept it to yourself, not to be shared with anyone else. He said it was important because keeping a confidence was all about trust, and trust is the key to working together and moving forward.

Trust is an essential ingredient needed for success in any endeavour. Transparency, openness and accountability are also all about trust. Bill 179 is about trust. It’s about building trust in this Legislature, its members and how we conduct our business. It’s about trust in government and the broader public service, and how they use the resources we are giving them. It’s about building trust in our schools and universities as they serve our young people. It’s about building trust in our hospitals, long-term-care homes and home care as they care for our loved ones. It’s about building trust in our child protection system as it strives to watch over children and youth at risk.

Building trust is essential to our work. That’s why I felt strongly when I introduced Bill 108, the Transparency in Members’ Expenses Act, and that it was the right thing to do. If we wanted to build trust, we needed to do our work, we needed to take the first step and we needed to lead by example to build trust.

I’m very pleased that the measures in Bill 108 have been included in the act; it is the first of many steps in this bill. Bill 179 is broad and far-reaching.

It expands the mandate of the Ombudsman to include municipalities, school boards and publicly funded universities; it creates a new patient Ombudsman for hospitals, long-term-care homes and community care access centres; it strengthens the mandate of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to better serve those involved in the child protection system; it broadens expense disclosure from 17 agencies to include all 197 agencies in the broader public service; it requires that leaders of the opposition parties and their staff be subject to the same rules as the Premier, cabinet ministers and their staff; it authorizes the government to establish a framework for executive compensation in the broader public sector; and it makes mandatory for broader public sector organizations to publish their business plans and other relevant financial documentation.

The Minister of Government Services has worked closely with the officers of this Legislature to put this bill together, and the Premier has committed to leading the most open and transparent government in the country. Bill 179 will do that.

I know that the member from Trinity–Spadina has been pushing for Ombudsman oversight over universities and school boards for some time. I know that the member from Timmins–James Bay has said that he is generally in favour of these measures and that he is willing to sit down and take a look at it. I also know that the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex was one of the first to disclose his expenses online. So I know that building trust and openness and transparency is important to all of us here in the Legislature.

I also know that our Ombudsman, André Marin, has said, “I look forward to seeing this bill come forward to the Legislature. It is a strong step toward a more democratic, accountable and open Ontario.”

Bill 179 is legislation that all members of this Legislature can support. As we debate, it is important to remember that this bill is all about building trust as we go forward. Often in debate, there is a temptation to slip into finger-pointing and maybe some recrimination, and what I would urge all members to do is to remember that this is something that’s about building trust in the future, not just for tomorrow or today as we debate but five, 10 and 20 years from now. That’s something that all Ontarians deserve, and I believe that we need to come together and make this legislation work.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: To the member for Ottawa South, we offer our sincere condolences on the passing of your father.

I think that, certainly, this is an important piece of legislation. We’ve been seeking accountability on this side of the House for some time, particularly in this minority government. With respect to things that happen in government, it’s our job as the opposition to raise these issues. I think this legislation does some good things; it does make us a little bit more proactive in disclosing information that the public may want from time to time.

We’ve had conversations in this House, particularly on the member from Ottawa South’s bill, with respect to the disclosure of MPP expenses. I’m certainly happy to disclose to the public what my expenses are, and I’m pretty sure that members of the Legislature will agree that some proactive measures are necessary.

What I do disagree with is that by coming in with an accountability act, I fear that the government is attempting to whitewash its sorry record on accountability, particularly with relation to what has happened and transpired with the gas plant scandal in this province, where it took the opposition—collectively, as an opposition; both the PCs and the NDP—working together to actually get some answers for the people of Ontario. It shouldn’t be that hard to get answers for the people of Ontario. It shouldn’t take a potential contempt of this Legislature to get answers for the people of the province of Ontario.

We’re very concerned, obviously, that this government thinks that by enacting this legislation, it wipes clean its sorry history on accountability and transparency. We will do our due diligence, Mr. Speaker, and debate this piece of legislation. I look forward to listening to the debate this morning.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m happy, as always, to be able to stand in this House and speak about accountability because it’s definitely something that needs a fix. This bill is something that we as New Democrats, as you know, are happy to see: the MUSH sector getting some oversight. It’s something that we’ve been calling for, for many years. We’re definitely happy to see that in this bill.

There are a lot of half measures that are happening. We’re concerned that there’s a patient advocate, instead of the Ombudsman, having oversight of the hospitals. I’m concerned that the Ombudsman is not getting any oversight over the children’s aid societies. But I’m also confident in the work of our child advocate. I just hope that he’s given enough tools to actually do the job that needs to be done.

There’s a lot in this bill. How many schedules do we have? We have nine schedules in one bill. That’s a lot to absorb within one piece of legislation. And there are gaps throughout it. So I know that we’ll be looking forward to making some changes to this, to make sure that there is real accountability.

Schedule 1 establishes the authority to establish executive compensation frameworks. Well, that’s really great, because on this side of the House, New Democrats have been calling for the capping of CEO salaries, but under this

schedule I’m not really sure. They’re talking about putting in frameworks of compensation of public sector executives, but there are no real caps attached to this. So it could be a very long process before we get to anything that would seem suitable for the people of this province.

I’m happy to have had this moment. Thank you.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to comment on the remarks of my colleagues the Minister of Government Services and the member for Ottawa South. Certainly, we all want to extend our condolences to the member for Ottawa South on the loss of his father.

I thought perhaps I would comment briefly on the things in the bill that will have an impact on the education sector. The first of those would be the controlling of senior executive compensation in the broader public sector, because that will apply to school boards. Our government, if this legislation is passed, would be establishing compensation frameworks, and that would include hard caps for executives in the broader public sector, including school boards.

Heads of organizations would be required to submit attestations concerning compliance with the compensation frameworks, and employers would actually be required to repay any amount in excess of those caps as a debt to the crown. So there actually are not only hard caps, but penalties contemplated if those aren’t followed.

There is a requirement to publish business plans and other financial documents. Quite frankly, I think school boards, given their current accountability requirements, already publish their financial statements. The budget process is public; annual reports are public. So I think they will already be meeting the requirements in that respect.

Certainly, the one change for school boards will be the expansion of the Ombudsman’s role to have oversight over school boards. That’s something that we look forward to working with our school boards and the Ombudsman on, to figure out exactly how that would work in the future.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I was pleased to be here this morning to listen to the leadoff speech by the Minister of Government Services, and more recently by the member for Ottawa South. I too extend my sympathies and pay respect for the mourning of the loss of his father, and the fact that he was here today to speak.

I will switch now to a different tone. This is comprehensive legislation, as the House leader said. It’s well overdue and needed at this time, with all the inquiries and the OPP walking around here, investigating everything that moves.

The theme that was mentioned by the member from Ottawa South really struck a note with me this morning. He used the word “trust.” Unfortunately, I’m not going to have a full hour this morning. In this House, trust is the most important sentiment that could ever be felt, expressed or shown. There’s an old axiom that says if you want to know if something is true, go and observe it. The observers in this House would say that they’ve broken trust.

I’m not trying to cast aspersions, in the positive mood that we’re in this morning. I know that your remarks were quite sincere. Your private member’s bill—I think it was Bill 108—to build in accountability is reflected in some of this bill, but I put it to you that after 10-plus years, it’s too little, too late.

It’s in that tone that I think our leader, Tim Hudak, has been pressing to bring some debate here in the House of having respect for the House itself in terms of accountability, I suspect you’d call it. They use that term “openness and transparency and accountability.” They throw it around like Frisbees around here, so I’m quite cynical, in fact, of the sentiments being expressed.

I will have more to say this afternoon or sometime later. I look forward to the former mayor of Etobicoke’s remarks today.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to thank the member from Cambridge, the member from Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Education and the member from Durham for their remarks.

I would like to address the member from Cambridge’s remarks, just to say that this is about going forward. This is about what we’re doing. What we do in this House is try to look out 10, 15, 20 years in the future. That’s what this bill is about. It’s not what’s behind us. We’ll continue to discuss what’s behind us, but let’s not lose focus on what this bill is about.

In response to the member from Hamilton Mountain, I thank her for her remarks and her general words of support. I would not describe the measures in the bill as half measures. Those measures were worked out with the current Ombudsman. He has expressed support on a number of occasions, initially describing the bill as historic and 35 years in the making. The measures that are outlined in this bill in terms of hospitals, long-term-care facilities and community care access centres will work. The measures outlined that increase the mandate for the child advocate will work, and I would encourage her to look at the legislation and support those measures.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Education for her remarks.

I agree with the member from Durham that trust is essential: trust in this House, trust in each other. We need to continue to build that trust. That was the point of my remarks. I hope he took them in that spirit. We’re all colleagues here. We’re all here because we want to make things better, because we want to take care of those things that are important to the families that we serve. To do that, we need to build trust.

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

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Durham.

Before I commence, I would like to pass my condolences on to the member from Ottawa South, on your recent loss.

I rise in this chamber today, as the accountability critic for the PC opposition party, to speak on the merits but lack of clarity of the proposed Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014, known as Bill 179. I should point out that I have serious reservations about the creation of new bureaucratic formations overseeing existing bureaucratic formations.

The omnibus piece of legislation is a far-reaching proposal that, if enacted in full, would expand considerably the scope and impact of controlled supervision of spending by public sector agencies and elected officials. The bill, introduced on March 24 by the Minister of Government Services, expands the mandates of previously established oversight institutions—that’s the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commissioner—and creates new advocacy structures, plus it requires you, Mr. Speaker, to publish the total expenses of all provincial members.

I’m not sure if this covers expenses related to the Premier’s office and those of ministers. Besides strengthening advocacy, reach and penetration, it adds broader enforcement rules for lobbying groups while adding greater investigative powers under the children and youth act, 2007, to provide greater ability for stronger advocacy of protective measures.

As Bill 179 moves forward to the day it receives royal assent, our party will discuss in detail the intent of this legislation that affects the responsibilities and powers of no fewer than 10 separate initiatives, requiring a plethora of centralized oversight operations. But while doing so, we reserve the right, as opposition members, to seek clarifications and offer such amendments as we deem necessary to foster the goals of accountability, oversight and transparency without creating a paradigm shift in how this is to be achieved.

If this bill is passed in its totality, it will create a huge power grab that could stifle and hinder and even control the broad-based work of any or all of the ministries that have regulatory powers on the drumbeat of the lives of our total provincial population.

The Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Attorney General, Community and Social Services, Health and Long-Term Care, Finance, and Children and Youth Services are those ministries that will be affected. I can even see the involvement of an upper chamber or meeting place where these unelected and quasi-government officials with extraordinary powers meet to exercise their control over the regulatory affairs of the province.

Prior to moving on with this exercise, I would like to make a number of personal observations about the form and the tone of the minister’s recent address in this House.

It appears that the government is attempting to capture the moral high ground to portray themselves as the party dedicated to rectify all social governing imperfections at all levels, and to ingratiate themselves in the eyes of the electorate as the moral saviours of the democratic system of government in Ontario. It seems to me that the speech must have been written by a crusader or witch-doctor wordsmith hell-bent on curing this government of its recidivist behaviour of the past decade.

You can’t create moral authority through legislation. The righteous bafflegab and sanctimonious tones of the recently converted from irresponsible spending to that of watchdog of the public treasuries and defender of oppressed Ontarians trapped under bondage to the irresponsible debt-producing actions of the McGuinty-Wynne years do not ring true. The only thing missing from the minister’s performance were the words of Onward, Christian Soldiers, accompanied by the Salvation Army band.

I believe that you shouldn’t strive to monitor and alter the affairs of governing at all levels by producing another layer of the machinery of government.

Our party fully understands the requirement for greater oversight of the procedures that administer delivery of services and the expenditures related to these activities. We are concerned that Bill 179 inadvertently brings on duplicative measures with ensuing costs. There really needs to be more creative investigation on the specifics of adding staff for new bureaucratic creations that will instill a Big-Brother-knows-best mentality in the art of governing.

It would be worthy of note if some background material could be provided on the administrative costs—office, legal, communications, staffing—required to research and fund the appropriate talents to be recruited to perform the duties called for by the existing and now new government bodies and public sector entities.

Later in this address, I am going to review the effects of these proposals on the 10 acts impacted by the omnibus act that creates a central authority, provided in the minister’s notes provided to the NDP and ourselves.

But we should stop at this juncture to analyze just where Bill 179 will take us. In reality, the bill calls for new bureaucratic formations to oversee existing bureaucratic formations. At what cost to the taxpayers? We don’t know.

Creation of a patient Ombudsman by amendments to the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, formulates duplication in client services. Duplication costs money. There are no costs to these changes offered on

an act-to-act basis to supplement complaint regulations already in place. It is now the plan to have an Ombudsman who reviews the ombudsman’s offices of municipalities, corporations, school boards and universities. This will even include the responsibilities of the local dog catcher. All these creations act to collectively constitute entities with costs and staffing that will overlap existing agencies and drive up the cost of governing to the taxpayer. Many of these proposals speak to the rampant inability of our existing bodies to administer the basic functions of accountability under this government.

It is interesting to note that the previous NDP and PC administrations were able to provide stable and efficient oversight, only to have all that unravel under the McGuinty-Wynne administration. Overall, despite the need and value of the proposed major accountability measures, this legislation is, in a negative sense, a resounding condemnation of past Liberal ineptitudes. The solutions recommended are a recognition of the failure of the current legislative acts to come to grips with accountability in major functions of public administration by this government.

The Liberal initiatives in this regard are long overdue, much like closing the farm gate after the cattle have wandered off. There can be no more obvious egregious malfunction and abrogation of responsibility than the cancellation of the two gas plants, at a cost of $1.1 billion, when it was announced that it would be some $40 million. But I will return to that later.

I do not wish to be too harsh in my assessment here, but it appears to me that these ombudspeople—my word—will constitute a mythical race of administrators capable of presiding over provincial civil servants, countless municipal management employees, public sector managers, school boards, MPPs and everyone else—except the Speaker’s office, the Premier’s office and possibly the Human Rights Commission—in judgment of their performance.

In real terms, this new swathe of enlightened ombudspeople will stand alone as protectors of both the public purse and the rights of taxpayers to receive that which is theirs that is now decreed through the awkwardly named Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014.

The range of change to present policies is comprehensive, as follows:

The Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014, will authorize Management Board of Cabinet to order designated employers to provide compensation information. This is a major intrusion in the affairs of public corporations with a board and stakeholders to oversee them.

Amendments to the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, call for the preparation and publication of business plans by public sector organizations. Most of these organizations already operate under an annual business plan direction.

Amendments to the Cabinet Ministers’ and Opposition Leaders’ Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002, and related amendments: Information on expenses is to be posted online within 90 days of notification by the Integrity Commissioner. Would this change current procedures, except for exposure of same?

Amendments to the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, create the office of a patient Ombudsman to handle complaints against long-term-care and community care access corporations. It might be needed, but it will place a huge burden on the CCACs to handle frivolous complaints.

Amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amend the act to require the preservation of records and list offences that apply if not enforced. I’m not sure what this does. We need to find this out before we proceed.

Amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act require the Speaker to post information about payments to MPPs for travel expenses other than their electoral district costs—more paperwork for the Clerk and the Speaker.

Amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, amend the act by adding new oversight and enforced powers. Lobbyists beware.

Amendments to the Ombudsman Act and Related Amendments amend the Ombudsman Act extend jurisdictional powers over municipalities, boards and universities. This is the most dangerous expansion of oversight of all.

Amendments to the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Act, 2007, provide the act with new investigative powers to oversee children’s aid societies and some residential licensees. We, of course, support this completely.

Amendments to the Public Sector Expenses Review Act, 2009, allow the Integrity Commissioner to select public entities that will have the duty to provide copies of all expense claims. This will produce a game of Russian roulette for whoever falls under this descriptive enterprise.

Now we find that the main thrust of this legislation is to give birth to a new class of overseers which are described in part of my analysis as ombudspeople, a term that describes their function as monitors of just about all the government services in Ontario. These ombudspeople will be arbitrarily designated by the government to reign over all of us, and much like the persons who act as arbitrators in society today, they might not possess any specific academic qualifications except for their labelling by this government as worthy and qualified to perform. It makes it sound like Ontario is a dystopian place, which is what the above description implies.

This list includes the Ontario Ombudsman, the patient Ombudsman, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, the provincial audit group, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This creation of a ruling structure of Orwellian proportions with CIA-like powers that will be subject to no audit or supervision is a frightening prospect. We must be careful that the cure is not more dangerous than the disease.

Unfortunately, the need for this omnibus bill emerges from the ashes of the public skulduggery that has been perpetrated on the unsuspecting public by those ensconced in the office of the former Premier of Ontario. This era of hard-drive recording of decisions made and their manipulative concealment and eventual destruction of this evidence by a Premier’s staff is truly cause for alarm.

But what are we to do when the real decisions of government are not reached in an open forum? No omnibus bill can overcome this kind of behaviour. I don’t wish to get too far off topic here, but these questions have to be asked. Has the role and purpose of elected government been so compromised by the ability of the digital-age technology to subvert parliamentary rules and government accountability that transparently rendered proceedings of a democratic government are now made irrelevant?

Another question arises: How can we assume that the Ontario Ombudsman, accountable to nobody in particular and given oversight powers for municipalities, corporations, commissions, school boards and universities, is competent to suitably handle these responsibilities? Where will it end? It gives power to anyone—citizen or not—that, if used exponentially, could severely impair government operations and decision-making. This reach would, in effect, make his office duties and powers greater than those of our existing ministers, who must abide by the time-tested rules of governing.

Finally, I would make one more observation. I believe that all the savings to be realized by the implementation of Bill 179 over a 10-year period won’t add up to nearly as much as the $1.1 billion spent to cancel two gas plants that didn’t even produce one kilowatt of electricity. No matter how many layers of supervision are created, it won’t stop a Premier and compliant cabinet from ignoring time-honoured rules of conduct.

With the costs and duplication of oversight in mind, it is our recommendation that the government committee receiving the bill for debate and discussions call for input from the existing bodies so affected by these measures to ascertain prescribed transparency as to procedures and at what acceptable costs to achieve the objectives outlined.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m a little bit disappointed that I’m up this morning, because I would have preferred to have the whole hour uninterrupted, but—

Laughter.

Mr. John O’Toole: I don’t mean that humorously; I think this is a serious bill. I think the minister started this morning by saying that it’s a comprehensive piece of legislation, and indeed it is. If you look at it, the bill itself—just for the public here to get a sense—is 75 pages in two official languages. I think there are 10 schedules in it, and there are amendments to a number of very important bills, the lobbyist register etc. I might go through those, just in the bill. It’s important for the public to understand.

First of all—I want to be on the record—we support transparency and accountability. There’s no question about that. However, at the same time, we are suspicious. It’s a feel-good piece of legislation. We agree, but we don’t believe a thing that they’re saying.

Honest to God, their motives are questionable. Why are they doing this at this time now? They should have a bill in here about jobs and the economy. Look at the young people: There’s no future for them. Kellogg’s is leaving; Heinz is leaving; Caterpillar is leaving. We’re still buying Kellogg’s cereal; it’s just not made in Ontario anymore. That’s the troubling truth of what’s going on.

We have the highest energy rates, the highest electricity rates in North America.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Wrong.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, you have two minutes. You can refute that. But my point—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to remind the member from Durham to stick to the issue. He’s drifting. Thank you.

Mr. John O’Toole: I can’t imagine how I could start drifting. I’ve only been up for a minute or so. However, I was trying to put things into perspective. I take deference to the Speaker, and I’ll be silenced to that extent.

This Bill 179, as I said before, is comprehensive. In fact, that’s a very good place to start. The member from Ottawa South—I had a chance, thanks to the terrific staff here, to have a look at his bill, Bill 108. In this bill—this is a good part to start—I think it’s got merit. If we could have a discussion on this, that would be something that we could digest in a sitting here.

But this bill here—I don’t think it’s ever been debated, but the explanatory note says that this report of members’ expenses “must set out every payment made to a member in respect of a travel, accommodation or other expense. The reports must include the amount of each payment and an explanation of each expense. The Board of Internal Economy is required to post the report on the website”—it’s already available; it’s already done. It’s called the member’s expense. We file it every year. What that has in it is every trip, every cup of coffee, everything that you’ve done. It’s posted and it’s distributed to all of the media here once a year. It’s an annual report.

I think we just recently got our report for last year, did we not?

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s almost done.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, it was just done.

I’m going to put this on the table. I think the House leader—I wish he was here, because this is the way I would handle that. It has passed all the sniff tests by the bureaucrats, or the civil servants, to be fair. They’ve signed off on it and issued you a cheque. If they have questions, they will call you or return it with the expenses questionable and make you explain it or sign off on it, and that’s posted.

If I have a website—there’s no tinkering with it—then that should be posted. You just press on “member’s expenses”: Boom, it shows up. It would be reporting, whether it’s me or Ms. MacCharles, the Minister of Consumer Services—she’s from Durham region.

Now, here’s the issue: Ms. MacCharles is a minister. Well, I don’t get to see all of hers.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Oh, yes, you do, because they have to post them.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, they do, but here’s the deal: Half the time they’re travelling with the deputy or other staff, and they pick it up. There’s where the beguiling begins, the twisting of the—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Now, I should put it this way: This is all within the context of Bill 179. Let’s keep it in small, little digestible bites. I know for a fact that we cannot, should not and, I agree, will never charge alcohol. We are representing the public. We shouldn’t even be consuming it, actually. Moderation, I suppose, in all things. I’m not a teetotaller or anything like that—close to it, perhaps.

But here’s the issue: That stuff often shows up because we can’t get a hold of the staff’s, the civil servants’, side of it. Even travelling, in fairness—I’ve had the privilege in my 19 years here of travelling on a committee. Well, wait a minute. That is luxury. I’m not trying to cut off our own entitlements here—

Hon. James J. Bradley: You’re thinking of the federal government.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, I’m not thinking of the—

Hon. James J. Bradley: The MPs.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no, no. I don’t want to be distracted by the Minister of Environment.

When they travel at committee, quite often it’s picked up by the Clerk of the committee—bingo. How about the Speaker of the Legislature? I’ve been to soirees there that are worth questioning. Let’s not tear ourselves down. As long as we keep it in perspective: We’re representing the people of Ontario. If we could keep the partisan stuff out of it, most of the time we could move along here, but everybody wants to get the winning shot, which brings me back to Bill 179.

It’s like the old much-said-about-nothing, or nothing-said-about-something. In this case here, there’s a lot in this bill. There really is. It’s comprehensive. It’s 75 pages or so. As I said before, the member from Ottawa South as well as the minister used these very powerful, suggestive, visualized words; these words were “openness,” “accountability,” “transparency”—empathetic language, body style, all this stuff. To me, it’s smoke and mirrors. The truth will always be found out. I think everything we do here should be printed and published. It is.

Here’s the issue, Mr. Speaker—you know this as well; you raised an issue yesterday at a committee. You were trying to have more openness and accountability. You asked for some access to security reports on the Pan Am Games, I believe it was. What happened? The government side voted him down. What’s wrong with it?

Now, if you look at some of the investigations going on—I don’t want to get into the legal matters. In all fairness, the Premier flips the question to the House leader. “Oh, it’s before the courts,” or, “It’s being investigated. I don’t want to interfere.” But it makes you harder. When we asked for more information on the Ornge thing, what they did is they opened up Niagara Falls and flooded the paper out—thousands, millions of documents, all redacted. You can’t find the answers. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. Openness and transparency is in question period when you’re asked, “Did you or did you not agree with the closing of the gas plants?”

Hon. James J. Bradley: And Tim did. He campaigned for it.

Mr. John O’Toole: See, the Minister of the Environment keeps trying to get me off message, which often happens.

Here’s the issue, though—the whole issue there is exactly that. They do not ever answer the question. It’s tragic. There are FOIs; they’re delayed; they’re denied. It’s proprietary information. All of those rules have to be looked at and reviewed.

At the same time, if you’re government, you have reasons to be working in confidence when you’re building relationships and trust with stakeholder groups or with, for instance, investors in things like the Presto card. There was a bid on that. That’s the card they use—I don’t have mine with me, but I have one—for transit. They had a bid on it, and I think it was quite expensive—maybe $100 million. I think it cost $500 million. Now why do we have to go looking into that? Why aren’t they warning us? Why isn’t the auditor stepping in on an ongoing basis, saying, “These are things that should be watched”?

I would expect that pretty soon, the way the Speaker’s looking at me, I’m going to be terminated here—well, not terminated, but asked to yield the floor. But I won’t. I want to speak to the people of Ontario and certainly the people of my riding of Durham.

I’ve been to pretty well every province and every Legislature—the territories as well. I’ve been to Westminster a few times. I’d say that there’s this idea of the government having secrets or the government having it hard to get to the bottom of things.

This bill, I think, has a lot in it that—I don’t think we need the Ombudsman snooping around at every single thing. But when he or she is asked to look at it, they certainly should have every access without any barriers or conditional blockades, and trust the person in that position. We use the word “trust” here. The officers at the Legislature, whether it’s the commissioner of the environment, the Integrity Commissioner, or in this case, the Ombudsman—Mr. Marin is wont to have his picture in the paper the odd time. I would say that he’s—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Nineteen times in his report.

Mr. John O’Toole: There you go, the Minister of the Environment. I wish he’d call my mayor in Clarington and have a discussion with him, because he’s concerned about things that I’m trying to be heard on. It turns out that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I thank the member from Durham, but it being 10:15, he will continue where he left off at a future date.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

WEARING OF PINS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests: the member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Michael Harris: Actually, on a point of order, Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that all members of the Legislature be permitted to wear pins in honour and remembrance of the battle of Vimy Ridge, as today is Vimy Ridge Day. They’re laid upon each member’s desk.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons for Vimy Ridge Day. Do we agree? Agreed.

The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. Also on a point of order, I believe you will find we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear the daffodil pins today in recognition of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Consumer Services is seeking unanimous consent to wear the ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to welcome the Holy Trinity Catholic High School from Bradford, who will soon be joining us. I’d ask all members to help welcome them.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to introduce my neighbour from the great township of Coleman, Ken Laffrenier, who just happens to be the father of our great page, Callista.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like to introduce Christina Thomson, the senior executive assistant of the mayor of Kingston; my long-suffering chief of staff, Sabrina Grando; and the employee I’ve had the longest in my office, Mary Yoannidis. They’re both here to observe this.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Henry Koskamp, from my riding of Perth–Wellington, who helps to operate Koskamp Family Farms, and a friend of his from Stayner, Andy Van Niekerk. Welcome.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’d like to introduce to the House my newest staff member, sitting in the east lobby for his very first time in question period, Mr. Peter Rankin.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: We’re joined today by individuals from the Canadian Cancer Society. I’d like to specifically welcome Ray Ong, Saajid Motala and Andrew Noble, and thank them for all the wonderful work they do.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: These guests haven’t arrived yet, but I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Bryan and Heather Smith, from my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. They live in Lucan, Ontario.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to welcome Ronnie Gavsie, president and CEO of the Trillium Gift of Life Network, and Carrie Dyson, communications adviser at the Trillium Gift of Life Network. They are in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The guests are not in the House, but I’m sure they’ll be in soon. I want to welcome Anne Leonard, from Arrive Alive Drive Sober; Gwyn Chapman, from Parents 4 Safe Communities; Carol Fagan, from Fight Against Impaired Driving; and Matt Evans, of Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I have another guest coming to Queen’s Park today from Lucan, in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. I’d like to welcome Bill Smith to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: We are joined today in the public galleries by members of the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, includeing Peggy Allen, president, and Mary Cook, executive director. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I don’t think they’re here yet, but we are being visited today by Chris May and some of his colleagues from the Chartered Professional Accountants association. We want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: She’s not here yet, but I want to inform the House that one of our legislative security officers, Maria Mangoni, has just returned from successfully running the marathon in Rome. She is one of 19,000 who ran it and one of very few who finished it. Congratulations, Maria.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That just proves that you cannot outrun security, so don’t try.

We have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, a parliamentary delegation from the Scottish Parliament: the Right Honourable Tricia Marwick, the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament; Ms. Linda Fabiani, member of Scottish Parliament; and Ms. Rhoda Grant, member of Scottish Parliament. Welcome to Ontario. Thank you for being here.

I’m told that the Speaker is going to grade me today, so I’m not sure whether or not I’m going to pass.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I seek consent to stand down the PC lead questions until the fifth PC rotation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We will stand down the rotation. I do not believe it is unanimous consent. It’s basically just information for us.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We do need consent? Sorry. All right. I’ve been schooled again. We do need consent. Do we agree? Agreed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry. The reality was that I heard some heckling, and I wasn’t sure if it was a yes.

Do we have agreement? Agreed.

The leader of the third party, on questions.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, David Nicholl, the bureaucrat responsible for government record-keeping, said that he knew the government’s own security branch was investigating the possibility that Liberal staff had been illegally wiping computers.

When did the Premier learn that her own government was investigating deleted hard drives?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said many times in this House, I learned of the allegations against the former Premier’s chief of staff on March 27 when those became public.

There is an investigation ongoing. I do not have the details of that investigation. I will not interfere with that investigation. I really believe that we need to let that investigation roll out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has now repeated again that she was as shocked as anyone when the allegation of breach of trust broke out on March 27. The Premier knew, however, that there were multiple investigations happening and knew they were affecting her offices. The Premier said she was as surprised as anyone, but what exactly did the Premier think the police were looking for?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I did; I learned of the allegations on March 27—that is absolutely true—like everyone else. The investigation is ongoing. I am not going to interfere with that investigation, nor do I have the details of that investigation, and that’s as it should be.

What I did when I came into this office, as I have said to the member opposite: As I opened up the process, I made it clear that there were questions that had been asked that needed answers, and that there were documents that needed to be provided to committee. The scope of the committee was expanded. We have provided those hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. I have appeared before the committee twice, and there have been dozens of people who have appeared before that committee and have answered the questions the committee has asked.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m asking specifically about when the Premier knew that there were investigations going on in her offices. Of 22 staff who had their computers wiped, nine of those people are still Liberal staffers. Three of them are in the Premier’s office. One works for her in agriculture and food. Two of them have been promoted to chief-of-staff roles.

The government has been seized with this scandal for over a year, but the Premier seems to be saying she was as surprised as anyone when the news broke on the 27th of March. Is the Premier saying that none of her staff ever told her about this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, it was common knowledge that there was an investigation into questions about record-keeping. We had conversations with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The rules were changed as a result of conversations with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We knew that the privacy commissioner was looking into this last spring.

The OPP investigation was known about, last June. That was common knowledge. The allegations, the recent allegations, I first knew about on March 27, because I am not interfering in the investigation. It is ongoing; it was known that it was in place; and it will continue to roll out. I will continue not to interfere in that investigation.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, media reports indicated that the OPP are still hoping to talk to a number of individuals, including Dalton McGuinty, the man whose legacy the Premier is sworn to uphold. Does the Premier think that Dalton McGuinty should agree to be interviewed by the OPP anti-rackets group?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, the investigation is ongoing. The investigation will include people as the individuals leading it choose. I have no control over that.

As the leader of the third party knows, the former Premier, Dalton McGuinty, has appeared twice before the committee. I have appeared twice before the committee. I have done everything in my power to make sure that, as questions have been asked, they have been answered, and I will continue to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was asking about the OPP investigation. You know, it’s not just Dalton McGuinty; the report indicates that the OPP is hoping to talk to several key Liberals, including the former chief of staff and his deputies. At committee, the OPP indicated that some of those folks have declined to do so. Does the Premier think they should talk to police?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that the leader of the third party knows full well that I do not have control over every person who might be asked to come before a committee.

I know that there have been people who have been asked to come before the committee who were former PC candidates, for example, and they have not shown up. I think individuals make their decisions.

My decision was to appear before the committee twice. We have done everything in our power to co-operate with the people who are asking questions and make sure that they get those answers. We have done that repeatedly; we will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about the OPP anti-rackets squad request to speak to people. The Premier says this is an open and accountable government that respects the value of taxpayers’ dollars, but all that people see are Liberals avoiding accountability and a Premier scrambling to distance herself from the legacy of Dalton McGuinty.

Can the Premier answer a very simple question? As leader of the Liberal Party, will she urge all fellow Liberals to co-operate fully with the OPP investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I have been clear: This is an investigation over which I have no control. I am not interfering with the investigation. It is up to the OPP, who are directing the investigation, to continue to do that. I will continue to not interfere in that. As we are asked questions, as the committee does its business, we will continue to co-operate in every way.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. When the people of Ontario heard about these wiped computers in your office, they were furious. They knew it all along; they felt it in their bones. Now the OPP are hot on the trail.

If somebody dropped this in my lap without warning, I’d be apoplectic. I’d come out swinging. Your reaction? You’re concerned. If you really didn’t know anything, why weren’t you furious with these people and demanding answers from them?

The only people you seem to be mad at are the PCs, the very people who are exposing your scandal. So instead of fighting to get to the truth, you’re fighting to keep the truth from coming out. That’s not what people expect from a Premier. They want someone who will fight for them, not someone who is fighting against them.

Premier, why are you fighting against the truth coming out?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader is going to want to comment on the latest details around the committee, but I just want to say this: I really believe that it is my responsibility as the Premier and the leader of this party, it is my responsibility as the leader of this government, to make sure that over-the-top rhetoric is not part of my modus operandi. What I have a responsibility to do is to make sure that as questions are asked, we answer them; if there is a process that needs to be changed, we change that process; if there are rules that need to be changed, then we change those rules. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing.

My responsibility is to take action to make sure that, as we go forward, mistakes that were made are not made again, and we ensure that we have all of the information that is asked for made available. That’s my responsibility.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, many in our caucus have spent a lot of time getting to the bottom of your gas plant scandal. We’ve all seen the systematic attempts to keep us from getting the truth out. You say you brought in the Auditor General, but that’s only after the Liberals blocked us from doing it. You say you weren’t involved in the Oakville scandal, yet we found your signature on the documents that kick-started this whole scheme. You say you weren’t involved in Mississauga, but you co-chaired the campaign when it was cancelled.

Premier, those steady hands of yours have left a lot of fingerprints on the gas plant scandal. Does the committee have to call you in a third time to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I listened very, very carefully to the member from Nipissing’s question, and he seemed to leave out the fact that his party made the exact same promise in the last election. He forgot to mention that his leader posted a video on YouTube saying that if he was elected Premier, the gas plant would be done, done, done. He forgot to mention the fact that when we asked Progressive Conservative candidates to come forward in the committee to talk about the policy analysis they had done, the costing they had done, to ask the same questions they’re asking, they miraculously couldn’t appear.

Despite the fact that one even said she would appear, she surprisingly, at the last minute, said, “Oh, no, I can’t.”

Please, it’s a little rich for them to be standing up to talk about getting to the bottom when the fact of the matter is that there are all these inconvenient facts that they leave—

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

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, long before your date of March 27, when you say you first found out about this, government services had a forensic investigation of the deleted emails and deleted hard drives in the Premier’s office. On September 5, they had identified that 24 hard drives in the Premier’s office had been deleted.

Did the Premier ever discuss with your Minister of Government Services that investigation?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I would direct the honourable member, I would direct all honourable members, to the document that was made public through the court proceedings about two weeks ago. That clearly references the reporter investigation that he’s talking about as part of the OPP investigation.

I can inform the honourable member that, as Minister of Government Services, I had a discussion with my deputy early on where I indicated to him that any interaction between my ministry and the OPP—I did not wish to know anything about it, to be briefed on it or to be in any way connected, because I wanted to make sure that it was fully independent.

I am pleased to say that the deputy and members of my ministry respected that. I was given no information about any work being undertaken by the Ministry of Government Services.

Again, let’s let the OPP continue their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That is an unbelievable answer to the question. Nine of the 22 staff, Premier, whose computers were wiped are still Liberal staffers. Three of them still work in your office, and one who used to work in the Premier’s office works daily with the government House leader.

My question to the government services minister: Did you raise—yes or no—this issue, before the date the Premier said, directly with her?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure where the New Democrats have been for the last year or so. I have an

article here from June 7, 2013, which outlines the news that the OPP is conducting an investigation into this matter. That was a matter of public record, now going on close to a year.

As I just indicated, I felt the prudent course, as minister, was that I in no way be involved or have knowledge of the OPP investigation because, unlike members of the opposition, I respect the independence of the NDP—

Hon. James J. Bradley: OPP.

Hon. John Milloy: OPP. I correct my record, Mr. Speaker.

I also respect the independence of the NDP, Mr. Speaker.

As the OPP indicated, interference by politicians could, in fact, jeopardize the investigation.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as you know, today is the International Day of Pink. The Day of Pink is an anti-bullying initiative which began in Nova Scotia after a grade 9 student was bullied in school for wearing pink. Two students who witnessed the incident bought pink shirts to fight against bullying and stand with the student.

Young people across Canada, including schools in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, are wearing pink today to draw attention to the harmful effects of bullying.

This demonstrates the importance of speaking up against all forms of discrimination and homophobia. It also demonstrates that, together, we can stop bullying and end discrimination, particularly in our schools.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can she please inform the House why it is so important that our schools are welcoming and safe places for Ontario students?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for her question.

It is so important that we all take a stand and say we will not accept bullying in our schools.

As chair of the Safe Schools Action Team and Minister of Education, I visited schools all across the province that are taking a stand against bullying. I think of one school in Guelph where I visited with the students in the gay-straight alliance, the GSA, at this school. They told me that one of the things they had done that had the greatest impact was that they arranged to meet with the staff in the staff cafeteria and had a very open conversation with the staff about things the staff could do differently in the school to create a better atmosphere for gay and lesbian students.

Another student told me that she wasn’t gay, she wasn’t a lesbian, but that the GSA had supported her in her bullying situation—

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

Ms. Soo Wong: Initiatives like the International Day of Pink show that our young people want to stand up to bullying. But we know that bullying doesn’t just happen in our classrooms. It occurs on the Internet, on websites like Facebook and Twitter. We also know there have been tragic incidents of young people taking their lives because of the bullying they have received in the classroom and online.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can she inform the House what our government is doing to combat bullying outside the classroom?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The member is absolutely correct: Bullying often does occur outside the school, which is why, for the first time in Ontario, we have recognized cyberbullying in legislation and included cyberbullying as part of the definition of bullying.

We’ve also given principals the authority to take action when there is bullying that takes place online that has a negative impact on the school.

I think of one school that I visited here in Toronto that took action beyond just looking at student cyberbullying. They actually set up an email line where kids could report bullying online. The vice-principal monitored that, and the school was able to set up workshops for the kids about homophobia, racism and ethnic discrimination and deal with all sorts of facets as a whole school community and reduce bullying.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier.

Premier, since you were appointed by the Liberal Party a year ago, you’ve talked a lot about running an open government and wanting to engage in a lot of conversations. This makes your recent behaviour hard to explain. A few weeks ago, your House leader accused my colleague the member from Nipissing of divulging confidential documents to the public. That was quickly exposed as nothing but a ploy to cover up your own incompetence and distract attention from your scandals.

Premier, you’re at it again. Your attempts at intimidation against our leader, Tim Hudak, and the member from Nepean–Carleton are unwarranted and undemocratic. It is our job as the official opposition to question and hold your scandal-plagued government to account. Will you drop this charade today and get on with the task of providing Ontarians some hope? If you won’t, we’ll be glad to do it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Before I go to the Premier, I’m going to offer advice to all members that we should not be tiptoeing around unparliamentary language to the best of our ability. If it gets there, I’ll let you know.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: We all recognize the fact that this is a time for debate, this is a time for discussion, but at the same time, all of us inside the House and outside the House have to stick to the facts. I’ve shared quotes before. I have a new one from the Ottawa Citizen. I believe it’s today, April 9: “The Tories seem to have no real theory of what happened. The idea may be to fling as much muck as possible and hope Ontarians blame Kathleen Wynne for something.”

The fact is, we need to be dealing with facts, and I am pleased and I am proud that the Premier has consulted her lawyers in this. As I’ve noted a number of times, the member from Nepean–Carleton is familiar with this situation. It was not that long ago that she, as a result of a lawsuit, had to retract something that she had written. That’s all we ask: Deal with the facts and apologize and withdraw those things that are not—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the Premier: Premier, through the information to obtain and the justice committee, we’ve learned a lot about how your party made the decision to cancel the gas plants and the efforts made by Liberal operatives to systematically destroy the evidence. We have reason to believe that the wrongdoing occurred at the highest level of your McGuinty-Wynne government. There’s much to be uncovered, and despite your efforts, we’re going to keep asking the questions that you don’t want answers to.

Premier, is it not true that the reason you initiated this frivolous action is because you know the OPP’s investigation could still take some time, and you’re afraid of other embarrassing revelations coming out prior to a potential spring election? I’ll ask you again: Will you drop this today and let us get on with the jobs we’ve all been sent here to do?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, we’re asking people to deal with the facts. I know everyone in the House likes when I do this. Let’s tell you that the reviews are in. Let’s share some of them.

Toronto Star, April 1: The Leader of the Opposition “went far beyond what the facts show.” Toronto Star, again, April 1: The Leader of the Opposition is “inventing fanciful scenarios about the first days of Wynne’s premiership.” Ottawa Citizen, April 1: The PCs “asked repeatedly whether Wynne’s computer was among those wiped, which makes little sense: the police are crystal clear that they’re interested in computers in McGuinty’s office, where Wynne did not work.” Globe and Mail editorial, April 1: “Ontario Progressive Conservative leader ... is on thin legal ice.” The Globe and Mail editorial goes on to say that the Leader of the Opposition’s “claim that Premier Wynne was personally behind any wiping of government computers, when there is no evidence to support such an allegation, goes too far.”

Let’s deal with the facts, and if they’re not, they’re going to hear from the Premier’s—

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

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The CEO of Bruce Power is front and centre in today’s newspapers, calling on the government to sell off more of our electricity system to private operators—specifically him. Is that the government’s plan?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Many of us here in this chamber know Duncan Hawthorne quite well. He has a very distinctive way of communicating. However, he also is an entrepreneur, and he’s going to do whatever he can to generate benefits for his shareholders.

The government is not currently looking at the disposing of any of our energy companies. Our updated long-term energy plan sets out the refurbishment

schedule for Bruce’s units and for OPG’s units. Mr. Speaker, there’s an unbelievable level of co-operation now between OPG and Bruce Power on how they can generate efficiencies in moving forward with that significant project.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Families who are stuck paying the highest hydro bills in Canada get a little anxious when they hear “Liberal” and “private power deal” in the same sentence.

It has been clear for some time that the folks at Bruce Power and TransCanada—TransCanada, who did very well out of the gas plant scandal, by the way—are hoping to create a private monopoly in nuclear power. Will the minister take that idea off the table?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we’re going to continue to work to generate efficiencies in the electricity system, whether we’re partnering with the private sector or other public entities.

He raises the question of electricity prices. As I said on other days in this Legislature, when you look at the comparative numbers from a third party independent—Quebec Hydro—the price in Ottawa is 12.39 cents per kilowatt hour; Toronto, 12.48 cents; Edmonton, 13.9 cents; Calgary, 14.8 cents; Halifax, 15.45 cents. If you want to look at the US comparison, which the other party looks at frequently, Detroit is 15.54 cents, Boston, 16.50 cents, New York, 21.75 cents. We are competitive, and we’re not going to listen to your BS.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There’s no point of order. Just stop.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As our government transforms Ontario’s transportation network, it is crucial that we ensure that we bring new economic opportunities to each and every part of this province. This is important to me, as I represent a rural community, Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

On Friday, the minister made an announcement in North Bay on the future of the ONTC. Yesterday, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane asked the minister to clarify our plan forward on the ONTC. However, Speaker, I believe the member appeared to need some clarification on some of the major facts regarding the ONTC.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How is our government delivering transit solutions and providing certainty for communities in northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for the question and an opportunity to clarify some important facts that were maybe set out incorrectly yesterday.

I do think it’s fair to say that all members recognize that there have been tremendous changes in the telecommunications industry. From our perspective, and I think it would probably be shared by many, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense for a government to continue to run a telecommunications company that’s in direct competition with the private sector. So indeed we have reached a purchase agreement with Bell Aliant to purchase Ontera. To inform the member opposite on an important point: Ontera has been losing money over the past decade, in terms of their costs exceeding their revenues.

This particular purchase agreement with Bell Aliant will give the province value within three years. Bell is better positioned to attract industry partners and invest in capital. We’re going to continue to make sure services are provided to communities in Iroquois Falls, Temagami, Marten River, Tilden Lake, Moosonee and Moose Factory and all—

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

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. It’s obvious that the minister has taken the needed action to find a sustainable solution for the ONTC while providing certainty for northeastern Ontario residents.

The minister mentioned funding to the ONTC for core transportation services for northeastern Ontario. We all know that providing investments in transportation services and infrastructure assists economic growth and benefits many sectors.

Speaker, can the minister tell us of the new strategic investments that are being made to improve the ONTC’s transportation service and infrastructure and the economic benefits that we can expect?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There’s no question about it: There were some very necessary improvements to continue transformation of the ONTC. A sustainable and a bright future is very much possible for the ONTC.

The decisions that were made and the recommendations that came from the ministerial advisory committee in particular determined that focusing on core transportation services was absolutely crucial. We will continue to operate motor coaches—the bus service—the Polar Bear Express, freight rail and refurbishment services. They will be staying in public hands.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to bring some clarity to an issue. The member from Toronto–Danforth stood on a point of order. We do not traditionally and conventionally entertain points of order during question period, but we will entertain them after. There was a purpose and a reason for his point of order and it goes back to what I have been exercising, and that is to try to listen carefully to what people say in the House, and regrettably—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex not to intervene.

I do not always hear things that are said in the House because of the heckling and because of the volume of noise. If any member wishes to stand and withdraw or correct their record, I would ask all honourable members to do so, if anyone said anything that they should not have.

Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I withdraw the comment that I made, Mr. Speaker.

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

New question? This is, for clarity’s sake, the lead question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: That’s right.

My question is to the Minister of Health. The criminal investigations that are reaching into the offices of the Premier and ministers in this government will ultimately expose the pervasive corruption of this government. While the focus, to date, has been on the Premier’s office and on ministers and on political staff, it appears now that civil servants have been co-opted into highly unethical conduct as well. That’s precisely what’s taking place in the Ministry of Health.

Can the minister tell us why Assistant Deputy Minister Patricia Li and the new head of the air ambulance oversight, Richard Jackson, would direct ministry staff to alter a letter to say that the Ministry of Health did not have a copy of the forensic investigation team’s audit report on Ornge when they both knew that there were copies in the ministry at that time?

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

As I did listen carefully, I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Frank Klees: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health and Long-Term Care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can say to the member opposite is that Ornge has been under a lot of scrutiny and, as the member knows, the committee has been meeting for a long time. We have legislation before the House, Bill 11, that would complete the work that needs to be done to bring the appropriate oversight to Ornge.

In terms of the specific question that the member has asked, I will undertake to look into that allegation. It is certainly not behaviour that I am aware of, nor would I condone.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Apparently some emails survived this government’s cleansing. Here is an email trail that was gleaned from a dump of emails to the public accounts committee just last week. In the first email, Charles Meehan of the Ministry of Health wrote the following: “The only edit is a sentence”—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment, second time.

Mr. Frank Klees: —“added after discussions with Patricia Li.” This is an email sent to the solicitor at the Attorney General responsible for the Ministry of Health. The edit, he says, “is intended to clarify that the Ministry of Health does not have a copy of the report and that no staff in the ministry have read or accessed the ... report.”

Here was the response from Paul Kaufman, in the Ministry of the Attorney General. He said, “I don’t know how we can say this—my understanding is that the ministry does have possession ... so the statement is not true.”

Can the minister tell us: Why is her—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

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

I will remind the member that when I say “Thank you,” that’s the end of your time for questioning, and when I stand up, you sit down. Stop, please.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It appears to me that the emails make it clear that they corrected when they found an error.

As I said, I will look into this issue. What I can tell you is that progress at Ornge is significant under the new leadership of Ian Delaney and the CEO, Dr. Andrew McCallum. We have seen a remarkable improvement in the quality of care. I think the member opposite would agree that, under the new leadership and the volunteer board at Ornge, we have seen significant improvements.

Ornge is into a new chapter. The right changes are being and have been made. I look forward to discussing that more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question? The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’m not talking about Ornge; I’m talking about the Ministry of Health. I’m talking about the assistant deputy minister who has oversight responsibility for Ornge. She is the one who directed staff in her own ministry to falsify a statement regarding a matter taking place in the Ministry of Health. That is what happened.

I’d like to know this, because 11 months after that record was changed at the direction of the assistant deputy minister, the minister herself testified that there were no copies of that record because they had forwarded it directly to the OPP. I want to know from this minister: What can we rely on to be the truth that we’ve heard from her or any of her civil servants on this file?

Interjections.

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

I correct my record. It was the final supplementary.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think those of us who are paying attention to what the member from Newmarket–Aurora has done in the past would have confidence in knowing that he might not have the whole story. He has a remarkably consistent track record in bringing forward just part of the story.

What I can tell you is that Paul Kaufman is our ministry lawyer. He noticed that an error had been made and corrected that error. Thank you, Speaker.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Again, I’m going to direct this to the Premier. I’d like to know from the Premier if she sees a contradiction here, because we certainly do. On the one hand, the Premier professes a new era of open and accountable government, and yet she has just observed her own Minister of Health sidestepping a very direct question about the conduct of her assistant deputy minister.

She now stands up in her place and tells me that I have the facts wrong. I have emails that say very clearly what happened. Even after Mr. Kaufman alerted the fact that this is not true, guess what? Her own civil service under Mr. Richard Jackson came back and said, “Well, let’s word it this way.” Mr. Kaufman came back and said, “No, it’s still not true.”

I’m asking the Premier this: Who can we believe in your government? You have civil servants now who are not telling the truth. Your minister stands up for them. Where is your transparency? Where is your accountability? What is your definition of truth?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said in the original question, I will certainly look into the allegations raised by the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I can also say that he has raised many questions in this House, has made other allegations in this House, and every time I follow up on them, as I undertake to do, almost without exception he gets his facts wrong.

I will happily look into this allegation as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, that’s very interesting, because the first time I raised concerns about Ornge, the minister deflected it, and guess what? There is now a criminal investigation into that organization.

Back to the Premier: On the one hand, the Premier is asking us to support anti-SLAPP legislation in this place. That’s before this House now. Yet the Premier is carrying on in the tradition of Dalton McGuinty to sue the very people who are bringing forward facts that should be examined by this Legislature.

Can the Premier tell me this: How does she square bringing anti-SLAPP legislation before this Legislature and herself laying lawsuits against the leader of the official opposition and the member from Nepean–Carleton to in fact ensure that the real issues are not dealt with? How does she square that?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, come to order. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, second—actually, maybe even third time.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, thank you, Speaker. I believe that that was supposed to have been a supplementary. I’m not sure that it had anything to do with the first question.

What I can repeat is that I will look into these allegations, as I have always looked into the allegations raised in this House by the member from Newmarket–Aurora and by others, and I will happily report back on what I find.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The fact of the matter is that my question was not to the Minister of Health. It was a very direct question to the Premier about how she can square sitting there listening to her Minister of Health avoid the truth when, in fact, she is committed to transparency.

I’m going to ask the Premier one more time—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have been listening very carefully. Please withdraw. Let’s not weave in and out of this. Just withdraw, and then ask your question.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’ll withdraw, and I’ll ask the Premier a very straightforward question. I asked her to define how she considers truth. What is her definition of truth? I asked her that question, and she refused to answer that.

The people in this province are very confused about that as well. What she has chosen to do is to refer the matter to the courts. I’m going to suggest that I believe that, in the end, it will be a court that makes the decision about this government—it will be the court of public opinion. The court of public opinion—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m happy to answer the question of the member opposite. I had referred the first question because it was a health question, and then the question changed.

Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker: What I believe is in the best interests of the politics of this province, the political discourse and serving the people of the province is that we deal with facts. The only reason that I have challenged the allegations and accusations of the Leader of the Opposition is that they are not based in fact. Otherwise, I would be happy to continue to discuss the issues around the placement of energy infrastructure and the rules we have changed around the retention of documents, but I will not debate allegations that are completely false.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is to the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock, please. How this place works is to come to order when the Speaker asks. I’m going to ask the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister responsible for seniors can hide his face all he wants. I’m not impressed. Think about this.

The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: My question is for the Premier. Just about every day there are questions on the gas plant. Just about every day, you deflect some of the questions off to your House leader. Just about every day, the House leader tries to implicate the rest of the House in the decision made by your Liberal government by saying that everyone was a party to wanting to get the gas plants taken down.

Now, this might even be true, but the mistake was putting them there in the first place, and I think it’s high time that you quit sidestepping responsibility for blowing 1.1 billion tax dollars and get the House leader to admit the fact that it was putting them up in the first place that caused the problem. When are you going to do that?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

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

I just want to remark that it’s great that the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore has paid very close attention to the answers that we’ve been giving, because it’s very clear that this was a decision that all of the parties had taken, that all of the parties had decided, and we implemented the promise that they had made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Douglas C. Holyday: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it was the Liberal government that built those plants in the wrong place in the first instance and wasted $1.1 billion. They also could have rectified the problem without spending all that money if they had just taken some time and done it in the proper way, but they were so concerned about getting on with an election, they didn’t care about tax dollars. I want to know: When are we going to get some accountability from your government, and when are you going to quit sidestepping responsibility?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I have a whole binder of quotes here, Mr. Speaker, and once we go through Hansard, I think I’ll be able to add some more.

But don’t believe me; this is the document that the OPP filed with the courts. You’ll want to hear it.

“In September 2011, a provincial election campaign began and the Liberal Party”—this is the OPP—“of Ontario promised to cancel the construction of the plant in Mississauga if they were elected. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party also made similar promises if elected.

“On the 6th of October 2011, the Liberal Party won the provincial election and formed a minority government. Even though they made the same promise during the election, the opposing parties”—

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

MINING SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This week, we learned of yet another tragic death in an Ontario mine; 36-year-old Paul Rochette, a millwright with two young children, was killed on Sunday in Vale’s Copper Cliff smelter.

It has been 30 years since a provincial commission investigated mine safety. Since then, scores of miners in Ontario have been killed, and thousands of others have been injured. Last year, the Premier rejected a public inquiry into mine safety and instead chose a review, but at the very first of public hearings in Timmins and Kirkland Lake, the government didn’t advertise or even put out so much as a press release or media advisory to invite participants. Does the Premier think this is acceptable?

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

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the honourable member for this question. I think all of us in the House were saddened to hear of this incident, and I know that our thoughts are with the worker, his family and his colleagues.

As this investigation specifically is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of this issue, but what I will tell you is that this government is committed to protecting the health and safety of miners and all workers in the province of Ontario. We know, and we agree, that it’s time to thoroughly take a long look at mine safety in this province.

The Chief Prevention Officer for the province of Ontario has undertaken a comprehensive mining safety review. We have an advisory group with industry, labour, and health and safety representatives. We are going to continue this review, because what we know is that we need to improve mine safety, and we need to make it even safer in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Saying the right words is simply not good enough. On April 28, the day of mourning for injured workers, MPPs across this province attend ceremonies to remember those who are killed or injured on the job. As elected representatives, we need to do everything in our power to end workplace deaths and injuries.

The Premier refuses to conduct an inquiry. Will she commit today that the government review panel into mining safety will have the resources necessary to conduct numerous site visits to mining operations both below ground and above ground and advertise them with vigour?

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: And it would be nice if the Liberal caucus over there paid attention to this question, because people are dying on the job in Ontario and they should be doing something about it.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Labour?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I would like the House to know that the review has been under way for some time. It was under way before this incident took place and it’s going to continue.

Ontario’s Chief Prevention Officer has undertaken that review with an advisory group that is comprised of industry reps, labour reps, and health and safety reps. Public consultations are being held right now. They’ve already been to Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Sudbury; they are going on to Marathon and London in the future.

I am encouraging all Ontarians who are interested in this very important issue to register, attend these sessions and provide their comments as to how we can make mine safety an important issue in this province, which obviously needs to have some more attention—that we need to improve safety. We can make it even safer, I believe, if we all work together and we get all viewpoints on this.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We were to have a very special visitor with us in the House today. Unfortunately, he has not been able to join us, but I would like to tell all of you a little bit about him.

Eleven years ago, at the age of 65, Merv Sheppard became the oldest lung transplant recipient in the history of Toronto General Hospital’s program. Since then, he has been working tirelessly with wait-listed patients, recipients and families to help them understand the transplant process.

Merv’s selfless work is an inspiration to me and others across this province. It also reminds us of the importance of organ donation. April is Be a Donor Month. The Trillium Gift of Life Network is working with its partners to encourage Ontarians to register to be an organ and tissue donor.

My question for the minister is: How can we best follow Merv’s example and each do our part to encourage more Ontarians to help save lives?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the very fine member from Mississauga–Brampton South for that question. I want to join the member in thanking Merv Sheppard for all the work that he has done. I know that he has recently been recognized by the Trillium Gift of Life Network’s board of directors for his tireless dedication to raising awareness about organ and tissue donation and transplantation. I know all members in the House join me in congratulating him.

Today is Trillium Gift of Life Network’s MPP Twitter day. I want everyone in the House today to join me in tweeting their support of organ and tissue donation. Here’s my tweet: “It takes two minutes to save eight lives. Register to be an organ donor now @ beadonor.ca #beadonor #beahero #howcanyounot.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I know we can all do more as individuals to encourage more Ontarians to register online at beadonor.ca. Make a power of attorney so that someone they trust will ensure their wishes are followed.

But government has a responsibility too, and I am convinced that our government can play a positive role in getting more Ontarians to register as donors.

I would like to ask the minister, through you, Speaker, what our government is doing to increase organ and tissue donation rates and decrease wait-list times for patients awaiting life-saving transplants.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, organ and tissue donation is one of the greatest gifts any person can give. One person’s donation can save up to eight lives and help another 75 through tissue grafts.

I’m proud to say that 2012-13 was a record year, with 1,009 organ transplants in Ontario, 63% more than in 2003, and we’ve more than doubled the number of registered donors. Some 2.8 million of us are now registered, but that’s still less than one in four Ontarians. It’s good progress, but it’s not enough.

The launch of beadonor.ca has made it easier than ever for Ontarians to become donors. TGLN’s Gift of 8 campaign increased registered donors in communities right across Ontario, and we now ask people in all ServiceOntario centres if they’d like to sign up for organ and tissue donation when they renew their driver’s lice