Ontario Hansard — 20 February 2013 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session)

2013-02-20

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

February 20, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Feb-20 (PDF)

L002 - Wed 20 Feb 2013 / Mer 20 fév 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 February 2013 Mercredi 20 février 2013

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

TABLING OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

JOB CREATION

POWER PLANTS

INSURANCE RATES

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

POWER PLANTS

HOME CARE

LABOUR POLICY

POWER PLANTS

HEALTH CARE

YOUTH SERVICES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EUGENE WHELAN

COURAGE POLAR BEAR DIP

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PILLAR NONPROFIT NETWORK

LENT

JOHN WISE

EUGENE WHELAN

DALE BLANCHARD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESTORING PLANNING POWERS

TO MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE RÉTABLISSEMENT

DES POUVOIRS DES MUNICIPALITÉS

EN MATIÈRE D’AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE

GASOLINE TAX FAIRNESS

FOR ALL ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ POUR TOUS

À L’ÉGARD DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

LANDFILL

LYME DISEASE

WIND TURBINES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

AIR QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE /

DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have received two notices of intent to raise a point of privilege. I am going to hear both points in the order in which I received the notices, recognizing the member from Prince Edward–Hastings first.

Given that this matter was previously raised and fully put, I would ask that the member furnish us with a brief

summary to his point, just to refresh the memory of the House.

Mr. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as you mentioned, on a point of privilege for contempt of the Legislature, after providing you with the appropriate notice in accordance with standing order 21(c). In the submission I provided to you, I gave a brief background of the events in this case, so I won’t repeat all of them here as you heard the entirety on October 15, the day that the Legislature was prorogued, and have yet to rule on this because of the prorogation.

Let me remind you that on September 24, 2012, the former energy minister tabled an attestation to the House, attached to 36,000 documents, which stated, “The documents attached to this letter comprise all documents that are responsive to the committee’s request regardless of privilege or confidentiality.” On October 12, 2012, after being told by the Premier, countless ministers and parliamentary assistants that all the documents had been tabled, the opposition parties received an email from the government House leader’s office advising us that 20,000 documents pertaining to the committee’s request were being released.

Misleading the House is a serious charge. It’s one which I don’t take lightly, and I know that other members on this side of the House don’t either. I’m concerned that statements made by the former Premier, former Minister of Energy, government House leader, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Children and Youth Services and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could have misled the Legislature regarding the Minister of Energy’s compliance with the Speaker’s ruling to produce all of the documents related to the request from the estimates committee.

As set out by McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, in order to establish a prima facie finding that a breach of privilege in contempt has occurred, three elements must be present:

(1) It must be proven that the statements were misleading;

(2) It must be established that the member, at the time, knew that the statement was incorrect;

(3) In the making of the statement, the minister intended to mislead the House.

I won’t go into detail, but I’ll mention that in my written submission I outlined how this case fits all three of the criteria set out by McGee.

In criminal law, the actus reus, also known as the guilty act, includes the omission to act. The former Premier and the former Minister of Energy, through ministerial responsibility, and the other ministers, through their duty to the Legislature, had a duty to immediately inform the Legislature that the documents tabled were not complete. Their omission to inform the Legislature about the remaining outstanding documents from the ministry and the OPA demonstrates intent and, in my opinion, could constitute a breach of our privileges.

A former Speaker of this Legislature, the Honourable Gary Carr, set out the parameters for finding a prima facie case of contempt relating to a charge of misleading the House. In his ruling, back on June 17, 2002, Speaker Carr stated that to satisfy a charge of contempt for misleading the House, there must be “an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct independently proved.”

In the case before us, the tangible confirmation of all the government members’ conduct is the letters from OPA CEO Colin Andersen and Deputy Minister of Energy Serge Imbrogno. These letters demonstrate that the government knew on September 27, 2012, that all of the documents were indeed not tabled on September 24, 2012.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you’re the guardian of the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency in our democratic institution here at Queen’s Park. I’m concerned that any ruling other than a prima facie case of breach of privilege in these instances will inevitably lead to even more egregious abuse.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for his brief synopsis, as requested. I appreciate that very much, member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

The government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to stand today and respond to the point of privilege that has just been raised. I’d also like to notify you and the House that I will be filing a written submission, which, as is the usual practice, I will be sharing with opposition colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to review the facts of this matter. On May 16, 2012, the Standing Committee on Estimates passed a motion ordering the former Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority to produce “all correspondence, in any form, electronic or otherwise, that occurred between September 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, related to the cancellation of the Oakville power plant as well as all correspondence, in any form, electronic or otherwise, that occurred between August 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, related to the cancellation of the Mississauga power plant.”

In response to the motion, approximately 36,000 records were given to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on September 24, 2012, in both paper and electronic form.

At the time of production, the former minister held an honest belief that the ministry and the OPA had produced all records that were responsive to the motion and in their possession. This honest belief was evidenced by the fact that the records were accompanied by a signed letter to the Clerk attesting to the fact that all responsive records had been produced to the best of their knowledge.

Over the course of the next several days, the House considered the matter of the relocation of these gas plants at length, particularly in relation to the motion moved by the member of provincial Parliament from Cambridge. During the debate, numerous members of the government caucus, including the former minister, stated in the House that all responsive records had been produced.

Contrary to the assertion made by the member for Prince Edward–Hastings as part of this point of privilege, at no time did the former Premier state in this House that all responsive records had been produced. While other members of the government caucus referenced in the member for Prince Edward–Hastings’s submission did make statements in the House in this regard, every relevant statement made by those members, including the former minister, was made on the basis of an honest belief that all responsive records in the possession of the former minister, the ministry and the OPA had been produced.

In the case of the former minister, his honest belief was based on information provided to him by ministry officials that all responsive records had been identified and included in the package of records produced to the Clerk. In the case of all other members of the government caucus, their honest belief was based on the attestation letters, and specifically the attestation that all responsive records had been produced.

In and around the evening of September 27, 2012, the former minister was notified by officials at the ministry that both the ministry and the OPA had determined that their initial search for records may have missed records of certain inactive employees, and that some employees had not used consistent search terms. It’s important to stress that at this time the minister was notified only of the potential that responsive records may have been missed in the original searches.

In response, the former minister instructed officials at the ministry and the OPA to ensure that they immediately took the necessary steps to determine whether any responsive records had been missed. The former minister was aware of his obligation to notify his honourable colleagues in the Legislature, including members of the government caucus who had stated that all responsive records had been produced, in the event that it was determined that his previous statements in the House were incorrect and to ensure those records were produced to the Clerk at the earliest possible opportunity.

Shortly thereafter, I in my capacity as House leader was also notified that both the ministry and the OPA had determined that their initial search for records may have missed records of certain inactive employees and that some employees may not have used consistent search terms. I was also aware of the obligation to notify honourable colleagues in the Legislature in the event that it was determined that previous statements in the House were incorrect and to support the production of those records to the Clerk at the earliest possible opportunity.

Over the course of the following two weeks, officials at the ministry and the OPA conducted an intensive expanded search to determine whether any responsive records had been missed. There was no political involvement or interference by the former minister, myself or political staff with the search process throughout the relevant period.

On October 11, 2012, the former minister was notified by the ministry and the OPA that a large number of additional documents had been identified and that records would be produced to the Clerk the next day, October 12. On the afternoon of October 12, the ministry and the OPA produced an additional 20,000 records to the Clerk.

After learning on October 11, 2012, that additional documents had been identified by the ministry and the OPA and that their earlier statements to the House had been made in error due to an honest and inadvertent mistake, the former minister and I as House leader rose in the House to correct our respective records. This was at the earliest possible moment, Mr. Speaker.

I’d now like to turn to the parliamentary precedents relevant to this case. In recent years, Speakers of this House have made their determination as to whether a prima facie case of contempt exists in relation to a charge of deliberately misleading the House by applying the well-established three-step test set out in David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. The McGee test is described in the text’s most recent edition as follows:

“There are three elements to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt by reasons of a statement that the member has made: The statement must, in fact, have been misleading; it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect; and, in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House.”

The McGee test establishes a particularly high threshold for a prima facie case of contempt to be established. Not only must the Speaker find that the member uttered a misleading statement; the member must have known at the time the statement was made that it was misleading and uttered the false statement in a deliberate or intentional matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to offer the government House leader the same advice that I offered the member from Prince Edward–Hastings: to be brief, as this has already been put to the House, and we’re using this as a refresher.

Hon. John Milloy: Put in another way, Mr. Speaker, it is not sufficient that the Speaker merely be satisfied that the statements made by the member were incorrect or misleading, nor is it sufficient that the Speaker be satisfied that the statements made by the member were incorrect or misleading and that the member was negligent in uttering false statements.

Mr. Speaker, I will, in my written submission, taking your advice, go through the McGee test and the applications that have been taken here and turn to the matter right here.

I would say that it’s clear, based upon the McGee test and the rulings that have been made both in this Legislature and in other Legislatures, that there is no prima facie case of contempt in this matter. While the former minister and I provided incorrect information to the House, we did so as a result of an honest mistake and shared the belief that the information was true. When the former minister and I stated in the House that all responsive records had been produced, it was our good-faith understanding. As such, we did not utter misleading statements that we knew to be false during this time period.

Once the former minister and I were notified by officials at the OPA and the ministry that an additional expanded search was being undertaken, no further incorrect statements were uttered in the House by myself or by the former Minister of Energy. More specifically, at no time after September 27, 2012, as I said, did either I or the minister state in the House that all responsive records had been produced.

The member for Prince Edward–Hastings included a list of other members of the governing party he alleges to have intentionally misled this House. Those individuals had no personal knowledge of these facts and were simply repeating in good faith assertions that had been made by the Minister of Energy. Again, these statements were, at most, the result of honest mistakes.

The additional records were produced to the House on Friday, October 12, 2012. On the morning of the following Monday, October 15, 2012—the next sitting day—the former minister and I rose in the House at the earliest possible moment to correct the record by notifying the House that, as a result of inadvertence and honest mistake, we had incorrectly told the House that all responsive records had been produced. As such, we fulfilled our obligation of notifying the House of our error and correcting the record at the earliest possible opportunity.

Because of this, the point of privilege must fail at both the second and third steps of the McGee test. Incorrect statements were made inadvertently and in good faith, relying principally on the attestation letters. They did not know at the time that their statements were false, which leads to the conclusion that the errors were not made intentionally. In light of a clear correction of the record confirming that honest belief and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would therefore respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that no point of privilege has been made out.

At the same time, I have further comments to make on other points that were made by the member in his point of privilege, but based on your advice, I will do that in writing and, as I said at the beginning, share them with the other parties, as is the usual practice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I recognize the House leader of the third party, the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker. I’m going to be very quick. In just a couple of minutes, I want to make a couple of points.

First of all, what’s clear is that the government stood in this House repeatedly and repeatedly said they had given all the documents, and it turns out that that’s not the case. So you have to decide which of it makes sense.

I think it was part of a strategy. I think the government decided in its defence of what was going on that they had to find some way to try to minimize damage politically to the government, so they decided not to release all of the documents because some of them may have been damning, and so in the end took a position that those documents in fact—that in fact those documents were withheld knowingly is the argument that the member is making.

I just want to make this one point, and the point is that, in your decision, you said, “The right to order production of documents is fundamental to and necessary for the proper functioning of the assembly. If the House and its committees do not enjoy this right, then the accountability, scrutiny and financial functions of Parliament—which go to the core of our system of responsible government—would be compromised.” So the decision you have to make is: Did they know?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My intent is to show you that maybe things haven’t changed, so I can jump right into recognizing individuals by their riding. My rule still applies: You get a warning; that’s it. Thank you.

I thank the members that have spoken on this issue, and I will reserve my ruling and get back to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings sharply.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: I rise today to raise a question of privilege from a previous session after providing you with the appropriate notice in accordance with standing order 21(c). Like my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings, Mr. Speaker, I’ve provided you with a written submission. I’m only going to provide a synopsis of those points here today.

summary, on August 27, 2012, I rose on what I believed was a prima facie breach of privilege regarding the Minister of Energy’s and the Ontario Power Authority’s failure to produce documents to the Standing Committee on Estimates. The issue I brought before you was whether the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority obstructed members and infringed on their privileges when they withheld documents requested by the Legislature.

On September 13, 2012, you wrote that a prima facie case of privilege had been established because “the Standing Committee on Estimates was unquestionably entitled to request the documents sought from the Minister of Energy, and in the end the minister had an obligation to comply with the committee’s call for those documents.”

On September 25, I moved a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and after one week of debate, the Legislature passed my motion and sent the prima facie breach of privilege to committee for further study. On October 15, the Legislature was prorogued and the issue was never dealt with by the committee.

Parliamentary precedent supports my position on this issue at hand. On February 6, 2004, Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz rose on a point of privilege regarding a prima facie breach of privilege from a previous session. In the case that Mr. Breitkreuz was referencing, the Speaker had found that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, and the matter was then referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. However, the session was prorogued and the matter was never dealt with by the committee. Once the new parliamentary session began, Mr.

Breitkreuz rose on a point of privilege and asked the Speaker to rule on whether a prima facie question of privilege existed and to allow another motion to be moved referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Former Speaker of the House of Commons Peter Milliken ruled immediately that, “As I indicated in the previous session, this was a bona fide question of privilege. Accordingly, in my view, the question remains a question of privilege. The committee did not completely report on the matter, which it is entitled to do. Accordingly, I give the honourable member leave to move his motion.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on this matter in the same way that Speaker Milliken did, and allow the Legislature to proceed in a similar fashion. As such, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer this issue back to the committee of the Legislature at your will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The third party House leader and member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, I don’t want to repeat everything that was said; I think the point has been made. I think essentially where we’re at is that the committee requested documents; those were not given on May 16, when requested. On September 13, there was a prima facie case of contempt that was found, and on October 2, a motion was passed by this House. The House was prorogued, and I want to just state what standing order 49 says—I would just draw to your attention: “Prorogation of the House shall not have the effect of nullifying an order or address of the House for returns or papers.” So it’s pretty clear that the matter is not dead as a result of prorogation.

Speaker, the point I just want to make is that a decision had been made by you, a committee was to be struck to look into the details of it, it’s clear that prorogation cannot nullify that, and I ask you to maintain the decision that you made earlier.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I rise in support of the words put forward by our House leader. Speaker, you were here for this whole process. We demanded documents; we demanded hearings. We were given some documents. Upon receipt of those documents, people in our caucus, people in the opposition caucus went through them, and it was obvious to any person who went through those documents that there were substantial gaps. We raised this with the government, and we were met with a chorus of denial, that in fact everything had been put out and that we were just playing games in this House.

I have to say, Speaker, that if those ministers who spoke at the time saying that all the documents were released had actually looked at those documents, it would have been as apparent to them as to us that there were gaps. Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Forgive my rolling, but that was to another issue. I need to bring us back to this point.

On September 13, 2012, in response to a point of privilege raised by the member from Cambridge on August 27, I ruled that a prima facie case of privilege had been established. On October 2, the House adopted a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. The session was then prorogued on October 15, before the committee even had its first meeting to consider this issue.

Careful research has revealed that the circumstance of a privileged matter in one of our committees being interrupted by a prorogation has not occurred in the Ontario Legislature. Moreover, it is a strikingly rare occurrence in the senior Parliaments of the Commonwealth. However, a similar instance was found to have occurred in the Canadian House of Commons in 2004.

Speaker Milliken decided that a matter of privilege that had already been ruled on and referred by the House to a committee, but left unfinished because of an intervening prorogation, could be renewed in the new session. Speaker Milliken found that the committee was entitled to conduct its review on the matter and make its report to the House. He confirmed his previous ruling that a bona fide case of privilege existed and that he permitted the member who initially raised that matter to move his same motion to refer the matter to the committee again.

Similarly, in the matter raised by the member from Cambridge, it is true that the fact is that the October 15, 2012, prorogation terminated all business of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, including the referral of the matter of my September 13, 2012, ruling. In that ruling, a prima facie case of privilege had been established and, as Speaker Milliken found, a prorogation does not nullify such a finding.

I therefore reconfirm my ruling of September 13, 2012, and invite the member from Cambridge to renew his motion to refer this matter to committee.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House directs the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority to immediately table with the Clerk of the House all remaining documents related to the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants ordered by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012; and

That the matter of the Speaker’s finding of a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the production of documents by the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority to the Standing Committee on Estimates be referred to the standing committee on justice, which is hereby reconstituted as it existed on September 9, 2012; and

That the committee shall be authorized to meet at the call of the Chair, concurrently with the House or when the House stands adjourned, to meet notwithstanding prorogation of the House; and

That the committee shall report back to the House its findings and recommendations within 90 calendar days, and if the House is not sitting, release with the Clerk of the House its report, except that if the committee determines that more time is required, it shall issue an interim report at the 90-day mark and then take such reasonable time as it considers necessary to complete its final report.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Leone moves that the House directs the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority to immediately table with the Clerk of the House all remaining documents related to the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants ordered by the Standing Committee on Estimates on May 16, 2012; and

That the committee shall be authorized to meet at the call of the Chair, concurrently with the House or when the House stands adjourned, to meet notwithstanding prorogation of the House; and

The member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief here and to not hold up the proceedings of this House. We’ve dealt with this matter in the previous session of this Legislature. I don’t wish to repeat all that I’ve commented with respect to that, but we do have a case of privilege that has been established. We need to set up the committees immediately to investigate the reasons behind what we feel is an obstruction of this Legislature’s work. We wish to proceed as soon as possible on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and report back to this House, where it may be dealt with.

I’m not going to take any more time dealing with this matter or debating this matter. I hereby suggest and urge this House to adopt this motion so we can get to the bottom of what happened with the cancellation of the two power plants.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I rise in support of the motion that is before this House. As New Democrats made clear several weeks ago, we thought there was perhaps another solution to this situation. We had asked the Premier to consider taking this matter out of the House and having it dealt with independently. We thought that was a good way to make sure the House doesn’t become overly seized with this matter. We were very careful to indicate that a public inquiry would be something that wouldn’t necessarily be extremely expensive, because many of the documents are already out.

It would not require travel in terms of moving around the province. In fact, we put a time frame on it of about six months to make sure that the people of this province weren’t unduly burdened with the cost of a public inquiry—making sure, however, that the people of this province get the answers that they deserve when it comes to not only how the decision was made, but how the information was determined not to be necessary to be released.

At this point, we are in a position to support this motion, because we understand that this needs to be dealt with. We had hoped that we could have gotten it done outside of the chamber through the public inquiry process, but New Democrats certainly do look forward to getting the answers that the people of this province have deserved for far too long.

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

Hon. John Milloy: I stand to speak on this matter with a spirit of disappointment and sadness. I think all members in this Legislature and those who are watching it would realize that we have a new Premier and a new government which has come to power with an interest in nothing less than full co-operation with the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. There was quiet throughout, up until this moment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He’s inflaming the opposition with those comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And those comments are not helpful.

Hon. John Milloy: This government has come to power, with this new Premier, in a spirit of co-operation with the opposition. There have been numerous meetings, members know, on the public record, between the Premier and both opposition leaders. Yesterday’s speech from the throne contained many ideas that had been put forward by both parties and was an attempt to find a middle ground and make sure that this Legislature works.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, of course, of being reappointed as House leader. As House leader, the direction I received—the marching orders, so to speak—from the Premier was to work with the opposition and be as constructive as possible to make sure that this Legislature, this House, worked as we move forward. I was asked to reach out to the opposition, for example, and find a way that we could reinstate standing committees as quickly as possible, and I’m pleased to report that those discussions are going well.

There has been a full acknowledgement on this side of the Legislature of the concerns that exist over the cancellation of gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. I would remind members that the Premier, in fact, asked the Auditor General to expand his investigation so that he would take a look at the Oakville situation and report back to members of the Legislature. Recognizing this concern, there was no attempt made by this government to somehow put it on the back burner. Instead, we sat down with the opposition and we outlined what we saw as two possible paths forward.

One was the appointment of a select committee, with a broad and responsible mandate, which would look into a variety of issues related to decisions around the gas plant and, at the same time, would be able to take a broad look and report back to this committee and, I would hope, find lessons for this government and future governments on the whole issue of locating gas plants.

We also made it very clear that such a select committee would be in no way hampered to look at a variety of issues, including the production of documents, and, once again, perhaps come forward with what we would say would be very responsible recommendations to this Legislature on how to deal with requests for large quantities of documents, and sensitive documents.

The other option that we had was to move forward with Mr. Leone’s motion—the member from Cambridge. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of a mean-spirited and vindictive motion aimed at the former Minister of Energy, who, I would remind you—and, through you, members of this Legislature—is an individual who had an outstanding career here in the Legislature, has since resigned from politics and is no longer a member of the Legislature.

These were the two choices we put forward to the opposition. I felt that we had very good discussions with the opposition, and I was quite frankly surprised yesterday, through the press conferences that were held, to learn that they had rejected the idea outright of a special committee to look into this matter, and instead we’re moving forward with Mr. Leone’s motion, targeted against a private citizen whose only goal, when he was Minister of Energy, was to try to balance two competing interests.

I think it’s important that we look at the facts. I’m going to take a second to review what is at the base, or what is at the heart, of the motion that we’re discussing today.

Between May 9 and July 11, 2012, the then Minister of Energy, Mr. Bentley, appeared before the Standing Committee on Estimates for the purpose of answering questions regarding the estimates of his ministry. While the minister answered questions relating to a number of issues, committee members from the official opposition spent considerable time asking the minister questions relating to the two gas plants which were to have been built in Oakville and Mississauga, respectively. The members of the opposition will know all about those gas plants, Mr. Speaker, because they vigorously opposed those over and over again, and in fact campaigned against them, as did the Liberal Party.

The minister of the day was repeatedly asked to answer questions relating to these facilities. The overwhelming majority of the questions related specifically to the ongoing outstanding legal proceedings and confidential negotiations that were occurring at that time. The former Minister of Energy attempted to strike an effective balance between the committee’s authority to ask those questions and request those documents and the need to protect the public interest in the midst of highly sensitive commercial negotiations and litigation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the former minister had a responsibility as a minister of the crown, and that is a different responsibility than what we have as members. The Chair of the committee at the time, the member for Beaches–East York, recognized the precarious situation of the Minister of Energy. In fact, he repeatedly ruled that while committee members were permitted to ask such questions, the minister was able to exercise his discretion and respond to them in a matter that protected the interests of the province.

I’d like to quote from the committee Hansard of May 16. Mr. Prue, the Chair, said, “The minister has the right to decline either giving that documentation or giving voice to that documentation during his answering of the questions.”

I further quote from Mr. Prue: “I would advise that I’m going to allow the motion to proceed, but I would also advise—and I think the minister”—that’s Mr. Bentley—“being a lawyer himself, knows full well that he may choose to answer the question in such a way as not to prejudice the province in any way, and I would expect him to do so. That would be my ruling.”

The minister relied on the Chair’s repeated statements and rulings that he was permitted to respond to questions and document requests from committee members in a manner that protected the interests of the province. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the minister wrote to the committee on May 30 and advised it that he was exercising his discretion and would not be able to produce the requested documentation, as they were confidential, subject to solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege or highly commercially sensitive. Unfortunately, the official opposition ignored the flags that were raised by the minister. They showed no restraint, and they pushed forward with the opposition.

The official opposition and the third party, in their attempt over the past couple of months to vilify the former Minister of Energy, have told this House that he hid or concealed these records. It is simply not true. The record shows that the Minister of Energy at all times was trying to balance two important yet competing public interests: supremacy of Parliament versus the protection of taxpayers’ interests.

I think the best proof of all was on July 10, when the then minister announced that the OPA had reached an agreement with Greenfield to relocate the Mississauga facility and that the government had accepted the OPA’s recommendation to relocate the Mississauga facility at the Lambton station in Sarnia. In addition, the minister announced that it had settled the related civil proceedings in the state of New York.

The legal matters relating to the Mississauga gas plant having been settled, the minister directed his ministry to provide the committee with all correspondence related to the Mississauga facility that was responsive to the motion of May 16, except for records that were subject to solicitor-client privilege. Those documents were provided to the committee.

As the negotiations with TransCanada regarding the Oakville plant were still ongoing, the then minister was not in a position to produce these documents prior to your ruling. On September 13, 2012, the Speaker—you, Mr. Speaker—ruled that, while a prima facie breach of privilege had been established, he would set aside the matter and ask the three House leaders to “take it upon themselves to find a path that can satisfy the request of the estimates committee.”

The traditional procedure when the Speaker apprises the House that a prima facie breach of privilege has been found is that the member raising the matter is immediately allowed to move a motion. In this matter, however, Mr. Speaker, you exercised your discretion to follow the approach adopted by Speaker Milliken in the Afghan detainee matter by setting aside his ruling in order to allow the House leaders to “devise a means where both their concerns are met.”

This approach was taken for two reasons, as evident in your ruling. First, you recognize that there were two competing public interests at play: the interest of the committee in exercising its parliamentary privileges and the interest of the Minister of Energy in temporarily refraining from the disclosure of sensitive information in the midst of commercial negotiations and related proceedings. You also, Mr. Speaker, recognized an opportunity for the three parties, through “frank communication,” to settle the matter in a way that satisfied the request of the estimates committee. Your ruling, Mr.

Speaker, clearly laid out that this was a unique situation, unlike other cases of privilege, that warranted a unique solution.

Mr. Speaker having turned the matter over to the House leaders, members will be aware that the House leaders met on four separate occasions to determine whether a solution could be found. On this side of the House, we had high hopes that the parties would ultimately reach a solution which balanced these two competing interests, between the rights of the committee to ask for information and at the same time commercial and solicitor-client confidences.

The government tabled two separate proposals that would have facilitated the public release of the records while accommodating our concern about the ongoing commercial negotiations and related proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I remember back to those discussions, and I’m sad to say that the opposition rejected both of these out of hand. They were more interested in personal attacks than getting to the bottom of the issue.

We are now many months later, and much has changed. We have a new Premier in government, who has consistently spoken about our willingness to co-operate with the opposition. Minister Bentley is not only no longer Minister of Energy; he in fact is now a private citizen and has resigned his post as a member of provincial Parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, what hasn’t changed is the mean-spirited nature of the opposition in moving forward with this motion and rejecting our idea for a select committee that would look into all aspects of this and come forward with rulings or with recommendations which we think would be of value to all members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be voting for this motion. I would also like to say that, other than the comments that I have put on the record, we will not be participating in the debate. We want to move forward with the business of the people of Ontario.

What I am hoping for is that members of this House, and I’m particularly thinking of the New Democratic Party, will see their way forward to reject the motion that has been put forward by the member for Cambridge and at the same time that they will, by rejecting it, move forward with the select committee, which will have an opportunity to look at all aspects of this and make a responsible report moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I’m not hopeful of that. I believe that the fact is that we’re going to see the opposition come together to support this motion, which is aimed at a private citizen who did nothing more than try to deal with the precarious problem of balancing two interests. As a result, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have little hope that it’s not going to pass. So in closing, in order to make sure that the committee’s work is done in the most responsible fashion, I move that the motion be amended to add the following paragraph after the second paragraph:

“That, in exercising its authority throughout the committee proceedings, the committee shall adhere to the minimum standards of procedural fairness and the principles of fundamental justice, as required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Mr. Speaker, I think at a minimum that will protect the rights of the former Minister of Energy as well as other members that will come forward, so I’d like to move that motion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader moves that the motion be amended by adding the following paragraph after the second paragraph of the original motion:

I now offer an opportunity for further debate on the amendment.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’ll be speaking to the amendment and the context within which the amendment has been made.

As the House leader said, he’s disappointed with what’s happening in the chamber this morning, as are we with the response of the government. Speaker, it is as if the talking points from last fall have simply been taken out of the closet, put back on the page and read into Hansard. We are not seeing an approach by this government that recognizes that it’s going to have to work with the opposition. When Andrea Horwath made a very reasonable suggestion that a public inquiry be held so that this House would be able to do other work as well, that was spurned by this government. What we heard again today, what we hear now, is again the defence of the indefensible.

Speaker, unfortunately, the government did not support the thrust of a public inquiry. We have Mr. Leone’s motion. We intend to support that motion. We intend to have the hearings here at Queen’s Park. Obviously, those hearings have to be held within the context of constitutional guarantees and natural justice. Would anyone argue with that? I believe not—none. But for the government to suggest that all the documents have been provided, that all has been done that is necessary, stretches credibility to the breaking point.

You, Speaker, were here when you heard this House leader last fall attack us on this side of the House for questioning the completeness of the documentation that was provided. As I had said earlier, you do not have to be a lawyer to go through those documents and see that documents were missing. Clearly, either the House leader had not looked at the documents or the then Minister of Energy had not looked at the documents or others on the government side had not looked at the documents—which I find personally very hard to believe—or they were not representing what was the case. That will be determined through discussions and hearings and testimony in committee.

Speaker, there are substantial matters that have to be addressed in the course of those hearings at committee—substantial matters. One of the things that has struck us is that there are far more leads going into the then Premier’s office than seem to have come out in the documents. We put forward a request for information under freedom of information to the Premier’s office for any documents related to Project Vapour. In fact, Speaker, some of those documents from the Premier’s office were included in the second bundle that we were provided with. The response from the Premier’s office was that no such documents exist, although I have them in my hand.

We have appealed the response of the Premier’s office, and in part the response of the Premier’s office was, “We’re not required to hold onto documents.” We need to determine—and it is an open question at this point—if documents were destroyed in the course of this matter. And if they were, the seriousness of the matter before us is substantially heightened.

Speaker, as you are well aware, documents were presented in a media conference showing that a staff person from the Ministry of Energy attended at a meeting with staff from the Ontario Power Authority and told the staff from the Ontario Power Authority which documents to release and which documents not to release. The question arises, and must be answered: Who directed that staff person from the Ministry of Energy? What were her instructions? And why did a vice-president of the Ontario Power Authority listen to those instructions on what could and could not be released?

I think any reasonable person should look at the motion before us and understand the situation in which incomplete provision of documents was at first denied, then admitted, and then when further documentation, relevant to this case, tied to this case, was asked for, then further denied.

This Legislature has the legal right to demand documentation, demand that it not be withheld, and that those who were responsible for making the documentation available must answer for that, must provide the documentation and let us know—legislators standing in for the public, the people we represent—who made the decisions to hold back documents and for what reason. Because without that, Speaker, we don’t have rule by a democratically elected Legislature; we have rule by a very narrow group of people who are not open with the public, who are not accountable to the public.

It is critical that these committee hearings go forward, that the matter be put before us, and that the people of Ontario have an opportunity to understand fully what is at stake.

Speaker, it is my hope that if the Liberals will not vote for this resolution, that they will at least not continue the script of last fall and filibuster against this resolution. We have heard the arguments; we understand what’s at stake. I believe everyone in this House has had that opportunity to review them. I urge that we have a speedy debate, that we resolve it this morning, and that we go into committee and get to work.

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

The government House leader, Mr. Milloy, has an amendment to the motion:

All in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed?

The amendment carries.

Further debate on the motion?

We now have the motion on the floor, as amended.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

So moved.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Consideration of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Ms. Soo Wong: I move, seconded by my colleague the member from Ottawa–Orléans, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Wong, seconded by Mr. McNeely, moves that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

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

Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and humility that I accept the honour of presenting this motion and responding to the throne speech. Likewise, I am honoured and humbled to serve the residents of my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt and to serve in this second session of the 40th Parliament of Ontario.

Scarborough–Agincourt is a riding of diverse people, diverse needs and diverse ambitions, and it is through these many different talents, cultures, experiences and convictions that the residents of Scarborough–Agincourt maintain a strong, robust and caring community. It is a growing community committed to working together and helping each other.

The riding of Scarborough–Agincourt is much like all parts of Ontario. It is strong, it is growing, and it is a place to celebrate diversity of all citizens. I’m very proud to represent such a vibrant community. I’m thankful to all those who have come before me.

I’m especially grateful for the contribution of my predecessor, the Honourable Gerry Phillips, who represented Scarborough–Agincourt in this Legislature from 1987 to 2011. Mr. Phillips was a lifelong advocate for the people of Scarborough. Elected as a trustee, he served 11 years in the Scarborough Board of Education and the Metro Toronto School Board.

Our predecessors have laid a foundation for our continued success, not only in this Legislature but also for Ontarians from all parts of this province. A community cannot exist without visionaries, nor can it develop without the hard work of the dedicated citizens.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would suggest that it’s pretty loud in here, and I can’t hear the member. If we want to do 52 sidebars, you want to take them outside, please. I’d appreciate it. I can’t hear a word she’s saying, so due diligence is in order. Thank you.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are all truly fortunate to be a part of such a progressive province, and I’m honoured to serve the wonderful people of Scarborough–Agincourt.

Speaking of our histories and those visionaries who have led our province, yesterday His Honour took time to recognize one of his predecessors, an Ontario hero. He overcame personal adversity to be recognized nationally and internationally as a great Ontarian and a great Canadian. Of course, I’m speaking of the Honourable Lincoln Alexander. Before I continue, I would like to take a moment to honour this Ontario hero and tell a story dating back to my personal early experiences and interactions with the Honourable Lincoln Alexander.

Shortly after graduating from the University of Toronto, I spent much of my time volunteering and fundraising for cystic fibrosis. I was involved in organizing a city-wide fashion show and competition, with proceeds going to the Toronto

chapter of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. I wrote to His Honour, inviting him to the inaugural fashion show and competition. He responded to my letter personally, and he was keen to support both cystic fibrosis and young designers across the city of Toronto. His Honour attended the entire event and made sure every young designer was recognized for their contribution to the fashion show.

My other encounter with the Honourable Lincoln Alexander involved St. John Ambulance. I was a certified CPR and first aid instructor and participated in the annual St. John Ambulance first aid responders’ competition. His Honour attended this event. When he saw me across the room, he quickly came over and had a long conversation with me. I remember fondly his kind words, his sense of humour and caring nature. His Honour made sure that everyone who participated in the competition felt comfortable and have a role to play in saving another person’s life.

My family came to Ontario from Hong Kong in 1970. I was eight years old. My dad came to Canada earlier, in the early 1960s. Both my parents faced many challenges, such as learning a new language and adapting to a new way of life. I myself had to adapt to a new school system and learn how to make new friends. Yet despite the many challenges our family faced in the early years, we always knew Canada and Ontario would be the place of our new home.

My parents valued the importance of knowledge, duty, hard work and a need to help others. Hence, my sister, my brother and I have all pursued careers in health care. I’m here today because my parents pushed me to learn, but I’m also here today, Mr. Speaker, because our public education system provided me with the opportunity to learn and to grow.

As a graduate of Danforth technical institute, I was given many opportunities to excel, to get involved in various extracurricular activities and, most importantly, to contribute to my school community. I was first elected as a student council member but also was the first student council president and yearbook editor. I also had many great teachers, like Mr. Power, Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Calder and Vice-Principal Davidson, who all encouraged and challenged me with many ideas and thought processes.

During my undergraduate days as a nursing student, I saw the many challenges of vulnerable patients and their families. I learned very early in nursing school of the need to advocate for children, youth, seniors, women and new Canadians. What I learned is that education is a key social determinant of health, for success and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, for opportunity, and is an essential element for improving the lives of new Canadians.

For the past 10 years, this government has understood the need to build a strong public education system. As a former school board trustee, I have seen the positive results of the investments we have made in our schools. For example, we know that when kids eat healthy, they have a better learning experience and will therefore have a better chance to succeed. That’s why I’m very proud that this government passed the Healthy Food for Healthy Schools Act.

I was very proud to raise this issue in the House last year, when we passed the motion that designated May as healthy active month, and I’m very proud to be a member of the Healthy Kids panel, to develop a report that will help us to reduce childhood obesity by 20% over five years.

My riding of Scarborough–Agincourt also has great libraries, like the Bridlewood library, Agincourt library and Steeles library. For the past seven years, I have worked collaboratively with local youth and residents to create one of the most successful community-based reading programs, the reading circle. On most Saturdays, Mr. Speaker, you’ll find me participating in this weekly reading program supporting literacy in early years and providing opportunities for young people.

My riding of Scarborough–Agincourt is also a riding that looks after itself. For many years, Agincourt Community Services Association, better known as ACSA, has assisted those most in the need, providing food banks, job fairs and outreach. ACSA is a non-profit, multi-service agency at the heart of Agincourt, addressing needs and empowering children, youth, newcomers, homeless and underserved communities to build a better tomorrow. From providing youth with employment services, to establishing food banks, to stopping forced marriages, ACSA is one of the many organizations in my riding tailoring specialized services towards the specific needs of our diverse communities.

It is this most important aspect of my riding, Mr. Speaker—diversity—that Scarborough–Agincourt prides itself on. My riding has young people, seniors, Chinese, South Asians, Koreans, Japanese, Tamils, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists. Scarborough–Agincourt is also the first home of many new Canadians. That’s what’s great about Scarborough–Agincourt. At a time when countries like the United Kingdom and Germany have called multiculturalism a failure, my riding, like so many others in Canada, has shown that we can move forward together to build a strong community that respects and embraces diversity.

Together, Mr. Speaker, Scarborough–Agincourt has built a strong community, and I know we can do the same to continue to build a stronger Ontario. My proudest moment as an MPP is seeing our young people succeed, and this speech from the throne lays a foundation for the youth of Scarborough–Agincourt and across Ontario to grow up, to continue to succeed and to prosper.

Ontarians and the residents of Scarborough–Agincourt want to know that they and their families will be able to prosper as Ontario moves forward. They want assurances that their children will receive the best education available. They want to feel secure that they will continue to have an excellent post-secondary education system to further enhance knowledge and understanding and that Ontario will remain a leader in research and development. They want to feel confident that there will be jobs and opportunities for this generation and the next. And they want to know that when they need it, Ontario’s health care system will provide them with excellent and timely care.

The vision laid out yesterday in the throne speech outlined what is needed for the next generation, Mr. Speaker. When we’re talking about the economy, education, transit, health care, safety and jobs, we are really talking about a better province for our children and our children’s children.

Our government is committed to be fiscally responsible. Ontario’s finances are in steady hands. Our government will introduce a balanced approach to balancing the budget and will continue to implement the recommendations from the Drummond report, including the work to evaluate corporate tax compliance. The throne speech also outlined the government’s commitment to working collaboratively with the opposition and small businesses to explore an increase in the employer health tax exemption threshold.

Our government plans to renew partnership with businesses, educational institutions, not-for-profits and labour to build a modern, competitive and dynamic economy.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to education, Ontario has seen significant improvement, and I’m pleased that we will continue to work to protect these gains. As a former school trustee, I know that education is the key to a progressive and prosperous province. Test scores are up, dropout rates are down, Ontario’s class sizes are smaller and graduation rates are higher than ever.

This throne speech also highlights this government’s commitment to keep building early childhood education, including the successful extension of full-day kindergarten. This is providing our children with the head start they need to be successful in a competitive global economy. In the throne speech, our government spoke about respecting our teachers, support staff, principals and school boards.

Our government also recognizes that young people must be given an opportunity to be literate in the languages of tomorrow so that they can pursue the paths of their choosing and prepare for the challenges ahead. Our government is determined to support, nurture and respect our young people. Through the new creation of the permanent Premier’s Youth Advisory Council, our youth will be given an opportunity to work together, to believe in themselves, to be creative, to critically think and to support their entrepreneurial spirit. Ontario’s youth are among some of the brightest innovators in the world and we need to put them to work.

In Scarborough–Agincourt last year, a couple of high school students received international recognition. Together, two young teenagers from Scarborough’s Agincourt Collegiate Institute in my riding successfully sent a Lego-man to the edge of space, and they have video to prove it. Using a weather balloon, some Lego, a video camera and some imagination, these young people captured stunning images and captured the interest of viewers from around the world, proving that when supported with necessary resources, Ontario’s young people are ready to innovate and change the world.

Our government believes our First Nation, Métis and Inuit children must share in every opportunity. In the throne speech, our government indicated our commitment to close the gap with their peers so that First Nation, Métis and Inuit children and youth can live, learn, play and prosper.

The jobs of the future require a workforce educated for the future. The way forward is an accessible post-secondary education system that recognizes the necessity of mobility and affordability. That is why this throne speech continues to commit to the 30% off tuition fee grant for students from families earning less than $160,000. This is an investment we must continue to protect and that will ensure that youth in Ontario are among the most highly educated in the world.

Our government is committed to expanding the availability of French post-secondary programs in central and southwestern Ontario. That’s the right thing to do.

We also recognize that young people need to find jobs, good jobs—not just any jobs; good jobs. Youth unemployment is a serious problem. We need to do better. I have worked with business leaders in my riding to find new and innovative ways to create jobs for young people. This past Saturday I hosted a job fair at a local mall in my riding, and brought together employers, employment services, self-employment and entrepreneur opportunities and job seekers. Nearly 1,000 people participated.

I know that this exciting and successful event will mean that many young people in my riding will be able to find part-time and summer employment. It is with this type of new thinking and collaboration that we can move forward.

We will need to help youth and the unemployed find a new path into the workforce. By joining forces with educators, colleges, universities, training partners and employers, we will develop new opportunities for young people and the unemployed to find employment and develop skills. We will commit to creating partnerships, co-op placements and programs that bring students from the classroom into the workforce, developing skills and preparing for the next generation of engineers, entrepreneurs, nurses and educators.

Our government believes in establishing opportunities for young people to enhance their skills and find placements in other co-op programs which will enable them to gain valuable, real-world experiences.

In Scarborough–Agincourt, we have many co-op and internship opportunities for our young people to have experiential learning and internship. But our government believes that young people need to prepare with the appropriate tools for the right time.

We also believe that an educated, skilled and diverse workforce is Ontario’s greatest strength. This is something that I see every day in Scarborough–Agincourt: The many different talents of residents result in a creative, caring society and a viable workforce for almost any company in any sector. We will use this diversity to bring new investment to Ontario. By visiting emerging markets such as Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America, our government will develop meaningful partnerships with foreign enterprises and governments as well as focusing on creating good jobs for Ontarians.

Capitalizing on creating trade corridors and expanding our infrastructure where necessary will make Ontario even more attractive to global markets. Our government is committed to facilitating the smooth transfer of goods through important hubs like Windsor, across the Detroit River international crossing. The improvement of this important international crossing will open new opportunities and expand the network of our possibilities with valuable international partners.

We also believe in looking within our own borders to explore new economic terrains. Entrepreneurs and small business owners are the backbone of our communities. This government will ensure that these entrepreneurs and community leaders receive the capital they will require to grow, and growth means jobs. For young Ontarians, this will mean the ability to create their own jobs.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to thank the member, and I’ll reassure the member that once debate begins again this afternoon, she’ll have the floor. It is now 10:15; this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome to the House my wife, Kate Bartz, and my brother-in-law, a University of Laurier student, Harrison Bartz.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’d like to welcome Laura Van Harmelen, who’s a student in my office and a student at Ryerson University.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m extremely pleased to introduce to the House Doug and Linda Reid, who are on my right in the members’ gallery. They are sitting in the gallery for a special reason. They’re here because they’re grandparents; they’re the grandparents of one of our pages, Lauren George, who is a page from my riding of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today our page captain from Thornhill, Daniella Mikanovsky, and her family in the west members’ gallery: Moshe Mikanovsky, Hagit Mikanovsky, Abigail Mikanovsky and Talia Mikanovsky, all with us. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to welcome the family of page Justin O’Brien from my riding of Pickering−Scarborough East to the Ontario Legislature today. We have his parents, Anne-Marie and Paul O’Brien, in the members’ gallery and brother Adam O’Brien. His grandparents were here earlier: Annette Spahn and Jack O’Brien. Justin is serving as page captain today. Welcome, Justin.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): During the recess, vacancies have occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Christopher Bentley as the member of the electoral district of London West and Dwight Duncan as the member of the electoral district of Windsor–Tecumseh, both effective February 14, 2013. Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for these by-elections.

TABLING OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): During the recess, the following reports of parliamentary officers were tabled:

—on October 19, 2012, the 2010-11 annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer and the 2011 general election post-event report from the Chief Electoral Officer;

—on October 24, 2012, a report entitled In the Line of Duty from the Ombudsman;

—on October 30, 2012, an annual report, 2011-12, open meeting law enforcement team from the Ombudsman;

—on November 15, 2012, financial statements from the year ended March 31, 2011, and March 31, 2012, from the Auditor General; and a report regarding the privacy breach of Elections Ontario from the Chief Electoral Officer; and the Chief Electoral Officer’s Report on Privacy at Elections Ontario;

—on December 4, 2012, the 2012 annual greenhouse gas progress report from the Environmental Commissioner;

—on December 12, 2012, the 2012 annual report of the Auditor General;

—on January 3, 2013, the 2011-12 annual report from the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth;

—on January 8, 2013, the annual energy conservation progress report, 2011, volume 1, from the Environmental Commissioner; and

—on February 6, 2013, the 2011 annual report from the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let me first say on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus: We want to extend our congratulations and best wishes to the now 25th Premier of the province of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne. It was, Speaker, a special moment to see—

Interjection: Put that in an ad.

Mr. Tim Hudak: “Put that in an ad”—to see Jane here and the grandkids behind—a very special moment. So, congratulations.

Speaker, I have the very simple and direct first question for Premier Wynne. Premier, why did you leave the concept of a wage freeze out of your throne speech altogether?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this House, in this role, and an honour.

Thank you very much for the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I made it clear in our throne speech—we made it clear that our priority is to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. We have worked over the past months to negotiate with the broader public sector to make sure that wage constraints were in place. But Mr. Speaker, we are not in the business, on this side of the House, of making decisions that will constrain us in the future. We’re not in the business of slashing.

We’re not in the business of disrespecting or denigrating the people who deliver the services that are so important to the people of Ontario. So, working with employees, working with the people who deliver services, is the tack that we will take, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, obviously, Speaker, that gives us grave concern that the Premier is signalling that all bets are off when it comes to controlling spending in the province of Ontario. We have a view of a stronger province of Ontario, an Ontario that leads Canada again, that leads us in job creation and to make sure that we don’t mortgage the future of our kids or grandkids by running up the debt.

The Premier said in her throne speech that she thinks it’s essential that the OPS is treated with respect. The point that I have is, it’s the taxpayers who have not been treated with respect by the previous Premier—or this one. I want to make sure we’re absolutely clear to the Premier: Are you telling us today that the wage freeze is now off the table altogether?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to examine what the premise of this question is. I think the premise of this question is, there is only one way to be fiscally responsible. I reject that, Mr. Speaker. I reject the notion that the only way to be fiscally responsible is to do it the way that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.

As MPPs, we have led the way by taking a five-year wage freeze, Mr. Speaker. We have put in place program spending restraints to reduce Ontario’s debt-to-GDP. We’ve said we’re going to eliminate the deficit by 2017. We have said that we are going to put those constraints in place, and we’ve been doing it. We have worked with the public sector. We have brought in 0% increases. We have put that wage constraint in place. That’s what we will continue to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Respectfully, Premier, let me just examine the premise of my question. Are you in favour of a public sector wage freeze or are you opposed to a public sector wage freeze?

When public sector wages make up at least 55% of public sector spending, it seems to me obvious that the first step you need to take to control spending is to freeze wages across the board. That will save us $2 billion a year.

You had moved to do that at least with teachers, but what we saw was a government that then threw that legislation overboard and demoted the cabinet minister who was responsible for the wage freeze at the time.

Premier, your first decision was to increase the size of your cabinet by 25%. I think I’m hearing today that you’re also abandoning a wage freeze goal in the province of Ontario.

I’ll ask you again: Clearly, yes or no, are you saying that a province-wide, across-the-board wage freeze for the public service has been abandoned by the Liberal government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just specifically on the wage freeze, Mr. Speaker: The current 12-month average annual wage increase for the broader public service is 0.2%. Wage constraint is in place. We have been working on that and we are having success.

But here’s what I support: I support fiscal responsibility, I support economic growth and I support increased employment in the context of a fair society. That’s who we are. That’s what the people of Ontario expect. We are going to do everything in our power to move forward on that fiscal responsibility and that fair society. That is what we stand for, Mr. Speaker and I believe it is what the people of Ontario expect us to do.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: The Premier references a fair society. Fairness also means that those in the private sector need to get a break as well. They’ve had higher taxes, they are paying more and more, and they’ve seen their wages stagnate or drop. You now are indicating that the floodgates are open for increased spending in the public sector; the wage freeze is now off.

The Fraser Institute put out a study today, Speaker, that shows the disparity between the exact same job in the private sector compared to the public sector. I think an issue of fairness is that if you do the same job in government as in the private sector, the pay should be equal. The opportunities should be there. You shouldn’t have this kind of dichotomy that the McGuinty Liberals drive.

So cabinet is larger; the wage freeze is off. I understand why the public sector union leaders were all smiles yesterday. It looks like spending is going to continue.

Can the Premier identify in the throne speech what particular McGuinty government programs she is going to reverse or eliminate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The work that we’ve been doing over the past few months and the work that my colleague the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has been doing is exactly the work that has to be done to make government sustainable, to make the health care system sustainable, to transform the way we deliver services that actually will meet the needs of the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

It is very easy to stand up and to use a sound bite that sounds reasonable but actually would not lead to the kind of change that has to happen. So if we look at health care spending, and I know the Minister of Health will want to address this because it is the biggest budget item, the changes that we’re making are changes that will put the health care system on a sustainable footing, that will take people out of costly acute care beds and deliver service in the community and at home, Mr. Speaker. That’s the kind of intelligent change that needs to happen.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On the issue of competitiveness and support for the private sector, Mr. Speaker, we are a competitive jurisdiction. If you look at our neighbouring jurisdictions, we are competitive, and that’s why jobs are coming to the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: If I follow the Premier’s argument, she seems to indicate now that a public sector wage freeze is not a reasonable proposition. She seems to be backpedalling from that. I guess they’re now joining the NDP in opposing a public sector wage freeze.

I guess the good news, Speaker, is that if you believe that Ontario is on the right track, you now have two parties to choose from: the Liberals and the NDP. But if you think Ontario is on the wrong track and we need a better approach, a better plan to get Ontario back on top, the choice is clear: The PC Party has that plan.

Let me ask the Premier directly again my second question. Premier, can you point out, in your throne speech—aside from banning the wage freeze, can you tell me one Dalton McGuinty program that you’re going to reverse, one Dalton McGuinty policy that you’re not going to implement? Or is the new Premier a lot like the old Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about how we are going to make the services that we deliver to the people of the province sustainable, because I think that should be the objective of all the parties in this House. How are we going to create conditions that will allow business and will encourage business to come to the province to create jobs?

To the question about competitiveness, since 2007 we have got seven examples here of how we have reduced taxes, created an environment for the private sector: the accelerated elimination of capital tax; the cutting of the capital tax rate by 21% retroactive to January 1, 2007; budget cut taxes, $750 over four years; enhanced tax credits for businesses that hire apprentices; extended Ontario Innovation Tax Credit to more businesses. The HST, which, as we know, was a Conservative policy that they abandoned when we brought it in, brings $500 million annually in savings for businesses. We cut the corporate income tax rate from 14% to 12% in 2010.

Those are all policies and decisions that we made, Mr. Speaker, that have made us more competitive and that I would have expected the Leader of the Opposition to support, and that’s the kind of work that we’re going to do going forward: creating the conditions for business to come to Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think we all found it rather concerning when the Premier, after winning the Liberal leadership, indicated she wanted to continue the Dalton McGuinty legacy. I sense that Ontarians are looking for change. They’re looking for a bold new path that says Ontario can actually lead again, that we can be the leaders in Canada, but I’m hearing a lot of the same Dalton McGuinty talking points that we heard four months ago when we last met.

I want to ask the Premier again, to make sure that I understand—you’ve abandoned the wage freeze. Can you point out, specifically in your throne speech, one policy from Dalton McGuinty that you reject, one Dalton McGuinty spending program that you are going to reverse or eliminate? How are you going to balance the budget if you keep going down the Dalton McGuinty path?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to say what I’ve been saying publicly for the last couple of weeks: I have been a proud member of a government for the last nine years that has repaired damage that was done by the party opposite, a party that closed hospitals, a party that—

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you. There’s so much to say here—a party that undermined our publicly funded education system, a party that undermined our public health system, and a party that did not pay attention to the needs of the people in this province.

I am not abandoning the work that our government has done for nine years. We are now at a point where we are going to move forward. I am going to build on those strengths and I am going to make sure that our education system, our health care system and our care of the vulnerable are part of a fiscally responsible government going forward.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let me first, on behalf of New Democrats—if I can get a second—congratulate the Premier. Premier Wynne, congratulations on your victory and on taking your place in this House for question period.

Now to my question: Ontarians have been waiting a long time for us to get back to business here, and one of the biggest challenges that’s facing many of them is finding a job. We’ve made it clear that we prefer to reward companies when they put young people to work and not when they shift profits out of the province. We heard a lot of promises in the throne speech, but can the Premier explain what tax loopholes she plans to close, when she plans to close them and whether there will be new programs to tackle youth unemployment or just more of the same old status quo that’s left 16% of our young people out of work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you for the question from the leader of the third party. I am, as I have said consistently, looking forward to working with the opposition. I had hoped that we would be able to work with both parties, and I still hold out that hope. Hope springs eternal.

To the question about the corporate tax compliance issue that we raised in the throne speech yesterday and the youth unemployment programs: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I believe the budget consultations are beginning tonight, and we are going to be talking with people across the province about their concerns and about the specifics that they would like to share with us about how we need to go forward.

We’ve laid some very clear directions. We’ve said very clearly that we want to look at those corporate tax compliance issues. That’s what’s happening now. We’ve also said that we want to work on youth unemployment. And the specific programs, Mr. Speaker? That’s the stuff of the discussion going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For people looking for work, the details actually matter. They matter quite a lot. The throne speech indicated that the Premier is ready to increase the employer health tax exemption to help small business. Is the Premier ready to actually close the loophole, however, that allows some of the largest corporations in the province to use an exemption that, in fact, was designed for small business?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the issues that the leader of the third party raises are issues that need to be looked at. That’s part of the discussion that we need to have going forward. What I know, if we talk about youth unemployment—to go back to her first question—is that young people are looking for jobs and there’s often a mismatch between the labour force and the labour market.

I want to make sure—and I think the leader of the third party does as well, and I would hope the Leader of the Opposition—that young people have a pathway into work, whether that’s through an internship or whether it’s through a co-op or a placement of some kind, and that we can work with the colleges, with the universities, with the skilled trades, with labour and with business to provide a systematic way to provide those opportunities for young people.

That’s the kind of discussion that I would like to have going forward with the members of the opposition, but also with the people of Ontario, because I know that there are ideas out there. There are people who already know programs that exist, and we need to tap into those ideas.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: We need a little less discussion and a lot more action—a little less conversation and a lot more action. Young people are not going to be young forever, Speaker, and that’s the reality.

But the Premier’s current fiscal plan also includes a new loophole that’s about to take place in 2015. That’s going to hand Ontario’s largest corporations a tax break when they expense meals and entertainment. All told, these loopholes will cost the public over $1 billion.

We’ve been pretty clear: When thousands and thousands and thousands of young people are out of a job, tax breaks for wining and dining clients should not be the priority here in Ontario. Is the Premier going to stick with her planned giveaway for 2015 or is she ready to offer some real change that will create jobs for youth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In terms of what’s needed right now, I think we actually do need to make sure that the people of the province have the opportunity to have input on the throne speech and on the run-up to the budget. I would have thought that the leader of the third party would have wanted that, would have wanted us to have an opportunity to talk with the people of Ontario about the specifics.

I recognize that there are young people who are looking for jobs. I recognize that we need to get on that file. It’s something that is a high priority for me.

The other issue that she’s raised about the corporate tax compliance—those are the things that the Minister of Finance is looking at. We’ve already said that we are interested in looking at those concerns and we are engaged in that.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my next question is to the Premier as well. The people who make this province work every day have been waiting a long time for MPPs to get back to business here. Now that we’re here, we owe it to them to deliver some positive change and some results. We’ve put forward a very achievable plan that will help companies that want to help put young people back to work instead of handing tax breaks to companies that want to shift taxes out of the province or want to write off the sales tax on dinners and drinks.

Is the Premier ready to move beyond the conversation and take some action for the people of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes, I am. I’m willing to move beyond the conversation, but I think we have to have the conversation.

I’m so pleased to be back in the House, and we got here in record time. I know that there was an eagerness to get back. They said that we couldn’t get back in three weeks, and here we are.

I am committed to working; I am committed to moving into action. But we need to have those pre-budget discussions. We need to make sure that we hear from the people of the province on specifics. We need to make sure that the suggestions that are being put forward by the opposition and suggestions that are being put forward by my caucus can be fine-tuned and that we can make sure that we come up with the right answers and the right programs. That’s why we’re going to take some time, as we lead up to the budget, to have those discussions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Gee, I don’t know who the heck the Liberals have been talking to for the last four or five years, but New Democrats have been talking to Ontarians who want some real action on jobs and fairness in this province. Young people are looking for work or being forced to wait years to start their career. They don’t want vague promises; they want a job.

We’ve put forward an achievable plan that will start putting people back to work this spring. Is the Premier ready to implement it, or can we expect the same old status-quo ideas that have left 16% of our young people in this province out of work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since the recession, we have more than 400,000 net new jobs in this province. That is a very, very strong record of achievement. So the work that we’ve been doing over the last few years has actually created jobs. Whether we talk about infrastructure spending or the Second Career Program, we have put in place very, very strong supports for helping people get into the job market.

But there’s more to be done. We absolutely acknowledge that there’s more to be done, and youth employment is a very specific targeted area. So those are the things that we are going to work on. We’re going to work on putting programs in place for youth employment. We’re going to work with small business, and the leader of the third party has talked about the employer health tax exemption. We’re going to work on that. We’re going to put in place new venture capital that will allow small and medium enterprises to have access to capital to create jobs. And, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to continue to invest in infrastructure and transit. Those are all things that are going to continue to create jobs, and I look forward to working with the opposition on that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I really do appreciate that the Premier has not been on the job all that long, but the people of Ontario have been waiting a very long time. We owe it to them to go beyond the vague promises and get down to actually delivering results ASAP. That means the Premier is going to have to make some real decisions and some real choices. Is she going to move forward with plans to open tax loopholes to help corporations with entertainment expenses, or is she ready to move forward with plans to open opportunity for young people and reward the companies that are ready to work with us to do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we’re going to be looking at all of those issues, and I think that the leader of the third party understands that. The directions that we laid out in the throne speech yesterday made it very clear that those are all issues that are of concern to us and that we are going to develop plans to implement changes in those areas because we know that people do need to know that there’s action coming. They need to know that we’re going to take action in the budget on those very issues, and between now and the budget there are things that we can do.

I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that we are ready to make an investment in the venture capital fund. I have already said that we are going to be working on issues around the Ontario Brain Institute and that we are going to be making those investments. So we will not wait for the budget, Mr. Speaker, to take some action, but we will move to action as we move into the budget discussions.

POWER PLANTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. On February 14, Premier, you publicly announced that you were prepared to call a select committee to get to the bottom of the gas plant scandal. Premier, can you inform this House whether you had asked for any strings to be attached to this committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the opposition has made another choice, that they have chosen to send the issue that was raised this morning to a standing committee. So my hope is that they certainly will support the establishment of all of those standing committees.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, we still don’t really have an answer. The Premier has publicly committed to getting to the bottom of the gas plant scandal by striking a select committee. However, there’s a discrepancy between what the Premier is telling Ontarians and what she’s telling the opposition. Publicly, the Premier is saying she wants to strike a committee, but privately she’s telling us that she wants us to withdraw our privilege motion before she does that.

Premier, you can’t bargain your way out of this mess. You can’t compromise the interests of taxpayers in a partisan way with this, and neither will we. Premier, can you tell Ontarians you’re serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal by striking a select committee with no strings attached?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I was listening carefully, and I was deciding whether or not to interrupt immediately. I will caution all members of making comments around the way in which one might be called to order by the Speaker regarding what you say about another member in the House. So I think I went around the same way you went around it, and hopefully we will refrain from doing so.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will certainly let the House leader, in future questions, deal with this because, obviously, the House leader has been part of these conversations.

But I just want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I have said that the questions that are being raised by the opposition need answers. I have said that we will do everything in our power to provide opportunities for those questions to be answered. I have said that I will appear before committees if I am asked to appear before a committee. I have said that we offered to set up a select committee.

The opposition has chosen a different route. The opposition has chosen to take another route and to have the discussion in a standing committee. I offered a select committee; they took a different route. I hope they will at least support the establishment of all the standing committees when that motion is raised.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is for the Premier. Does the government have a plan to give safe drivers in Ontario a break by actually ensuring that insurance rates in Ontario are cut?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you. Before I begin, I’d just like to congratulate the Premier on a well-run campaign and on putting forth a positive vision for the province of Ontario, which brings me to your question.

We want to continue remaining positive in terms of what we need to do going forward. We’ve implemented the recommendations of the anti-fraud task force on auto insurance, and that’s essential. We need to get to the root cause of the problem. Certainly in Ontario things are much more expensive than they are in other parts of Canada, so we have to ensure what we do going forward enables us to reduce the overall cost so that we can again provide better rates going forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Well, the issue is this: For two years, drivers in Ontario have been told that rates will be coming down. For two years, they’ve been told that rates would be coming down. But what has happened is that rates have gone up instead. Industry figures have shown that we’ve already addressed the costs. In fact, from 2010, policy changes by this government have saved insurance companies in this province $2 billion in the year 2011; $2 billion of savings have already come forward. But the issue is that at the same time, our premiums have gone up by 5%.

So the issue is this: We are now being told that we have to wait for more reforms—more reforms—until drivers can see some savings and their premiums coming down. That’s simply unacceptable. It’s time for results.

At a time when millions of Ontarians are struggling to make ends meet, will this government act to ensure that rates actually come down and that those savings—those $2 billion of savings—are passed on to drivers in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Well, the fact is that in 2012, rates decreased by 0.2%, and our plan has started to work.

Interjection.

Hon. Charles Sousa: But it has. What we do need to do going forward is to ensure that we do protect our ratepayers. We know that things have been difficult, but something is wrong in that there’s so much that appears to be excess cost in our system. We have to get at that root cause, and the report brought forward talks about how to do just that. We can’t make this a band-aid solution. We have to get at the issues, and I welcome your input to enable us to get at that resolve. So I will commit to doing just that going forward, and I do say that some of the transformations we’ve put forward have already resulted in the stabilization of some of those rates, but more needs to be done.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is to the Minister of Education. New parents in western Mississauga are concerned about the education of their youngest children. To compete in the knowledge-based economy of the future, we have to be innovative in our approach to education and early learning. Parents need their children to have access to a high quality of education as soon as possible, and parents need to know their children are in the best possible environment to ensure their future success.

Minister, please tell this House what your ministry has done to ensure that young Ontarians will be able to compete in the highly competitive global economy of the future.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for his question—my very first question—and thank him for his advocacy on behalf of the students and schools in his riding.

I just want to assure everyone that part of the Wynne government’s commitment to the parents of Ontario is that we will continue the rollout of full-day kindergarten. We know that’s the most important transformation in our school system in a generation and we know it’s working. In fact, Speaker, there’s an initial study from the University of Toronto looking at those first enrolments in full-day kindergarten, and it says they are succeeding.

I want to say to everyone, I am so pleased to be in this role, coming full circle with my history in education, and I look forward to working with everybody here in the House, including my critics.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Thank you very much, Minister. I’m sure the minister, as did I, watched President Obama’s State of the Union address last week in which the United States realized that for their own youngest learners, they need full-day kindergarten. So as the United States copies Ontario, we realize that full-day kindergarten is an important step in long-term education planning, and we are at the forefront here in Ontario.

Minister, moms and dads want their children to become life-long learners, and some people are concerned about the immediate impact full-day kindergarten will have on child care. Many parents have been accustomed to leaving their children at daycare centres or at other facilities. Minister, what will full-day kindergarten mean for child care in neighbourhoods in western Mississauga such as Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville, and across Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: As the member correctly notes, full-day kindergarten will in fact have an impact on other parts of our early education system. We recognize that FDK will have an impact on child care, and that’s exactly why we have already announced additional funding to support the transition to a modernized child care system here in Ontario.

Full-day learning is the best start that we can give our 4- and 5-year-olds, and what we’re going to continue to do is to roll it out, which is in contrast to the official opposition, which can’t quite decide whether they’re for it, whether they’re against it, whether they’re cancelling it. We’re not quite sure what they’re going to do from day to day.

But we know what we’re going to do, and because we are committed to rolling out full-day kindergarten, that also means that we need to work on child care. We will be working on child care with our partners. We put in place new funding, last year, this year, next year, all of it focused on making sure the child care system can adjust.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I want to make a comment about the decorum. It’s a concern that I have and I’m going to state it now. Some people, when they stand to speak—I’ve heard, because I’m trying to pay attention to the question but also pay attention to what’s going on in the House, personalized comments about someone’s position or someone’s place in this place and their abilities. That does not help this place. I want it to stop and I will deal with it if I hear it again.

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Premier, may I begin by offering my congratulations to you as well.

This morning, we heard two point-of-privilege motions. According to our standing orders, Speaker, they had to be brought out at the first possible opportunity or become null. They dealt strictly with the contempt issues pertaining to ordered documents not being turned over to this Legislature.

Premier, at this point, I’d like to speak about a completely separate matter: the issue of the actual cancellation of the gas plants. In your letter to our leader, you promised to strike a select committee to “get to the bottom” of the gas plant story. Premier, when will you strike this committee?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I’ve already answered this question, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that we were offering to strike a select committee. The opposition chose a different route, and they are going to have this discussion in a different venue. I would have thought that a select committee would have been a very good way to answer the questions that have been raised by the official opposition. As I say, they’ve chosen to take another route. That is their prerogative, but it is their choice and they have made that decision, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I fail to see how one has to do with the other, so let me reiterate: The two point-of-privilege motions are to determine who ordered the documents not to be produced.

Speaker, in your original ruling, you stated, “The right to order production of documents is fundamental to and necessary for proper functioning of the assembly.” That is one issue.

The issue I’m now referring to is a completely separate issue. It’s the Premier’s promise to investigate the actual gas plant scandal through her promise to form a select committee. So I repeat my question: When will you form that select committee to investigate the gas plant scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the House leader, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

First of all, let’s just keep it down. Second of all, I’ll do my job. I don’t need other people to tell me when it’s too loud. You can all hear when it’s too loud.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I think it’s important that we put on the record there’s no surprise here. In fact, if members opposite had heard my comments this morning, I made it very clear. We sat down with the opposition, we acknowledged the concern over the gas plants issue, and we said there were two possible ways to go forward. One was through a select committee of the Legislature which would have a wide berth and could come back to the Legislature with what we felt was a useful report. The other, Mr. Speaker, was to follow up on what, quite frankly, was a vindictive and mean-spirited attack on a private citizen, a former member of the Legislature.

The choice was left with the opposition, Mr. Speaker, and this morning, a little after 9 a.m., they made their choice.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Well, actually, that’s perfect timing for the question, but I will tell the member from Simcoe–Grey to come to order.

HOME CARE

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

I have a simple question this morning: Will the minister and her government take the needs of more than 6,000 Ontarians seriously and implement a five-day home care guarantee so that timely care can be delivered in every community of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to have that question from my critic from the third party. Enhancing home care is a foundational and key part—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —of the transformation of health care. We have made difficult decisions within our health care budget so that we can invest more in home care. We know that there are too many people in hospital who could be at home with appropriate care. We know that too many people are moving into long-term care before they really need to, that they could be supported at home.

So our seniors strategy and our action plan have as foundational elements the enhancement of home care. We are clearly moving in that direction. We’ve reduced wait times from 13 days to nine days for people being discharged from hospital. We are moving in that direction, and I’m delighted to have the support of the NDP in that initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Yesterday in the throne speech, we saw reference to the problem, but for people waiting for home care, they need to see solutions. Today, some Ontarians have to wait up to six months for home care. I think that this is unacceptable.

Can the minister assure Ontarians that yesterday’s reference in the throne speech, as well as the importance that they have given home care, will translate into results, and that the result would be a home-care warranty to ensure people get home care within five days?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important to clarify that there is no wait time for people who have acute needs and who are being discharged from hospital. They will get home care immediately.

I referenced a statistic, and I’ll clarify it right now: If they’re already in the community, the wait time has gone from 13 days to nine days. And because of our enhanced investments in home care, we will continue to see that number decline.

It’s very important that we provide the right care in the right place at the right time. We need to get people back home when they are ready to go home, with the right supports, and as I said earlier, I am delighted that the NDP and our party are on the very same page when it comes to enhancing supports.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Labour. I want to begin by congratulating the minister on his recent appointment to cabinet. I know he’ll do a fantastic job for the people of Ontario.

Minister, it seems to me that the new labour policies that have been developed in Michigan recently have stirred up quite a bit of trouble. I’ve heard that their state Legislature and the grounds of their Legislature were full of protesters warning of the terrible trouble that these policies would have on that state’s economy.

Now, I understand that the Ontario PCs have issued multiple papers outlining their thoughts on various policy issues and that they’ve actually introduced one on this particular subject. It is this PC labour scheme that has my constituents in Vaughan worried. When they hear phrases like “right to work,” they are concerned that the extreme right-wing policies of the United States are making their way to Canada, and they’re reminded of President Obama’s wise comment that workers are actually being given the right to work for less.

My constituents tell me that they’re worried that these schemes will lower their wages and have an adverse effect on their families and on our economy. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, how does our government’s approach differ from the official opposition’s interest in the right to work for less?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock. I will use this as an opportunity to provide somewhat of a warning regarding policy questions directly. The

preamble was setting the table for a possible question and it’s very edgy as to whether or not it was a direct response to government policy, so I’ll remind all members that your question should be based on government policy.

Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Applause.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you. I want to thank the member for Vaughan for asking a very important question and thank the member for Vaughan for his work on occupational work and safety and safety of our workers and for progressive labour relations in our province.

And the member is right, Speaker: Michigan has taken drastic steps against labour, and with great controversy. In doing so, they are jeopardizing fair wages, health and safety and quality of life for their workers.

We have seen similar proposals from the opposition in that regard, and changes are being articulated to the Ontario Labour Relations Act through this party. Speaker, I have to say that their position is disturbing, in a sense, because instead of talking about collaboration, working with our labour partners, what we’ve seen is a “divide” policy—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. While I said that about the question, the same holds true about the answer. Get focused on policy, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Speaker. And I think it is important that the policies they’re talking about are policies that are in place in our laws and our rules and regulations, policies around the Rand formula, which was implemented province-wide in the 1980s by the Progressive Conservative Premier Bill Davis.

Speaker, these policies ensure that we have fair wages in our province, that we are not having a race to the bottom. We need to ensure that that continues. Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that I’ve given that warning I’ll be listening intently to both the question and the answer for policy.

Supplementary.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, through you, to the minister for that answer.

I do certainly find it very interesting that there are people in Ontario currently who seem to be calling for the reversal of some important legislation that had been previously implemented by a Progressive Conservative Premier, Bill Davis.

Minister, it seems to me and it seems to the people of my community that we here in Ontario are in a very good position. Our economy has recovered more than 100% of the jobs lost during the last recession. Our minimum wage has increased—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to hear the question.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: —by almost 50% since 2003 after nine consecutive years of zero increases—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t like to have to say it again.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: —and our government has built up and maintained a high standard of living for all Canadians.

Again, some seem convinced bringing in certain types of schemes will increase wages and bring jobs to the province, but I understand that the preferred option for those individuals would actually do the opposite.

Minister, in general, what has the experience been for states that have implemented such regressive policies?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not acceptable.

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If I may first congratulate the Premier and let her know I’m wearing a pantsuit in her honour today. The women in this chamber are allowed to do that.

My question is to the Premier. On September 25, you told this chamber that the opposition had all the documents pertaining to the cancelled gas plants. Your House leader told us we had the documents, your community safety minister told us we had the documents, your new Minister of Energy told us we had the documents, but the OPA proved that we didn’t. They engaged in an elaborate scheme of hide-and-seek to withhold documents from this side of the assembly, and now this Premier is paying lip service to the very transparency that she told us she was going to give us with a select committee. There must be explosive information in those documents.

My question: Will she cut the strings that are attached to her promise and her commitment? Will she release the documents, and will she tell us what she knew and when she knew it with respect to these cancelled gas plants?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: At any particular moment when I have stood in this Legislature or I have stood in public and I have made a statement about what I know or what I don’t know, I have told the truth as I understand it. I have honestly given all the information that I have, and I have said that I will appear before the committee if I am called on.

We have said repeatedly that the decisions that were made early on—I have said that I regret that we had not been able to make a different decision at the front end of that decision around the placement of the gas plants. I regret that that process was not better, leading up to the placement of those gas plants. But I have also said—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order—second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that any questions that the opposition is asking, we are going to do everything in our power to provide the answers to those questions, to provide the documents that they’re asking for. We’ve said that we will do that. That’s why I offered a select committee, Mr. Speaker. They’ve taken another path—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, if she wanted to provide the documents, she’d do that right now. If she wanted to provide transparency, she’d have that select committee struck this week. If she cared about telling Ontarians the truth, she’d do it right now. But she hasn’t.

There are five indisputable facts. This member, this Premier, was a Liberal MPP for nine years. For seven years, she sat in the McGuinty cabinet. She rose quickly to become the campaign chair of the campaign team that decided to cancel those power plants to a cost of a billion dollars to our taxpayers, and she hand-picked the biggest beneficiary of that cancelled power plant, made him her finance minister and sat him beside her. Mr. Speaker, that’s not all. She came to this assembly telling us she’d work with us, and now all we see is further obstruction.

Will she cut the strings for that select committee? Will she call it this week? And will we get the answers to know what she knew and when she knew it, so Ontarians can finally put this issue to bed?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have every faith in our House leader’s ability to negotiate the waters of this discussion. But because this is the first day in the Legislature, and because these questions are coming at me today, I want to establish my approach to this, which has been to say from the beginning that I am committed to being open and transparent. I am committed to providing the information in the documents. That’s why I asked the Auditor General to look at both cases. That’s why we offered a select committee. That’s why I said I would appear before the committee.

I will do everything in my power, but we cannot do that alone. We have to have a partner to work with, and the opposition has to make choices that will allow us to get to the bottom of the questions that they’re asking. If they really want the information, then they need to provide the opportunities for that information to come out.

They’ve made a choice; it’s not a choice that I understand. I thought that they would have wanted to have a select committee, but they’ve made another choice, and I don’t think having redundancy is valuable. They’ve made a choice, and so they will have to—

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

New question.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago, families in Windsor learned that they will be losing 30 beds at the Windsor Regional Hospital, and 58 much-needed new beds, which the government promised for Windsor families more than a year ago, will never open. Furthermore, 34 nurses are going to be losing their jobs. The hospital CEO said this wouldn’t be necessary if the Liberal government would deliver the funding that they had already promised.

Is the Premier serious about keeping her word, or are families in Windsor who need care in the hospital simply going to have to deal with another Liberal broken promise?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The earlier question from the health critic of the third party referred to enhanced spending on home care. We are absolutely committed to spending more on home care. What that means, however, is that we’re having to hold the line in other parts of our health care system. So whether it’s physician compensation—I’m very pleased that we achieved a ratified agreement with the OMA to hold physician compensation in line. I was very pleased that we were able to reduce the price of generic drugs so we could spend more on home care.

Hospitals are also doing their part. We have held hospitals to a 0% base funding increase. That does mean that hospitals right across this province are making choices about what services they can provide in the hospital and what can be provided in the community.

There is a transformation under way in health care; it will result in better health care for all.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I guess that was a yes. The Liberal word is as good as it’s ever been here in the province of Ontario.

Only last week, families in London learned that services at St. Joseph’s health care centre would be cut. Wait times for MRIs, PET scans, CTs and ultrasounds will go up, and 59 health care workers will lose their jobs.

Making promises is easy, Speaker, but keeping them is the real hard work. Will the Premier keep the promises she made only yesterday in the throne speech, or will families in London, Ontario, face longer wait times and more broken Liberal promises?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important that all of us in this Legislature understand that there are decisions that are being made in our health care system that will result in programs moving from hospitals to the community.

The leader of the third party has discussed withdrawing of services for mental health patients. That is simply not accurate, and I think it’s important that we all get our facts right. Will those services be provided to patients? Yes, they will. Will they be provided by the hospital? No, they won’t. It’s more appropriate that they’re delivered in the community by organizations that do a very, very fine job, Speaker.

I think it’s important to note that we’ve increased hospital funding province-wide by 50% over the past 10 years. We’re spending a lot more on our hospitals. We are at a time of transforma

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2013-02-20
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p40 s2 2013-02-20 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f7bebf354fb99b98a86f64925ea3eaf11a3300fb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).