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

March 4, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-04 (PDF)

L052 - Wed 4 Mar 2015 / Mer 4 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 March 2015 Mercredi 4 mars 2015

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Introduction of Visitors

Use of electronic devices in House

Visitor

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Government accountability

By-election in Sudbury

First responders

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Infrastructure program funding

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Credit unions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Children’s treatment centres

By-election in Sudbury

Visitor

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Federated Women’s Institutes of Ontario

Gasoline prices

Aerospace industry

Bruce Goulet

International Women’s Day

360°kids

Health care funding

Epilepsy

Orléans Chamber of Commerce / Chambre de commerce d’Orléans

Introduction of Bills

Poet Laureate of Ontario Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le poète officiel de l’Ontario

Supply Act, 2015 / Loi de crédits de 2015

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Women’s Day

Social workers

International Women’s Day

Social workers

International Women’s Day

Social workers

Petitions

Health care

Taxation

Alzheimer’s disease

Legal aid

Hospital services

Credit unions

Hispanic Heritage Month

Hospice funding

Forest industry

Water fluoridation

Winter road maintenance

Student assistance

Credit unions

Services for the disabled

Opposition Day

By-election in Sudbury

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 3, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte (Ontario) et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m very happy to speak—

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m just checking to see if we have a quorum.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have a quorum?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.

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

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’m very happy to speak to the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014. The background or the premise of the act is that Ontario is committed to helping its agri-food partners manage risk. Managing risk in agribusiness is a hugely complicated matter. Damage often arises without notice, given all sorts of factors that the province and the country, indeed the world, is facing having to do with climate change, flooding, storms and whatever.

Business risk management programs like production insurance help producers deal with situations that are outside of their control—as I’ve said, typically, climate change, storms, flooding, those sorts of things. Production insurance makes timely payments to producers and eliminates the need for costly ad hoc responses to these adverse conditions that pop up, as I say, without notice. The idea here is to give more producers in agribusiness in Ontario access to production insurance. That will help them to better manage risk and encourage greater innovation, job creation and growth in the agri-food sector.

Looking outside of Ontario, in Canada we have a national suite of integrated and complementary business risk management programs in place to help farmers manage risks that are beyond their control. One of the elements is, as I mentioned, the production insurance program, but thus far, Ontario’s inability to offer production insurance plans—and this is key—for those commodities beyond crops and perennial plants represents a real gap in the suite of business risk management programs that Ontario is in a position to offer.

This puts pressure on the province to respond with ad hoc programming when producers experience significant production shortfalls and those shortfalls are beyond their control. So we do have, if you will, a partial risk management program in place, and what this act is designed to do is to expand that and make the risks that are covered by the Risk Management Program more uniformly available and more widely available to manage these agri-risks.

When the producers suffer losses and don’t have production insurance, they often come to us for direct ad hoc assistance. We’ve seen ad hoc programs cost the province of Ontario millions of dollars in a single year.

I want to highlight now, just very briefly, some of the other points of the program. The expanded production insurance program would, if passed, provide similar financial assistance but divide the cost between the federal government, the provincial government and producers in a predictable and incremental way over a much longer period of time.

Ontario made a commitment to expand production insurance beyond crops and perennial plants when the ministry signed the federal-provincial-territorial Growing Forward 2 amendments in 2013. Over the long term, this will allow the province of Ontario to consider strategies that include moving away from provincial-only support towards tools that will attract federal funding.

I can say this: The proposed amendments will have no immediate financial impact. Approval of this request for the enabling legislation, if passed, will align the province of Ontario with the rest of Canada and enable Ontario to participate in the various innovative production insurance programs that are currently used in other parts of the country.

I will now be sharing my time with the member from Sudbury and the member from York South–Weston.

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

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise today and to be able to speak to this act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, the Agriculture Insurance Act.

Many people know that Sudbury is a mining community. We always talk a lot about mining and the benefits of mining in Sudbury, but we do have a lot of agriculture in Sudbury and area. For me, it’s very important to be able to rise today and speak to this because it’s great to know that our government is committed to helping its agri-food partners manage risk.

For many of those businesses and many of those farms and farmers in northern Ontario—and specifically what I’m talking about is in greater Sudbury and area—we have a great agriculture business at our farmers’ market on a weekly basis, especially in the spring, summer and fall. They’re producing many new crops and organic crops. They’re bringing this to our community, and our community is purchasing this.

It would be very worrisome if something was to happen to these crops and to these farmers and to how they make a living, so it’s great to see that we’re actually coming forward with some amendments here to this Agriculture Insurance Act.

I think it’s important to recognize that business risk management programs like production insurance help producers deal with the situations that are outside of their control, such as weather, disease and extreme market fluctuation. Northern Ontario can also have some very fluctuating weather on a regular basis. Sometimes even in June we’ll see some snow, every once in a while—not that we see it often, but it does happen. I think, if you’re looking at a national component here, we have a suite of integrated and complementary business risk management programs in place to help farmers manage those risks that are beyond their control.

Of course, one of the important aspects to mention in this—and it’s written right here on the second page—is that Ontario, this government, also made a commitment to expand production insurance beyond crops and perennial plants when the ministry signed the federal-provincial-territorial Growing Forward 2 agreement in 2013. Over the long term, this will allow the province the opportunity to consider strategies that include moving away from provincial-only support towards tools that attract federal funding as well. I think that is an important aspect to consider when looking at farmers, especially when you’re looking at organic farming, which is happening quite a bit in Sudbury.

I can think of many businesses in my community—one of them is called Eat Local. Many of these farmers provide their products to Eat Local. They send this product out throughout northern Ontario. So I think it’s a very important piece for us to get involved with, and I’m very happy to speak to this today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from York South–Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m very pleased to participate in this debate. I want to start by making reference to what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was making reference to. He mentioned that by giving more producers the opportunity to access production insurance we would help them manage risk better and encourage greater innovation, profitability and job creation in the agri-food sector.

The riding that I represent, York South–Weston, is certainly an urban riding, not an agricultural riding; however, we need farmers and we need consumers. Speaking about job creation and greater innovation in this sector, I have had the opportunity, even recently, to visit some new businesses that are opening in our riding and that are tied to the Ontario agricultural sector.

I want to mention Fresh City Farms. They offer local and organic grocery delivery. People in the cities are interested in quality food. Where do we get that quality food if not from our farmers? We have the Weston Village Farmers’ Market, which is open every spring, summer and fall in York South-Weston, and we have farmers who come from different parts of Ontario to offer their produce to the many local residents who are thrilled to be able to shop and to access local quality food.

I also recently visited the Toronto Distillery Co. This is the first distillery that has opened in the city of Toronto in the last 80 years. What makes them different—what is making their business thrive—is the fact that they offer whisky made from local organic grains. That is drawing consumers, and it’s making this company thrive.

There are parts of my riding that are experiencing, really, a cultural renaissance, all because of this. So, it’s important to give our farmers more access to production insurance.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m pleased to respond to the government’s talk about Bill 40. I recall that a year ago last summer, our member from Oxford, who at the time was our critic for agriculture, actually came to the riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex and viewed a number of fields that had, in fact, incurred substantial crop losses at that particular point in time, due to extensive rain and flooding. Of course, this particular bill is going to be increasing the number of crops that will be insured.

Although we are supporting it—I’ll make that point very clear right now—I do have a concern about it: What’s the actual cost going to be to the farmer as well? Of course, if you take a look at the cost of insurance versus the cost of losses, it makes sense to me as well.

Yesterday in the House, our member from Simcoe North talked about coyotes and the damage that coyotes do to farm animals—how it’s vicious attacks.

One of the things that I’d like to just briefly mention is that we have a problem in this province with regard to stray current. Of course, stray current is current that runs along the ground. We may not feel it as humans; however, livestock, especially dairy cattle, do, in fact, feel it. When you talk to dairy farmers, what they are experiencing is a tremendous loss in milk production, because what happens is that current goes to the water and when the dairy cattle’s tongues touch the water, they get a tingling. Then they don’t drink, and that affects milk production. I think we need to take a look at that.

There are, in fact, two losses here: Loss of milk production, and this stray current is, of course, very brutal on the cattle themselves.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to be able to speak about agriculture in this House, and to respond to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and his comments on Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act.

I’d like to make a couple of comments. Basically, the other provinces signed on to this in 2003, so we’re 10 years behind in looking at what crops we can insure. In his comments, he said there would no immediate financial impact to the province. That is true, because this bill alone, although it changes the wording, doesn’t actually increase the coverage for any farmer in the province—not one iota; nothing. It allows us to go further and talk about increasing coverage, but it, in itself, doesn’t.

Under the old Crop Insurance Act, the province kicked in 24% of the cost of the program on those crops. So if we’re going to insure more agricultural products—which we fully support—and we’re going to use the same framework, then the province has to kick in 24%. The kicker is going to be, where is that 24%, so many millions of dollars, going to come from? If they are just planning on taking these so many millions of dollars from another agricultural program, farmers and the agricultural community could actually be suffering a net loss of coverage instead of a net gain.

So while we fully support the changes in the wording, the devil is in the details of how these programs are going to be funded. When the minister said there’s no financial impact, that means there is no benefit to farmers.

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

Mr. Granville Anderson: It’s a pleasure for me to speak on this matter this morning. As you know, my riding of Durham is strictly rural farmland. Two weeks ago, I met with farmers during a round table, and they were very supportive of this government’s effort on our Risk Management Program. As a matter of fact, the program was cut back to $100 million, and farmers are very upset in my riding. They want it to go back to its regular amount of $150 million. The problem is that the federal government is not kicking in to support this very, very vital endeavour for our farmers in the rural communities.

With the help of the federal government, we’ll be able to enhance farmers and expand the program, so that farmers are able to recoup losses for crops that they suffered during downtime or during any economic downturn. Again, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will have to kick in their fair share so that the farmers can maximize their profits and increase production in all areas.

Mr. Speaker, the Risk Management Program, as you know, is designed to help farmers and is premium-based, the costs of which are shared by farmers and by governments, and both levels of government have to put in their fair share, in order to enhance this program.

An expanded production insurance program could, if passed, provide similar financial assistance but divide the cost between the federal government, the provincial government and producers in a predictable and incremental way over a much longer period of time.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to provide a few moments of questions and comments on Bill 40 and the number of speakers from the government side.

I just want to again put on the record that this is a very important bill for the PC caucus. I know we have a number of members here today who haven’t had the opportunity to speak. Probably the majority of our caucus has not had the chance to put some comments on the record. The one thing that I have noticed about our members—and I’ll compare my speech on this bill on Monday to the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition’s speech yesterday, as there are some really significantly different points that we’re bringing up.

Agriculture touches many ridings in this province, and not one of them is the same. I know that in my riding, when this bill has passed second reading and goes to committee, there’s a very strong feeling, because of what has happened in my riding in the last year with the closure of Kemptville College by the University of Guelph, enabled by this government, that they should come to a community like Kemptville, which has had a rich, 97-year tradition of agricultural education.

I know I have said this and, granted, I’ll give you the fact that this one point I am going to say is repeating what I said in my speech Monday, but the government itself has a report that says there is a severe shortage of students graduating in agricultural education at the diploma and degree levels.

If we are ever going to meet the needs that this government has set for 120,000 new jobs in the agriculture sector, we’ve got to make a commitment to agricultural education; we’ve got to make a commitment to those young men and women who want to work on farms and go to school. This government has to wake up to that fact. They have to include some funding for communities like Kemptville, and Kemptville College. The government needs to listen to the opposition when they make these points.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has two minutes.

Hon. David Zimmer: I want to point out that in our Liberal caucus, 12 of our 58 members are from rural ridings, or parts of their ridings cover rural areas. They understand the agricultural issues in their ridings. But even more important, let me say that it’s not just a matter of those members from rural ridings understanding this piece of legislation.

I would say that we in this House—all of us, whether we are from urban ridings or rural ridings, small-town Ontario, downtown Toronto—are all agricultural people, in a sense, because we depend on the farming community to supply the crops and foods that we eat, whether we’re in downtown Toronto, whether we’re living in a rural riding, whether we’re living in small-town Ontario or the far north. In that sense, we all have a very deep and vested interest in rural affairs, because what is good for the agricultural community in Ontario is good for everyone in Ontario.

What this act does is enable agribusinesses to expand their coverage under their production insurance risks. To the extent that agribusiness can manage risks, in the sense of damage to crops or production shortfalls and the like, because of situations out of their control—storms, climatic conditions and so on—that’s good for all of us. It gives agribusiness stability, and it gives pricing stability, which ultimately helps us all when we’re in stores buying our produce, groceries and so on. In that sense, all of us, whatever riding we are from, are agri-people.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m pleased to rise to speak to this bill. Technically, the bill amends the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996, to expand the scope of the act. Currently, the act applies to agricultural crops and perennial plants. This bill would expand the act so that it would apply to all agricultural products that are designated by the minister by regulation. The title of the act is also amended to reflect the expanded scope of the legislation. That’s the technical aspect of it.

Let’s talk about what that really means. My wife, Patty, and I had the occasion this past weekend to spend time with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Powassan. It was a very informative session. I got to speak a little bit about the Premier’s Award—to ask for applications. But what we really talked about was agriculture in the north. When you think of North Bay or Powassan or Mattawa, you don’t necessarily think about agriculture, right off the bat. But as you go even further north than North Bay, and get to New Liskeard, you have to realize that in the north about 50% of our canola in Ontario was grown in the north—I say “was,” and I’ll get to why I mean that in a moment.

About 40% of the oats in all of Ontario is grown in northern Ontario. It’s just not something that people would quickly acknowledge or think about. They think about climate and the cold, and they think, “How could you do that?” But there’s a tremendous amount of agriculture and activity in the north.

When I say there was 50% of the canola, there’s a terrible blight that is going through—a bug, if you will—and has devastated that crop. So farmers must be assured of stability, predictability and bankability in their industry. We need to make sure that any new measures don’t impact the existing or current programs that help the farmers.

As we were at this farm symposium on Saturday—and let me tell you, Speaker, Patty and I have been to the farm symposiums year after year. In my many years as mayor of the city of North Bay, understanding how important agriculture is, we would continue to go.

We were treated this weekend to a delicious dinner—a luncheon, I should say. When we go to the Beef Farmers it’s always a fabulous side of beef that they cook, and Patty’s favourite apple pie. But I have to tell you that we had cipaille this weekend. For those who aren’t familiar with traditional cipaille, it was an odd time of year to make it, but as opposed to the normal beef luncheon it was a cipaille lunch that the farmers put on. That is a combination of chicken and pork and beef that’s put in a crockpot and cooked in a traditional brick oven.

Mr. Michael Mantha: And moose and partridge.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, moose and partridge in your neck of the woods. In Astorville, they make it—I have to say, it was a surprise because normally we’re treated to quite a luncheon there.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Great Canadian chef or something.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, it’s important. This is all about our food and where it comes from. The interesting thing is, a lot of it comes from the north.

The Amish community has settled in Chisholm, Ontario, and Powassan as well, and have taken these farms that have been shut down and abandoned, in some cases for over 50 years. As we’ve driven on the back roads through Powassan and Chisholm, you now see a lot of activity. The Amish—what I understand is that they heard there was good agricultural land, especially north of North Bay in the Timiskaming–Cochrane area, but as they were driving up from the south they saw this rich land that was underutilized and they began to buy up the land.

They now have a fabulously huge Amish community in Chisholm, Ontario, that is raising crops and farming and practising their way of life. It’s absolutely spectacular to see.

Patty and I enjoy going there every July. They’re raising money for a school in their own community, and we go there for this fabulous pancake breakfast. Yes, Speaker, it’s all about the food.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I noticed that you’ve been to quite a few of those.

Interjection: You’re getting us hungry back here.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Well, we are here talking about agriculture and food. I talked to one of the directors of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture over our cipaille lunch, and this is where he was telling me about this blight, this bug that has infested the north. It has knocked our crop from—because I said to him, “Look, I’m going to be speaking in the Legislature next week on agriculture. Is it still 50% canola, 40% oats?”

He said, “Well, Vic, with this blight, it may be down to as little as providing 8% of the canola.” That’s how devastating this bug has been.

Farmers have long requested that production insurance plans move beyond just crops to include insurance for additional agricultural products. Currently, Ontario has available production insurance for almost 90 commercially grown crops, including grains and oilseeds—corn, soy, wheat and that type of thing—tree fruits, grapes, vegetables, specialty crops and forage.

Production insurance is an important aspect of the life of any farm and anybody involved in agriculture. It lends a hand to farmers to deal with the losses from natural events like weather, pests and disease. Again, when you see something so devastating as this bug that has gone through the north and taken a crop that has provided 50% of a product to Ontario and reduced it to 8%—this is something that we need to sit up and take note of and take seriously.

On that note, again, I want to speak in this Legislature, as I have many, many times—joining my friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane, who has also been fighting hard for this—on the New Liskeard research centre. It’s under threat of closure.

Speaker, they are the institution where your seed potatoes are grown. All seed potatoes in Ontario start in a test tube in New Liskeard, Ontario. Our strawberries: All the strawberries, the disease-free strawberries that are grown in Ontario, all start in a test tube in New Liskeard, Ontario. This is an institution that is so vitally important to agriculture, and it is under threat of closure.

They also have 455 head of cattle, and they are studying cattle through the lens of our northern climate. They also are writing reports on agriculture in the north as well as agriculture throughout Ontario.

This is an incredibly important sector for northern Ontario and for all of Ontario. I would hope that we will see all parties continue, as the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane and I have, fighting—almost desperately fighting—to maintain the survivability of this very important agricultural research centre.

Again, as I have done many, many times, when I speak of agriculture in this Legislature, I invite members who may not be from rural Ontario to come to the north and see first-hand. Both the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane—I’m sure I can speak for the member—and I would invite you. Come on up. We’ll take you on a tour. We’ll take you to farms. We’ll show you the Amish community, the new growth and development there. We’ll take you to the New Liskeard research centre so that you can appreciate exactly how vitally important that small and sparsely-staffed facility is to all agriculture throughout all of Ontario.

Speaker, Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act, is an important bill, again, for all the farming community and all of Ontario.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s an honour to speak on agriculture and to follow the member from Nipissing. In his remarks, he did a very accurate portrayal of agriculture in northern Ontario, specifically the New Liskeard research station. What happened at the New Liskeard research station a few years ago—it was under threat of closure, and a group of farmers from across the north came together, made a board, and are working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to try and keep that as a viable operation, because the conditions in the north are much different than in other parts of the province.

That’s one of the reasons why our area is such a good area for growing canola: Our conditions are different than the rest of the province. That’s why we are looking for ways to combat pests like the swede midge.

Something we haven’t talked about enough in this Legislature—but that’s why we need to have the discussion—is neonicotinoid insecticides, because canola is one of the crops that depend on neonicotinoid insecticides. So it’s a viable, important discussion. There will be two sides to this discussion, as there always are, but it’s important that we come to the middle.

I’d also like to commend the member for bringing up the Amish contribution to northern Ontario. In my riding as well, they are coming and they are using land that had been dormant for many years. Because their farming practices are much different, they have the capability of using land that sometimes is overlooked by modern commercial agriculture simply because of the size of the field.

One thing I would like to remark on in this Legislature is that while we’re talking about production insurance, something that a lot of people don’t know is that the Amish population does not participate in any Ontario production insurance program.

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

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Thank you to the members who have already spoken on this very important bill, the Agriculture Insurance Act, 2014. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important issue.

You may wonder: What does a member from a very urban riding such as Davenport know about farms, or why is this so important to the people of Davenport? Well, I’m no stranger to farms; I’m no stranger to the rural areas. My in-laws, actually, live in Chatham, so I’m very familiar with southwestern Ontario and how important the farming industry is in that area. It is, after all, those farms that put the food on the tables of my constituents in Davenport.

I’m very proud that every summer at Dufferin Grove, one of the main parks that we have in the riding, we have a farmers’ market which is very, very well attended and provides products from all across southwestern Ontario and our great province.

The Ontario agriculture sector is a vibrant and strong sector. In 2013, we have here that Ontario generated $12.1 billion in farm cash receipts, or about 22% of Canada’s farm cash receipts. This is an increase of over $2 billion compared to 2008 farm cash receipts. However, agriculture markets are volatile, and these fluctuations are why it is so important to have effective business risk management programs in place. Expanding the ability to offer production insurance to more agriculture commodities is important in helping producers manage the multitude of risks they face every day.

I have one particular restaurant in my riding, Hogtown Cure, which actually brings in a pig every week from southwestern Ontario. What would his restaurant be if he could not depend on getting that pig from the farm in southwestern Ontario on a weekly basis?

Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure to speak on this bill.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: It’s a pleasure to respond to my colleague Mr. Fedeli from North Bay on his comments this morning.

Interruption.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’ll put my phone away.

Clearly, although he lives in an urban setting, he’s a member who takes the agricultural sector very seriously. You only have to hear his professionalism on attending the farmers’ markets, going out to meet the Amish community, knowing the percentage of canola versus other crops etc.

We had the International Plowing Match, I think it’s four or five years ago now, in the Kirkland Lake area. I thought they did a very professional job. It was a really good opportunity to showcase agriculture in the north, because I know at the time that many, many people from southern Ontario didn’t have the awareness of the kind of agriculture that does takes place in the north, to the tune of thousands of acres in that region.

So I’m glad he had an opportunity to speak this morning on that, and I’m glad that he had the opportunity to give us a little bit of background on how he likes cooking and fine foods. He clearly knows all the details of all the ingredients that are in each recipe that he seems to take advantage of at noon hours at these farmers’ markets and agricultural events.

There’s one thing for sure: If you’re at an agricultural event in the farming community, you will be very, very well fed. All you have to remember are the stories about the old thrashing days when there was a huge lunch every day for people as they thrashed in community groups.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’ll just follow up on the comments that came out in regard to the delicatessens that come out of the farming families across Algoma–Manitoulin. I observe them every opportunity that I get. Those cipailles are something else; you just can’t say no. Cipailles, regardless of how you make them, are fantastic traditional foods. When you are provided with that dish, it’s basically like getting a hug from the farming community, because they’re giving you a part of their history.

I wanted to follow up on some of the comments by the member from—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Nipissing.

Mr. Michael Mantha: —Nipissing, particularly as it pertains to the Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance. Yes, if we’re going to go forward with this bill—and I wholeheartedly believe that we should—we will need to keep them in sight. We need to make sure of that innovation and that we have the funding, in order to keep places like the Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance.

But we also have RAIN across Algoma–Manitoulin. RAIN is an organization; it’s the Rural Agri-Innovation Network. A lot of what they are looking at, up in the New Liskeard area, is in regard to how agriculture can be developed and also encouraged across the Algoma region, and also Manitoulin Island. That is some of the funding that we’re going to also want to see that will complement the Crop Insurance Act.

Algoma–Manitoulin is an area that is now being seriously considered as a farming area. The farming time of year is now expanded, and we have some good, pristine lands that are going to be there. In order to attract those young families, yes, we need to make sure that the schools are there in order to attract young people in order to go into the farming communities, but we need to make sure that the investment is here so that the decisions can be made that are good for those farmers.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I want to thank the members from Timiskaming–Cochrane, Davenport, Simcoe North and Algoma–Manitoulin for their comments and contributions to this as well.

Again, I want to remind the Legislature of the significance of agriculture in northern Ontario. Specifically referring to this bill—again, at one point, up to and including last year, not only 40% of the oats in Ontario were grown in northern Ontario, but 50% of the canola was. It’s the swede midge pest that has infiltrated northern Ontario and has caused our crop to go from 50% of production down to about 8%, which the Ontario Federation of Agriculture told me on Saturday. That’s very concerning, and that’s why this bill, in my opinion, is so important. It does acknowledge; it does offer farmers stability, predictability and what we like to call bankability.

On that, I would again reach out to the members, all 107 members, and invite them to Nipissing, invite them to come up any time of year, especially in the summer when we can tour some of the farms, particularly the Amish farms, who have taken this once fallow land and turned it into viable farms.

My wife, Patty, likes to say, when we drive down the Alsace Road in Chisholm, “It seems they can throw bird seed and up pop canaries.” That’s how fertile the land seems to be throughout northern Ontario.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to Bill 40, the Agriculture Insurance Act.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s a pleasure and an honour to stand in this House and express the views of my constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh.

Before I begin this morning, let me say hello to Marty Gillis in the members’ gallery here. He’s with the WFCU board, in town for the lobby day at Queen’s Park. Welcome, Marty. Glad you’re here.

Speaker, my voice is failing me this morning, but let me tell you that while much of my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh is an urban setting, a good chunk of it, especially in the Tecumseh area, is rural agricultural.

Just recently, I received a letter from the owner and operator of an abattoir in my riding. As you may know, Speaker, there are 132 provincially licensed slaughter plants that rely on provincial meat inspectors. The abattoir in question has been in the owner’s family for more than 100 years—105, to be exact. They currently employ more than 20 people; I’m told that most of them are young people with growing families. The plant offers steady, reliable work.

This is far from being the largest slaughterhouse in the province, but they process about 800 market-size hogs a week, and that’s nothing to sneeze at. They have contracts with seven hog producers in Essex county and Chatham-Kent. The animals are raised to the specifications that best fit the company’s customer base. When slaughtered, processed and packaged, the meat is s h ipped as far away as Vaughan Mills, north of Toronto here. They service 40 direct customers. The fixed cost to the owners of this one small plant, just to keep the doors open, with no expenses at all related to production, is $8,100 a week.

That’s a heck of a lot of money. If this plant was shut down for any reason for a week, the income that would be lost is $205,900. That’s really a lot of money, no matter who you are.

The owners say they’re trying to make progress and grow the agri-food sector, just as they’ve been challenged by the Premier to do. You’ll recall that the Premier, who was a former Minister of Agriculture, challenged the agricultural sector to create 120,000 new jobs and double the sector’s growth rate within five years by 2020.

I know that we’re speaking to Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, 1996, which was limited and only provided some protection to farmers growing crops and perennial plants. Now we’re expanding the insurance plan to cover all agricultural products. Speaker, that’s a good thing; don’t get me wrong. But the reason for the letter is that the owner of the slaughterhouse is not convinced that the minister has taken the necessary steps to provide a backup plan should the hard-working members of OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, be unsuccessful in their collective bargaining efforts with the government. Let us all hope that the government and OPSEU can bargain a contract that is mutually acceptable.

The livelihood of thousands of people beyond those at the bargaining table are at stake, and I’ve given you just one example. If there was a strike that lasted two weeks without qualified meat inspectors, the animals would grow to a size that they couldn’t be processed at this one plant in my riding because they’d be too large for their equipment as well as for the specifications of the plant’s customers.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is aware of this situation at the abattoir in my riding because he was copied on that letter that I referenced this morning. We, the minister and I, have been asked to convey the owner’s concerns to the Premier and to the president of the Treasury Board as well, and I hope that I have done that this morning.

Getting back to Bill 40, agricultural insurance is one of the fundamental tools we have to ensure our food security and to protect the men and women who grow our food. Currently, I believe, the old act covered about 14,000 farmers, and the annual payouts have ranged from $26 million to as high as $113 million. I say to the minister’s parliamentary assistant that in 2013—what was it; about $84 million, I think? The member from Beaches–East York is nodding yes in agreement. Farmers pay 40% of the cost of the insurance plan. The feds kick in 36% and Ontario pays the remaining 24%.

I guess what troubles me at this point is that there are no dollars attached to this enabling legislation. There’s nothing in here that says we’re going to put in $25 million, $50 million or whatever it is to support what we’re talking about. That’s scary to some of us because, as we know, according to the 2014 budget, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is among a group of ministries facing annual cuts of 6% a year, every year for three years.

I know that my cautious critic for the ministry, Mr. Vanthof, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, has expressed cautious optimism about Bill 40, stating, and I quote, “If we just take a couple of recent examples, like PED in pork, BSE in beef and colony collapse in bees, those are examples of farms and farmers that could have and should have been insured.” The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane went on to say that the amendment to the language in the legislation, and I’ll finish the quote, “will make the difference between paying the bills and losing your livelihood. When people pay their bills, they create jobs here.

“We are looking forward to working with the minister and the ministry to make sure that this is done correctly and that it’s done right the first time.”

This change doesn’t come about overnight. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been fighting for this for years. With that in mind: a shout-out this morning to the new OFA president, Don McCabe from Lambton county, and former president Mark Wales from Elgin. Congratulations to you both for your hard work on twisting the arms of the Liberals that needed to be twisted and changing the mind of the government that needed to be changed.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the fantastic food processing plant in my riding, the Bonduelle plant in Tecumseh, the one that was hit by that terrible fire last July. The plant employs 200 people full-time and another 450 on a seasonal basis. Bonduelle took over the former Family Tradition plant six years ago. My buddy Johnnie O., John Omstead, used to run that plant, and sold it to Bonduelle. They also have plants in Ingersoll and Strathroy, as well as four facilities in Quebec. They are Canada’s leading processor of canned and frozen vegetables. They also process frozen fruit, canned soups, sauces, baked beans, as well as dry beans.

Farmers feed cities. Speaker, I’ll say it again: Farmers feed cities. And I’ll say it again: There are no regulatory changes or funding attached to this bill. We all know that new regulations will be needed before livestock farmers and other producers are protected under the proposed expanded insurance program.

I’m not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth, Speaker. I hope I’m not seen as doing that, but let’s get it done. Let’s get it done right. As the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane has said, “Let’s get it done right the first time.” I remember my friend Mark Wales, the former president, saying they’ve been after it for 10 years. It’s about time. We’ll be supporting it.

Thank you for your time this morning, Speaker.

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

Hon. David Orazietti: It’s a pleasure to be here this morning to respond to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh. I certainly appreciate his comments and the supportive comments by members on all sides of the House.

I think we’re all aptly aware of the contribution farmers make in the province of Ontario, the tremendous work that they do and the tremendous importance they play in our economic well-being in the province of Ontario. In 2013 alone—we’ve heard the number—over $12 billion in farm receipts contributed to the economy. It is very significant.

I know that with respect to a number of programs in northern Ontario—and I heard the member from Nipissing speak a bit about northern Ontario and the farming communities in northern Ontario. I know the member from Algoma–Manitoulin is well aware of the huge potential of farming in the area around Sault Ste. Marie and in his area of Algoma–Manitoulin.

The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund program, or corporation, through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, in fact has a tile drainage program to support entrepreneurs and the farming community in northern Ontario. It has significantly helped to raise the productivity of farming in the area, in our region.

As well, we’ve put supports into a program at our university to work with local communities in our region. The acronym is RAIN; it stands for the Rural Agri-Innovation Network. It has been a tremendous benefit to our particular region of the province.

I know, with respect to the tremendous changes that we are seeing with respect to our climate, that this type of production insurance and crop insurance is key to helping farmers sustain their livelihoods in the long term. We’ve talked about this for quite some time. I would encourage the members to allow the debate to collapse and allow this to get to committee. Let’s get this done. We can all talk about the benefits of farming, and farming in Ontario, but let’s get this to committee.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 40 and to the comments of the member from Windsor–Tecumseh and also, before him, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, who lives as a farmer and knows it first-hand.

It’s a pleasure to hear so many members who are not rural, not farmers, speak with understanding that this is an important issue, an issue that our community, the people of Ontario as a whole—and indeed across Canada it’s being done.

I am a farmer myself, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say I have experienced the benefit of crop insurance, unfortunately, because I experienced crop failures due to weather. I will tell you first-hand that it was a very beneficial program that took an awful lot of pressure off my business and that of a lot of my neighbours, who all suffered greatly from bad weather.

The program works well for crop farmers, which it is in place for at the moment. It is good to see that it would be expanded to other things, which are undefined at this point in time. I would hope the minister would expand them to things like livestock farming, because cropping is pretty much covered at the moment—beef farming, sheep farming and other types of animal agriculture.

For instance, in 2003, when mad cow disease happened and the American border was closed overnight to Canadian beef exports to the United States, that was devastation for the beef farmers of Ontario. This was done in the public interest, to protect consumers from so-called risk of food contamination from mad cow disease. Thousands of farmers were put out of business by that action, because 50% of the beef we produce in Canada was going across the American border. Protection for those people, I would say, was in the public interest, and it should be the public that shares the responsibility for it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to commend the member from Windsor–Tecumseh on a very good debate and contribution to the bill that we’re discussing today. Obviously, there is consensus in the House that we all believe that farming is an extremely important industry to our livelihood and to Ontario and especially to Canada.

You don’t have to go very far, even in Toronto, to get experience or some education or understanding of farming, and I’ll speak from my own dealings. I went with the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane to Dairy Farmers of Ontario. They had their AGM; I spoke to them about some of their issues. Then I went to the Beef Farmers of Ontario, and spoke to them as well. The member from Prince Edward—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Leeds–Grenville.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: —Leeds–Grenville was also there.

Mr. Steve Clark: I saw you there.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes, he was also there.

Yesterday I went to an event for a mutual insurance company, just here in the Legislature, and I was speaking to someone who was a grape farmer in Niagara-on-the-Lake. They were talking about insurance, because that’s what they were here for. But he also expressed concern—because I asked the question: In the insurance industry, the claims that property insurance companies experience, has there been an escalation with regard to climate change, or is it because people are not taking the preventive measures on their property insurance? This is what perhaps is driving the claims loss ratio to higher levels. They expressed that it’s mostly climate change.

The farmer whom I was talking to, who was also on the board of a mutual insurance company, said that at one point in Niagara he got eight inches of water in a span of three hours. It destroyed his grape crop for that year. So climate change is extremely important to farmers, and it affects their crops as well.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Windsor–Tecumseh. It’s interesting that this bill is of widespread interest to all of us. I think that we’ve have had nine hours to debate on it. We’ve had over half the members. What’s good about it is the fact that—

Mr. Steve Clark: Point of order.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: With all due respect to the dean of the Legislature, there are members who are here in their seats ready to debate this bill today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Just a minute. First of all, for the member from Leeds–Grenville, he’ll retract the “dean of the Legislature” comment. Stand up and retract it.

Mr. Steve Clark: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Secondly, that’s not a point of order. Thank you very much.

Continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with—come on. I’m pointing out how important it is that you had members from rural Ontario and urban Ontario—and the widespread interest and ability that you would think would be primarily of interest to people in the agricultural community. I was commending members on that, but we get this smart-aleck remark from the member for Brockville on this particular issue.

I want to say this: What is interesting is that we would not have had this a number of years ago because, you’ll remember, in the late 1990s the House was reduced from 130 members to 103 members. You know who lost on that? Rural Ontario lost on that. That’s who lost on that.

The last thing I want to say on how important it is: I’m a person who came into this Legislature to help ensure that agricultural land was protected. We don’t have a lot of arable land in this country or this province. We must protect it. But it’s very important, through crop insurance and other measures, that those who are not farmers make sure that it is viable to be a farmer in this province. If we want to save the land, we have to save the farmer. This helps us to do so. I commend the member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Windsor–Tecumseh has two minutes.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to thank the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, the members for Carleton–Mississippi Mills and London–Fanshawe, and, of course, the minister without portfolio for their comments, especially the member for Carleton–Mississippi–Mills, who has direct experience with insurance as it relates to farmers. He knows perfectly well the need for this bill and for expanding it.

I also heard, throughout the debate on this topic, about the need for money. There has got to be money behind the bill, and, unfortunately, not a lot of us are convinced that there will be enough money put into it because of the cuts that have been announced in previous budgets. I hope it’s not lip service. I hope there will be real teeth in this bill and that all the farmers in Ontario will be able to take advantage of what is on the table.

When it comes to insurance, I mentioned earlier today that a friend of mine, Marty Gillis from the Windsor Family Credit Union, is in the gallery. We’ve talked many times in this Legislature and a lot of petitions have been presented asking that credit unions have a level playing field. One would be that in order to compete they would be able to sell insurance, as they do in Quebec—Desjardins. Desjardins sells its insurance in Ontario.

I think that when we talk about crop insurance and we talk about insurance for farmers, it would be good to tie in other things that we talk about in the House, including making a level playing field for credit unions. I hope that many of us will be meeting with representatives from credit unions across Ontario today, and that we keep an open mind when we do that, as we have kept an open mind when we talk about exploring Bill 40.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m glad to stand up today and add my two cents on the Agriculture Insurance Act. I find it quite interesting that I’m actually getting the opportunity to speak. I tried to speak to the two previous bills that were on this floor. However, the Liberal government here decides to speak three, four people over a 10-minute period and now say to the Speaker in the chair at the time that so many MPPs have spoken, when in fact they’ve declined any of the opposition of actually speaking to the bill, and unfortunately, those bills have gone forward.

The fear was that the government would stand up today and refuse further debate for the opposition. So I’m kind of glad that they haven’t gone back to their games and tactics that they’ve been promoting since they became the majority government in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to start out first of all by giving some praise to a couple of local farmers in my riding who today are being honoured and entered into the Middlesex County Agricultural Hall of Fame. I have Tom Bradish from Glanworth. Tom is a long-time farmer in the area. He grew up on a dairy farm and does cash crops right now. In fact, he started a processing facility with a couple of other farmers in Strathroy and sold that off recently. Tom is a great asset to the community. He has been part of the International Plowing Match and the Canadian plowing association. He’ll be inducted today into the Middlesex County Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Roy Jewell, from the Dutton and Dunwich area, will also be inducted today. Roy started out with a CFPL radio program, one of the first farmer radio shows, years back, long ago, which in fact transitioned to become the first televised farm program on CFPL, called the Roy Jewell Farm Show. That lasted quite a long time.

I’m quite proud that two of my constituents from the Middlesex part—actually, Roy is kind of in the Elgin part of my riding—are joining the Middlesex County Agricultural Hall of Fame, and we’re quite proud to have them in my riding. Congratulations to them and their families for their accomplishments with regard to agriculture in our communities.

It’s also just to note that traditionally, growing up—I didn’t grow up on a farm; I grew up with farms around my area. I grew up in the beautiful city of St. Thomas. But every day at noon, CFPL London, which is now CTV News in London, would have the farmers’ market report. Ross Daily would be on there for a minute or two, and he would go through all the markets and what the prices were for beans and sows and what have you. I always thought that was a normal part of life.

I didn’t realize that’s really central to being part of an agricultural community in rural Ontario, that they would actually take the time out of the news cycle to talk about the markets and how they were affecting the farmers in our area. I’m sure many of my friends whose parents were farmers—their parents would be in at the noontime to have their lunch, in order to watch what the farm markets were doing, because the Internet wasn’t around at that time. It wasn’t in their pocket, to be able to check the farm markets; obviously, they had to call someone. But they were able to get access on the news.

That’s something I’m quite proud of that I just wanted to make mention of, as I got the opportunity to speak today.

Really, what this bill comes forward for is basically expanding the Risk Management Program for farmers throughout our province, and I think that’s a great idea. My concern—and hopefully, it will be addressed somewhere down the line—is that the money that’s collected yearly for the Risk Management Program from the farmers isn’t touched by this government, or any future government, for any purposes other than what it is to serve, which is to have an insurance program for the farmers.

I’m hoping that the money is collected and put in a separate fund, much like the special-purpose account is for hunting and fishing licences, that’s supposed to be put into a separate fund and only used for resource management.

However, I do have to say that this government has not tabled a single report detailing the special-purpose account, as they’re legislatively forced to, for the last three years. They’ve broken the law by not tabling these reports, and they’re refusing to do so. So even though they have that special fund that’s supposed to be used, they are not reporting on how they’re spending it. Who knows where they’ve wasted that money?

However, back to this agricultural bill: I’m hoping that if this passes and goes forward, a separate fund can be created that keeps the government’s hands out of this pool of money. Because we know, with a $12-billion deficit, a $325-billion debt, and $11 billion a year in interest payments, that they’re looking for money.

The last thing I’d hate to see is for this government to collect fees from our farmers in our communities, who are banking on that money to be there when catastrophe hits—that this government will take that money and spend it elsewhere, that it won’t be there for them when the time comes, that they’ll create this imaginary cap: “Oh, we didn’t have the money to help you out during this catastrophe.” The fear is that that’s what they’re going to do.

We can even draw that parallel to their impending Ontario pension plan they’re coming forward with. We all know they’re going to collect that money and they’re going put it aside, but the temptation for them to use that money to fund their infrastructure projects over the next 10 years is going to be great. I would imagine that this government will pilfer the money and not spend it where it should be.

I know I was deviating a bit, and I thank you for the little bit of leeway there, but I’ll get back to the agriculture bill. Expanding the ability of the bill is a great idea, but where that money goes, how it’s collected and how it’s spent is a grave concern on the opposition side here, because we don’t trust the government and many people in Ontario don’t trust this government. I know, coming from rural Ontario, the people who are going to be paying into this fund don’t trust that that money will be there when they need it, because this government has a history of spending more than it takes in.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Say it ain’t so.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Well, you know.

Hopefully, they get on the ball and that fund is untouchable—and at the same time, they’ll table those documents on the special-purpose account so those who are hunting and fishing can know where their money is being spent. The government is saying that that account has no money in it, so they have to create new fees, hence the $2 service fee. On every transaction with hunting and angling in this province—if you buy an Outdoors Card, if you buy a licence, if you buy a tag—it’s $2. And that money doesn’t go to the special-purpose account; that goes to wherever they want to spend it. They’re deviating around it to create more money.

They’re also talking about starting a seniors’ fishing licence because they don’t have the money. I say: Prove it. Prove where the money has gone so that we can have a good, open discussion of what’s going on with the special-purpose account.

The other thing I wanted to touch on with regard to agriculture, which I’ve had local corn, soybean and other farmers come talk to me about, is with regard to the government’s one-handed, one-sided take on the neonics issue. We’re concerned about our bee populations; however, to cut neonics by 80% within two years without really negotiating or talking to the farmers about how that’s going to affect them—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: What’s that?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): They’re talking over there.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Sorry, Speaker. Well, Percy’s listening.

The concern is the effects not just on cash crop farmers who are going to be affected by this, but on the environment per se. They’re trying to protect the environment by protecting the bees, but a lot of farmers have told me that because of the use of neonics, they’re able to transfer over into using no-till farming, which the government spent a lot of money on. Having cover crops increases the chances of having these pests.

By having these covering crops and no-till farming, you decrease erosion, you decrease having to use a lot of water, and you also decrease your carbon footprint on the farms.

However, with this great change in the neonics, which isn’t science-based, without discussion with the farmers whom it’s going to be affecting, who at the end of day are probably going to need this insurance program in place because of the damage and policies this government has made—because of all of this, you’re probably going to go back to till farming, you’re probably going to get rid of a lot of the cover crops, because they’re high-intensity, high-expense. Erosion is going to increase, the use of water is going to increase and the carbon footprint is going to increase.

So what are the benefits to the environment at the end of the day?

The other thing I do like to make note of is that a lot of the cover crops, maybe alfalfa and such, probably have decreased, and a lot of these crops are bee-friendly crops—they’re nutritious;

whereas bees don’t really like corn too much. It’s not as friendly to them; it’s not as nutritious to them. Most farmers have switched to these corn crops because this government basically destroyed the horse racing industry within this province with its policies and what have you. A lot of people who used to grow the food for the horses have moved to something else, because there’s no market for them anymore because of the decisions this government has made—which, at the end of the day, has destroyed a lot of the habitat for bees. So there are many other solutions that we could go forward with, helping the bees.

Back to this pool of money: The government’s going to collect this money. Let’s put it in a separate account so that they can get their hands off of it, because I’m worried about how they’re going to spend it.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning. On behalf of the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, I would like to welcome the family of page captain Morgan Tamminga. We have her sisters Claire and Micah Tamminga. We also have grandmother Catherine McLean, grandfather Malcolm McLean and another grandmother, Juel Howse-McLean. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Enjoy the festivities.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to introduce Antero Elo from the Finnish Credit Union; John Munnoch from the Adjala Credit Union; and Bob MacGregor from the Adjala Credit Union. I looked forward to meeting them. They are here with the Credit Unions of Ontario.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to welcome Jennifer Churchill from the Ontario Association of Children’s Rehabilitation Services to the Legislature today. They do amazing work each and every day. I want to remind the House of the reception they’ll be holding today from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in rooms 228 and 230. Family members and children’s treatment centres from around the province will be in attendance. I’m looking forward to seeing everyone there.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to welcome students visiting us today from the PC Campus Association at Redeemer University. They are Josh Emmanuel, Chelsea Kaluzny, Keegan Fraser, Cha’wezi Phiri, James Constable, Ryan Vanderwees and Josh Broekema. I hope I got those right. Welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Kelly Harris from FirstOntario, and also give a shout-out to my good friends from Unifor Local 199, and to all the members from the credit unions, who do great work.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to welcome today, from Ducks Unlimited Canada, Lynette Mader, the manager of provincial operations; Greg Weeks, the Ontario director; and Ed Seagram. I know that the member from Simcoe North has a few that perhaps he is going to introduce as well.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes, I welcome Ducks Unlimited here as well. I really wanted to point out that they’re actually having two receptions today: one at 12:30 in room 228, a coffee-break type thing, and their reception in the dining room from 4:30 to 7 o’clock tonight. Everybody is welcome.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislature today Harry Joosten from the Libro credit union; Kam Raman from Central 1 Credit Union; and the former mayor of Windsor, Eddie Francis, who is now with Windsor Family Credit Union. They’re here today with a delegation from Credit Unions of Ontario. I want to welcome them.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Taras Pidzamecky, Ukrainian Credit Union; Kelly Harris, FirstOntario Credit Union; Kam Raman, Central 1 Credit Union; and representatives of the Niagara Children’s Centre.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my great pleasure today to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, from my riding, Jan Allardyce; and also, from the riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Morgan Tamminga, who is the page captain today. Her family is here: Malcolm McLean and Juel McLean; Catherine Tamminga; and Claire and Micah Tamminga, who are sisters of our page captain. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I think most members will know that the people from Ducks Unlimited are with us today, and I encourage people to meet with them. They do a lot of good work across this province.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome all the representatives from the credit unions of Ontario who are here at the Legislative Assembly. It’s their advocacy day. I know they will be meeting with different MPPs. They do great work around the province, so I want to welcome them here to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce Kelly Harris, who is representing FirstOntario Credit Union and represents my Kawartha Credit Union, which does a great job in the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It gives me great pleasure to introduce John McGivney Children’s Centre graduate and Paralympic swimming medal winner Danielle Campo McLeod and her mother, Colleen McLeod, who are here today to partake in today’s play date for the Ontario Association of Children Rehabilitation Services.

I’d also like to welcome, from Windsor Family Credit Union, Marty Gillis and Steve Deneau; and also, my husband, Tyler, is in the members’ gallery.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Good morning. I’d like to introduce Vaughn Courage, the page from Halton. Vaughn is page captain today, and he’s right there across the gallery from me. Also here this morning is his mother, Ruth-Ann; father, Trent; and brothers Cade and Reif, who are over there in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Welcome to DU. I’m also going to introduce Kelly Harris because he’s with FirstOntario down in my riding. But I do wish to introduce Ralph Luimes with the Haldimand-Norfolk credit union down in Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wanted to also introduce Taras Pidzamecky, who is here in the gallery with us. He is a constituent of mine and the president and CEO of Ukrainian Credit Union and a leader in the community as well.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce a group from Wellington Heights Secondary School in Mount Forest who are here with Ducks Unlimited: Lisbet MacLean and Paisley Jansen, and their teachers Annalee Carberry and David Griffiths.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’m also pleased to introduce a number of people from the credit union movement from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Linda Moroz from the Resurrection Credit Union; Alena Thouin from Alterna Savings Credit Union; Don Wright, Central 1 Credit Union; Scott Windsor, Meridian Credit Union; Sunny Sodhi, Meridian Credit Union; and George De La Rosa, Luminus Financial. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Today I’d like to invite to the Legislature for the credit union lobby event Peter Waller from the Kawartha Credit Union in my riding. Welcome

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome, from Kingston and the Islands, José Gallant from Alterna Savings, Alena Thouin from Alterna Savings, Dominique Biron-Bordeleau from Credit Union Central of Canada, and Rebecca Lickiss, an MBA student who used to work for me in my past federal life. Welcome.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to point out in the gallery that my good friend Marty Gillis is here from the Windsor Family Credit Union in Windsor–Tecumseh.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, I apologize. I neglected to mention, also here from Ducks, in the members’ gallery, are Krystal Hewitt, Laura Baldwick and Briar McBoyle.

M. Grant Crack: C’est un grand plaisir pour moi de souhaiter la bienvenue à tous les étudiants et étudiantes qui sont ici pour la neuvième édition du Parlement jeunesse de l’Ontario. Merci, monsieur le Président.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Merci, monsieur le Président.

I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Julie Cayley and Lynette Mader from Ducks Unlimited, whom I look forward to meeting with later today and invite everyone to join us for a reception at 12:30 in room 228. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Use of electronic devices in House

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do have a housekeeping comment to make. It has been brought to my attention a few times while I’m sitting in the chair and while other deputies are sitting in the chair. I would like to remind all members: You would be doing us a huge favour by not making your devices available, even on vibration, on your desk, for two reasons. Number one: Even if your mike is not on, it still resonates and makes a distraction. Number two: When your mikes are on, our interpreters and our sound people get a huge blast in their ears, and it is actually quite harmful.

I’m going to ask you to please be cautious of that. If you have them, either put them on your lap or take them away.

Visitor

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

Hon. David Zimmer: Introduction.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction.

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, I’d like to introduce Philip Holst, who is over here in the gallery. He’s with Ducks Unlimited. He’s a long-time friend and he’s an enormous supporter and contributor to Ducks Unlimited.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Section 11.8 of the Liberal Party’s constitution says that you, the leader, must communicate your decision—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. No interjections. I need to hear the question, because I’m listening carefully.

Mr. Jim Wilson: The constitution says that you, as leader, have to communicate your decision as soon as possible if you’ve made the decision to appoint a candidate.

You claim you made your decision in November, and you claim you told Mr. Olivier of your decision in December. Yet you didn’t tell the riding association until January 7.

Premier, why did you breach your own constitution and wait for over a month to tell the riding association of your decision?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, let me be very clear. I’ve made this statement about my decision many times. It was well known that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate in Sudbury—and we’re very pleased to have him. I formally wrote to the riding association president and nominations commissioner on the day of the by-election—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also want to hear the answers.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t want any more interjections from the member from Timmins–James Bay.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s when the paperwork was completed. But it was well known that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: During question period, you’ve repeatedly said, “I had made that decision at the end of November. Once I had met Glenn Thibeault, that decision was made.” Yet Andrew Olivier told the OPP the conversation he had with you on December 11 was the same as the one he had had earlier that day with Gerry Lougheed Jr. In that conversation, he was being offered a job or a bribe to step aside as the candidate and to nominate Glenn Thibeault instead.

Premier, if you made the decision in November, why didn’t you tell Andrew Olivier on December 11 that there would be no nomination?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that once I had a meeting with Glenn Thibeault—because I hadn’t met him. After all, he had been part of another party; he was making a decision about his future. Once I had met him, at the end of November, I made a decision that he would be the best candidate for us in Sudbury. That was the decision that I had made. The paperwork was completed in January, but it was well known long before that that Glenn would be the candidate for us in Sudbury.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: The taped conversations between Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed Jr. with Andrew Olivier stand in stark contrast to your statement that Andrew Olivier was told before December 11 that he would not be the Liberal candidate.

Premier, you’ve been repeatedly asked for evidence to back up your version of events. Your letter of January 7 tears even more holes in your implausible story.

You need to end this farce, stop denigrating the office that you hold and tell Ontarians once and for all: Did you authorize Pat Sorbara or Gerry Lougheed Jr. to have those conversations with Mr. Olivier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, once again, I take this matter very seriously. The member knows that there’s an investigation going on and that that investigation is happening outside of this House. It’s an independent process.

I have to say that I actually agree with the PC House leader, who on February 27 said this: “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation and let it run its course.”

The fact is that there’s an investigation going on. I am going to let that investigation run its course, Mr. Speaker. But it’s going to run its course outside of this Legislature, independently of the House.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham of Ontario Superior Court wrote, “Appointments to government offices ... are not to be traded for political favour. They are appointments that must be made in a fair, open and transparent manner.”

Premier, you tried to sneak an appointment or a job offer to Andrew Olivier past the people of Ontario. It was not fair. It was not open. It was not transparent.

Again, did you direct Gerry Lougheed Jr. and/or Pat Sorbara to offer Mr. Olivier an appointment to step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me again just say that I challenge the premise of the question and the statements that the interim Leader of the Opposition has made. I would remind him that there is an investigation going on. I would also remind him of what the Chief Electoral Officer said. He determined that the allegations against me and the member for Sudbury were baseless. He went on to say, “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence.

Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.” He did not say that those are decisions for the interim Leader of the Opposition. Those are decisions for the people who are involved in the investigation, and we’re going to let that unfold as it must.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Premier: Justice Cunningham has also said that the Criminal Code bribery provisions are “aimed at preventing influence peddling in order to protect the public’s confidence in the integrity and appearance of integrity of the government.”

Premier, according to a recent poll, the public’s confidence in your integrity is pretty low. Two thirds of Ontarians want your deputy chief of staff to resign. Premier, will you restore some semblance of integrity to your office and step aside if charges are laid against either Pat Sorbara or Gerry Lougheed Jr.?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I made a statement two Fridays ago. I said that there were clear actions that needed to be taken if there were a charge laid against anyone and that Pat Sorbara would step aside if that were the case. That’s in the public realm; I made it very clear.

I also said that there is an investigation going on. We need to let that investigation unfold. That investigation will unfold outside of this House.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, your very own Gerry Lougheed Jr. once said, “A solution by fat cats in Toronto may not be the right solution for Sudbury.” But you made the decision, Premier, to appoint a candidate from behind your desk here at Queen’s Park. You were prepared to offer Mr. Olivier a government appointment or job so he wouldn’t stand in the way of your decision.

Premier, you have sullied the integrity and the dignity of the office you hold. Salvage what little public confidence is left in you. Commit to the people of Ontario that you will resign as Premier if either Gerry Lougheed or Pat Sorbara is convicted of an offence of bribery.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve said clearly that I will co-operate with the authorities, that that investigation is taking place outside this House, and we need to let it unfold there. I will continue to work closely with the authorities, as is the right thing to do.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. On what date did the Premier provide the Liberal Party’s nomination commissioner and Sudbury riding association president the written notice that she was appointing Glenn Thibeault as the Liberal candidate in Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the member opposite, I think, knows full well, I have made many statements about my decision to have Glenn Thibeault as the candidate in Sudbury. I made that decision after I met him at the end of November.

I think the member opposite also knows that I formally wrote to the riding association president and nominations commissioner on the day that the by-election was called. That’s when the paperwork was completed. The decision was made much before that, and it was well known that Glenn was going to be our candidate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: January 7, that’s the date, almost a month after Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed were taped offering Andrew Olivier anything he wanted to step aside, almost a month after those phone calls were made on behalf of the Premier, almost a month after the Premier’s own conversation with Mr. Olivier. There is now written evidence, in addition to taped evidence, that the Premier’s story does not add up.

I ask the Premier: Will she have one more conversation with her soul, this time about the need to come clean with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I say it was well known that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate, it really wasn’t that long ago. There were newspaper reports; it was quite in the public realm that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate. I would just say to the member opposite that she can check the record and she can see. It’s true that the paperwork was completed on the day that the election was called, but it was common knowledge long before that that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier insisted that she decided to appoint Glenn Thibeault long before the Liberal operatives were dangling jobs in front of Andrew Olivier, but the Premier’s letter to the Liberal Party makes it clear that she only appointed Glenn Thibeault after those attempts had failed.

This is a question that the Premier has been asked 44 times, but she has not given a straightforward answer yet: Who gave Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed their orders to get Mr. Olivier out of the way so that Glenn Thibeault could have an uncontested nomination?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will say again that the investigation that’s going on is going on outside of this Legislature. It’s very important that it be independent and that we let that unfold.

In fact, the NDP member for Timmins–James Bay said last week, “You do have a larger responsibility to make sure you’re careful in the use of your words so you don’t interfere in any ... way.” That is the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I think if the leader of the third party would just turn to her right and talk to the member for Timmins–Bay, she would understand that it’s important that all of us—all of us—let the investigation take place outside.

I made a decision at the end of November that Glenn Thibeault would be the best candidate for us in Sudbury. I think that was the right decision.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. To confirm, to make sure he heard me, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

New question?

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. There is evidence that Andrew Olivier was offered any job he wanted in order to get out of the Premier’s way. There is evidence that Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed were acting on orders from the Premier, and there is evidence in black and white that the Premier made the decision to appoint her candidate after attempts to get Andrew Olivier out of the way failed.

Of course, the Premier still claims that all this evidence is wrong. Does the Premier have any evidence to support her version of the story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I challenge much of the premise of the leader of the third party’s question. I made a decision at the end of November, having met our candidate, having met Glenn Thibeault, that he would be the best candidate for the Liberals in Sudbury.

The people of Sudbury made a decision. The people of Sudbury voted for Glenn Thibeault. We have a new member on this side of the House because he was the best candidate for Sudbury. The people in Sudbury made that decision.

I know that’s painful for the third party; I understand the degree to which that’s painful. But the fact is, the people of Sudbury made a decision.

There is an investigation going on, and that investigation is going on outside of this House, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Any Ontarian with a computer or a smartphone can hear the tapes of Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed offering jobs to Andrew Olivier on behalf of this Premier. The OPP warrant is available publicly. Elections Ontario reported its finding that there is evidence that senior Liberals broke the Election Act, and that report is publicly available, Speaker. And now Ontarians can read about a letter showing that the Premier didn’t appoint her candidate until after she found out that she could not get Andrew Olivier out of the way.

In that growing mountain of evidence, there isn’t a single shred that backs up the Premier’s version of events. Is there anything at all—anything—that the Premier can show us that backs up her version of this bribery scandal from Sudbury?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, it was well known long before the paperwork was completed that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate. That’s a matter of public record. As I have said, the investigation that’s ongoing is happening outside of this House. We need to let it unfold in an independent way outside of the Legislature.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier seems to be more comfortable answering police questions than answering questions here in the Legislature. It’s getting quite ridiculous, Speaker. People actually deserve so much better than this. They deserve to know that—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Breaking the law doesn’t matter to you?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not get quiet for you to interject, member from Timmins–James Bay.

Please finish your question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They deserve to know that their politicians play by the rules. They deserve to know that the Premier of Ontario is going to answer questions and tell the truth without first receiving a subpoena or a warrant or being interrogated by the OPP. What evidence does the Premier have to back up her story?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I agree with the leader of the third party that the people of Ontario deserve to know that their politicians are going to answer questions, and I will do that. I will answer questions here and I will work with the authorities. I have said over and over again, first, when I made a public statement, I made it clear when I had made the decision and what that decision was: that Glenn Thibeault would be our candidate.

I’ve also said that I will work with the authorities absolutely in every way that they ask of me and that they require, but I will do that outside of this House because that’s where the investigation is taking place. That’s where the authorities are, not here; they are outside of the House.

Government accountability

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Premier, are you familiar with this following quote: “I can’t fire them simply on the basis of charges”—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: “They have to have their day in court. They have to have a chance to prove their innocence. I have got to see more than this”?

Premier, does this quote sound familiar? Do you know what this quote is in reference to?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am sure that the member opposite is going to tell me

chapter and verse exactly where that quote comes from.

In the meantime I will say to him that I’ve been quite clear that I will co-operate with the authorities. I’ve been quite clear that there’s an investigation going on outside the House, and I made a statement about my position on all that two Fridays ago, and I continue to reinforce that in response to questions from the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Back to the Premier: Premier, I’m surprised you don’t know who said that. Even I was surprised it wasn’t you and it wasn’t even your predecessor—although I’m sure he had said similar things many times.

It was disgraced president Richard Nixon discussing how he justified his actions in the David Frost interviews.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Where’s David Frost when you need him?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is tiptoeing very closely to a rope he doesn’t want to hang himself with.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need any other interjections.

Please continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Speaker. Back to the Premier: That’s from the infamous Frost/Nixon interviews surrounding Watergate. It sounds very, very much like the same phrase that we’ve been hearing from you.

Premier, you do know how that story unfolded. Is it your intention to disgrace this Legislature the same way that President Nixon disgraced his career and the White House when he served?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I ask the member opposite whether he recognizes the following two quotes: “I really don’t have a comment to make on this because it’s before the courts.” Does he recognize who said that? It was just yesterday that the PC member from Whitby–Oshawa actually made that quote. We agree with her that when it comes to matters of anything criminal that we should let the independent authorities do the investigation.

Let me ask whether you recognize this other quote: “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation, and let it run its course.” Who said that? That’s the opposition House leader, the member from Leeds–Grenville, who said that. I agree with that quote as well.

We know that we have a system in place in this province where, if there are investigations that are ongoing, they are, by legislation, an independent process that is undertaken by prosecutors and by police. We should respect that process and let that independent investigation take place as opposed to commenting on it in the House.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier needs to tell Ontarians why she’s insisting that she decided to appoint her Sudbury candidate in November. In December, the Premier’s top insiders were dangling jobs in front of Andrew Olivier to get him to stop seeking the Liberal nomination.

At that point, Andrew Olivier said there was no discussion and no decision about appointing. The president of the Liberal riding association said he hadn’t heard anything about the decision to appoint. Gerry Lougheed said that the Premier didn’t want to appoint, and Pat Sorbara made it clear that there was no decision to appoint.

Here is a letter from the Premier showing that there was no decision about appointing until January 2015. Why is the Premier insisting one thing when every single piece of evidence points to something else?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, I think the Premier has answered the same question on several occasions, but let me just provide the member opposite, once again, with a primer on how our system works when it comes to issues like this. When it comes to, for example, any potential violation of the Ontario Election Act, as we know, the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to do an investigation. When he does an investigation and he finds that there is an apparent contravention, he then refers that matter to the Attorney General for the public prosecutors to determine whether or not there should be any further action taken.

The public prosecutor then does his or her own investigation into the matter to decide, based on evidence, whether there should be any charges or not. If there are charges, then it’s up to our judges in the courts to determine whether the person is guilty or not. That entire process is arm’s-length and independent. We should respect that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is back to the Premier. This province—this Legislature—doesn’t need any primer from Liberals about how to follow or break laws, because clearly you guys don’t have a very good track record. So I say again: Andrew Olivier, Bill Nurmi, Pat Sorbara, Gerry Lougheed and the Premier’s own letter all say that no decision had been made about appointing the Premier’s chosen candidate in December. In fact, evidence shows that the decision didn’t come until January.

Why has the Premier been insisting that she made a decision in November?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, in the same way, we don’t need any primers from the NDP when it comes to bringing progressive policies in this province that make a difference in people’s lives, because that’s the party across which voted against increases for our hard-working personal support workers. This is the party opposite, the third party, that voted against raising wages for child care workers. This is the party across that voted against increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to the cost of living. That is the party that voted against increases to the child care benefit.

We don’t need lectures from the third party, which has forgotten its progressive roots. This is the party—and this is the leader, Premier Kathleen Wynne—which is bringing progressive policies to improve the lives of Ontarians every single day. We will continue to do that, and make sure that there is retirement income security for hard-working Ontarians as well.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Bill Walker: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

First responders

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Labour. Ontario’s first responders and health care professionals, including nurses, transit workers and correctional officers, have made it very clear: Ontario needs to do more to address traumatic mental stress in the workplace.

Recently I met with front-line nurses and physicians in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. They shared with me many challenges, like complexity of care and the diversity of issues that front-line health professionals face every day in their practice.

This past year, across Canada, first responders and others have been urging their governments to take action to address these growing concerns about traumatic mental stress in the workplace. We have all heard about tragic incidents, including firefighters and police officers who have taken their own lives because they have not been able to get the help they need. We all agree that we need to act to prevent this trend from continuing.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, what is the province doing to ensure that employers are providing adequate support to employees who are suffering from traumatic mental stress?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that very important and very timely question. I think any of us in this House who have a friend, colleague or family member who is dealing with traumatic mental stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, understands the devastating effect this can have on people.

I would agree that we need to do everything we can as a Legislature, as a province, to ensure that workers get the support they need when they are forced to deal with work-related traumatic mental stress.

There’s a growing amount of evidence that highlights the benefit of preventive initiatives when it comes to dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Our government takes work-related TMS very, very seriously. We engaged a round table of experts on traumatic mental stress. We’ve already begun acting on their proposed actions.

Tomorrow, we’re holding a summit on work-related traumatic mental stress right here in Toronto to build upon the work of that round table. Speaker, that’s going to attract some of the best and brightest minds on this topic to Toronto. I’d urge all members to try to attend for a portion.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you to the minister.

It appears that our government is positioning itself on the right side of this issue to ensure Ontario’s workplaces have the tools they need to address TMS.

I recently read that mental illness costs the Canadian economy $52 billion annually in lost productivity and is the number one cause of disability claims in Canada.

Among those most disproportionately affected by mental health problems are new Canadians and recent immigrants. They face many cultural and linguistic barriers, both in the workplace and in trying to find proper treatment.

In my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, there are a number of specialized agencies that serve the very diverse community, like the Hong Fook nurse practitioner clinic.

The discussions that will take place at tomorrow’s summit on work-related traumatic mental stress will empower the participants to better serve my constituents and all Ontarians on how to overcome those barriers.

Speaker, through you to the minister: You mentioned earlier about hosting the summit tomorrow. Can you please elaborate on what that day will look like and who will be participating?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you again for the question from the member.

The government is bringing together workers, employers, advocates, educators, change leaders and experts from a wide range of sectors at the summit tomorrow here in Toronto. More than 150 invited representatives will share the innovative approaches they have to promote cultural change. They’ll learn from other industry leaders on how they can enhance mental health and the safety of their own employees.

Speaker, one of the highlights of the summit will be the keynote address by the great humanitarian Lieutenant General the Honourable Roméo Dallaire, who will speak about his first-hand experience with traumatic mental stress. If anybody has been an outspoken advocate, it’s him.

The main goal of tomorrow’s summit is not to start a conversation on traumatic mental stress. That conversation has already begun. Instead, it’s about elevating that conversation to a higher level. I look forward to being part of it. I hope I see some of the members I’m hearing from at that summit tomorrow.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about the Sudbury by-election.

Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer was very clear that he believed there was an apparent contravention of the bribery statute contained within the Election Act. Your deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, is accused of bribery. Your backroom Liberal operative Gerry Lougheed was also involved in the alleged bribery.

It’s illegal to grant government jobs or other positions as a favour.

Premier, why have you not removed Gerry Lougheed and Pat Sorbara?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the member opposite—I’m sure he just neglected to read this part of what the Chief Electoral Officer said: “I am neither deciding to prosecute a matter nor determining anyone’s guilt or innocence. Those decisions are respectively for prosecutors and judges.”

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I take this matter very seriously. There is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While you were heckling, I indicated that I wanted you to come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I take this matter very seriously. As the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has said, there is a process. That process is being undertaken at this moment, but it’s a process that takes place outside of this House. That’s where the investigation is taking place, and that is exactly where it should take place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the Premier: In our society, in the province of Ontario, we all believe in the rule of law. Justice is blind; no one is beyond it. Our rule of law is based on a set of strict principles to which we, as a society, all agree. Our rule of law is not arbitrary. Our rule of law is not subject to financial influence.

You, your friends and your hired operatives believe you are above the law. The fact is, if you break the law, you pay the price. We now have four OPP investigations into this alleged criminal activity, and this reflects badly on everyone.

Premier, for the good of all concerned, and if charges are laid, will you step aside?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I really appreciate that the member opposite talked about the rule of law, because I wish his other members would recognize what, in our system of democracy, the rule of law means. The rule of law, in our system, creates a clear distinction between the executive branch of the government and the judicial branch of the government.

By the same logic that the member opposite talked about, it is prohibited that we, the executive branch, get involved in the judicial branch of the system. That is a fundamental tenet of our rule of law. We have a separate judicial process in place right now. There is an investigation that is ongoing, and the only right and legal thing to do is to respect those investigations and not comment in this House.

So I urge all the members opposite: Let’s get back to the issues that are important to Ontarians. Let’s talk about issues that Ontarians are talking about, like building good public infrastructure.

By-election in Sudbury

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. Senior Liberals made offers to Mr. Andrew Olivier. The Premier is on record as saying that was okay because she had already decided to appoint her chosen candidate, that she was just helping Mr. Olivier. But the evidence shows something completely different. The evidence shows that the Liberals were desperate to get Mr. Olivier to withdraw from the nomination so that they could have an uncontested nomination meeting, and the letter to the president of the Sudbury riding association shows that there was never any decision until long after the attempts to get Andrew Olivier out of the nomination meeting had failed.

Will the Premier tell Ontarians the date she decided that she was going to appoint her chosen candidate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that there are members in the third party—

Hon. James J. Bradley: She’s a sore loser.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —who understand that I have the authority and the ability, as the Liberal leader, to appoint candidates, and I made a decision after I had met Glenn Thibeault—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Scarborough–Guildwood.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been pressed: The deputy House leader is warned.

Finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I made a decision that Glenn Thibeault was the best person to be our candidate in Sudbury, and I made that decision after I had met him at the end of November. There is an investigation going on; it’s going on outside of this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The statement from the Premier has her kind of twisted in a knot where she’s trying to explain that really, honestly and for real, she had decided to appoint her candidate in November but she didn’t tell anyone. She didn’t tell her campaign director. She didn’t tell her local kingmaker in Sudbury. She didn’t tell her candidate. She didn’t tell her former candidate, her riding association president or the Liberal Party, whose constitution makes it clear that she had to do so.

Is the Premier going to admit the date she decided to bypass the nomination meeting and go for an appointment? Because right now it looks like this date was in January.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite actually lives quite close to where all of this is taking place. I think that the member opposite could—if she looks back at the newspapers, she would know that it was pretty common knowledge that Glenn Thibeault was going to be our candidate. To suggest that that wasn’t the case, I think, is just not accurate.

I had made a decision that Glenn would be the best candidate for us in Sudbury. There is an investigation going on. It’s going on outside of this House and I’ll continue to co-operate with authorities.

Infrastructure program funding

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure. I’ve had the privilege of advocating on behalf of my community at the federal level and now I have the privilege to do the same at the provincial level. This is a responsibility I take very seriously.

From knocking on doors in the past by-election, my constituents clearly identified the Maley Drive extension as an important infrastructure project for our community. I am now proud to say that I am part of a government that included this project, not only in the past budget but as part of its submission to the federal Building Canada Fund.

Would the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure please update this House about the important Sudbury infrastructure project?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, it is so good—almost refreshing—to see a member from the Sudbury area asking questions that really matter to Sudbury and really matter to Ontarians, so I thank the member for the question.

It’s with great pleasure that I can say and confirm that this government is fully committed to our share of the Maley Drive project. We know that the project is very important to the people of Sudbury, as it will reduce congestion along two of the city’s main arterial roads.

In our 2014 budget, our government committed up to $26.7 million for the first phase of the expansion of Maley Drive. We highlighted this project again in our recent budget. The NDP had an opportunity to vote for this project in the first budget; they rejected it. They had a second opportunity; they rejected it again. We’re looking forward to hearing from the federal government with an approval, so that Maley Drive can go through.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I’d also like to thank the minister for driving this important project forward. I, too, remain optimistic that the federal government comes to the table and commits to this project.

However, I saw first-hand when I was a member of Parliament that the federal Conservatives are not making adequate investments in infrastructure, not just in Ontario but across the country. They are shortchanging Ontarians and all Canadians.

Fortunately, this government and this Premier prioritize infrastructure. Our Premier is calling for a new Canadian infrastructure partnership, a collaboration that has the explicit target of investing 5% of GDP in infrastructure renewal.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please inform the House about this drastic comparison between federal and provincial infrastructure spending?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely right: The federal government is not adequately investing in infrastructure. Since 2003, this government has invested nearly $100 billion in infrastructure, and we’re investing $130 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years. That will create 110,000 jobs across this province.

Comparing our record to the federal government, over the next 10 years, our government plans to invest nearly five times more per capita in infrastructure than the federal government. You’d be hard-pressed to find a national government anywhere in the world doing so little, compared to the provincial governments across this country.

Our Premier is absolutely right: The federal government must commit more to a national infrastructure partnership. Projects like Maley Drive, the Ring of Fire and public transit need the federal government to commit more so that we can continue to compete in this fiercely globally competitive economy.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I’m glad to see your enthusiasm.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Since the very beginnings of this Sudbury by-election—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Let’s reboot.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Since the very beginnings of this Sudbury by-election scandal, you have made many sad excuses for Liberals behaving in unethical ways.

From the response in my riding and, in fact, from all across this great province, I can tell you that Ontarians are saying that by your unwillingness to admit wrongdoing and dismiss those who are accused of criminal offences, you are diminishing the high office you hold.

Later today, our leader will address the House regarding his opposition day motion. Will you finally accept responsibility for defending Liberals under criminal investigation and acknowledge that, if you will not have them step aside, you are in fact breaching the public trust?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure the members opposite and anyone watching that we take this issue very, very seriously. We’ve heard the Premier, time and time again, talk about how any investigation should be conducted by qualified people outside of this Legislature. In fact, when asked about charges laid against a PC staff member just this week, the PC member from Whitby–Oshawa said, “I really don’t have a comment to make on this because it’s before the courts.”

The PC House leader agrees with the member from Whitby–Oshawa—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: He said, “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation. Let it run its course.”

So we actually take the wisdom from the members opposite to heart—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and we will not be discussing this in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, that was a sad and disappointing response from the Deputy Premier.

Premier, back to you: During your leadership speech you said that this is the time, right now, “to show that we’ve learned from our mistakes. That they will not happen again.” By standing in the way of our opposition motion, you will show that this is the same tired, arrogant, unethical Liberal government that you inherited from Dalton McGuinty. You have put your own ego and the needs of your party before the needs of the people of Ontario.

Premier, I ask you again: Will you acknowledge the breach of ethics, stop stonewalling our efforts to get to the bottom of this scandal and put Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed in the penalty box, at least until this investigation is complete?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that what I find to be very disappointing is that both opposition parties have, for the last number of weeks, asked the same question over and over and over again. They have used their questions to do this muckraking instead of focusing on issues that matter.

We have people from the credit unions here today; they’ve got important questions. I think they’d like you to be asking us questions about what they’re here to discuss. We’ve had various people here—the children’s treatment centres. I bet they have questions that they’d like you to be asking us.

You’ve asked the questions over and over again. You’ve had the same answer over and over again. I think you’re letting your constituents down by not asking the questions they want to hear answers to.

By-election in Sudbury

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

According to the evidence, the Premier decided to appoint her hand-picked candidate the same day that the writ was dropped. If the Premier is claiming she decided to appoint her hand-picked candidate in November, why did she wait until the eleventh hour to actually make that appointment?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: So let’s understand this question. Good morning. The member is asking about why the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party didn’t get the paperwork in when he thinks she ought to have done that. Now, I think that’s a pretty big stretch.

Interjection: It’s ridiculous.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My colleague says it’s a ridiculous question. I wouldn’t say it’s a ridiculous question, but it’s not a question that pertains to government policy or government business. It’s not a question, I’ll bet, that the people in Windsor want their members to ask.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: It’s not what I think the Premier should have done. Why didn’t the Premier follow the Liberal constitution and inform the Liberal Party as soon as she made her decision to appoint her candidate? It’s in the constitution, for God’s sake.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s very clear that the nomination process in the NDP, the New Democratic Party, is not the same as it is in the Ontario Liberal Party. In the Ontario Liberal Party—because members of the party have voted constitutional rules that give the leader the ability to appoint candidates.

The NDP just ram through the candidate they want. They put someone in charge of the process and then that person, Adam Giambrone, ends up running for that nomination in Scarborough–Guildwood.

I don’t like your way of doing nominations, but I’m not going to stand up and ask you about your party constitution in this place.

Credit unions

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, I understand that today is credit union advocacy day. We have members of credit unions from across the province visiting Queen’s Park today and meeting with MPPs.

I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with members of credit unions from my riding of Newmarket–Aurora—Meridian—telling me about the wonderful things they are doing in our riding. They’re telling us about the wonderful things they’re doing in all of our ridings.

It’s unfortunate that the opposition are not asking questions about the good work the credit unions do and the important role they play in our provincial economy.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance: What is our government doing to support this critical industry?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you to the member for a great question. The member for Newmarket–Aurora has rightly cited how important the credit unions and caisses populaires are to the province of Ontario, to their communities and to our economy. We appreciate the outstanding work that the sector does for all of us concerned.

On behalf of all of my Liberal caucus members and colleagues, we recognize that in order for credit unions to continue to do their good work, we have to review their act.

I am very proud that my parliamentary assistant, Laura Albanese, the MPP from York South–Weston, is doing a tremendous job of consulting with communities right across Ontario in terms of what we should do to build Ontario up, looking at ways to continue providing that investment, those incentives, for businesses to invest, for consumers to build and create more jobs. That wouldn’t be possible without the outstanding partnership with our credit unions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Chris Ballard: I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for that informative answer.

This review will assist credit union workers to continue to do their important work in building up Ontario’s economy. I know in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora, we value the work of credit unions. I see the important contributions they make to my community day in and day out.

But Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance please provide some more information on this important review that he has requested MPP Laura Albanese to lead?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you again to the member. Mr. Speaker, there are over 118 credit unions in Ontario serving 1.6 million members, employing over 6,000 people and holding over $40 billion in assets. They deserve to ensure that the government, in partnership with them, will do what’s necessary for them to continue to succeed: looking at deposit insurance coverage limits; looking at revisiting subsidiary ownership; reviewing and adopting Basel III capital requirements and inputs that they know are important; enabling innovation so that we can all do better; and ensuring that they are able to do even more business with more sectors of our economy, like the MUSH sector.

We hear you loud and clear. They’re not asking you those questions; we will, and we’ll fight for you as well.

Interjections.

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

A reminder to all members that you’re addressing your questions and answers to the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now that I have quiet, I’ll say it again for those who didn’t hear: In this place, you direct your questions and answers to the Chair.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim McDonell: To the Premier: You did not inform the Sudbury riding association of your intention to appoint a candidate for weeks, during which time your operatives Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed allegedly tried to bribe your former candidate with a public appointment so that your Liberal—

Interjections.

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

Please put your question.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Your Liberal operatives Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed allegedly tried to bribe your former candidate with a public appointment so that your Liberal nomination would go to your chosen candidate uncontested.

You breached your own party’s constitution and your operatives allegedly broke the law, according to the Chief Electoral Officer. However, you stated that after your review, there will likely be no charges.

When did you offer yourself the appointment as prosecutor, judge and jury, and when did you ask yourself what to give up in exchange for this?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I challenge the premise of some of the statements that the member opposite has made. I’ve been very clear that I will co-operate with the authorities. I take it very seriously. I made a statement that laid out my position, Mr. Speaker. I have said very clearly that this is an investigation that needs to take place outside of the House.

I’ve also said very clearly that when I first met Glenn, I made a decision that he would be the best candidate for us in Sudbury. I think that was a very good decision, borne out by the fact that the people of Sudbury chose him as their representative here at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Speaker, back to the Premier: Your office is subject to four OPP investigations. At this pace, investigators will need their own reserved parking spot at Queen’s Park.

Your own candidates don’t trust you to come clean–

Interjection.

The