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

April 18, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Apr-18 (PDF)

L038 - Wed 18 Apr 2012 / Mer 18 avr 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 18 April 2012 Mercredi 18 avril 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

TAXATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TAXATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

CURRICULUM

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ARBITRATION

BANKING FEES

TABLE HOCKEY

AWARDS IN MILTON

TOURISM

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

HOCKEY

DAVID WEATHERHEAD

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TREATING SPOUSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS

DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

(TRAITEMENT DES CONJOINTS)

ELEPHANT PROTECTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÉPHANTS

TRUST IN ARBITRATION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA CONFIANCE

DANS L’ARBITRAGE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

PETITIONS

IMMIGRATION POLICY /

POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TOURISM

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

IMMIGRATION POLICY /

POLITIQUES D’IMMIGRATION

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HYDRO RATES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO BUDGET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2012 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L’ONTARIO DE 2012

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 17, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member from Huron–Bruce.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to rise this morning to participate in the debate on Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act. Sorry, we just didn’t know if some other parties were participating, so we’re back to this.

None of us in the House dispute the fact that bullying, in all its forms, has become a scourge in our schools, victimizing young people all over the province. I know that the newspapers have been certainly pronounced in the last several months in highlighting this fact with several cases that we’ve seen.

You know, in my day, I wish I could say—and I won’t say the date—that when I was in school, this did not exist, but we all know that’s untrue. We’ve always had bullying in our schools. I doubt that any of us went through our school years without either experiencing bullying first-hand or seeing it perpetrated on someone else, a friend or a relative. Although I hate to think about it, there may even be a couple of former bullies sitting here today.

Today, our schools are much more diversified in our society. That wasn’t so obvious in the past decades. In recent decades, Canada—and Ontario in particular—has undergone a social and cultural metamorphosis. People from all over the world now make Ontario their home. They bring with them different customs, languages, clothing, religious practices, and appearances, which we now take for granted.

So this very diversity which makes our society so rich and vibrant can, unfortunately, spawn even greater opportunities for bullying and intolerance, often with tragic results, which we have unfortunately witnessed in this province. My colleagues, who spoke on this bill before, have aptly described instances of such tragedies, which are heartbreaking.

Young people are bullied because of their skin colour, their religion, their accent, the labels of the clothes and shoes that they wear, their ethnic background, their perceived social or economic class, their complexion, how fat or how thin they are and, of course, their sexual orientation. No one is disputing any of this; it is a reality that we all share.

As some of my colleagues have already said, there is no one in this House who has the knowledge, experience and expertise on this subject of my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo, Elizabeth Witmer. She’s a professional educator, a parent, a school board chair, an opposition education critic and a former Minister of Education. Ms. Witmer brings wisdom, compassion and practical experience to this debate. Her private member’s bill, Bill 14, the Anti-Bullying Act, is a culmination of several years of research, analysis and passion.

It is a well-written, researched, documented piece of legislation which comprehensively addresses all forms of bullying. It drew on the personal and tragic experience of real victims of bullying, which she so eloquently detailed during her debate on the bill. It was influenced by the high statistics on bullying, such as the survey by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health which stated that about one third of all students have been bullied and another one third have been the bully. Ms. Witmer’s bill also drew on a 2010 survey of grade 12 students by the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association, which found that 46% had either been the victim or the perpetrator of bullying.

So while Bills 13 and 14 take quite different approaches to the problem of bullying, both were developed with the most honourable intentions, I believe, by their authors. However, this is where the bills diverge: Bill 14 is a far more comprehensive document in detailing all the conceivable reasons that a child may be bullied.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It addresses the issue.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes. It analyzes the far-reaching social impact which bullying has on victims, their families, the perpetrators of the act, the school environment and the educational process itself. It puts a specific focus on cyberbullying, which of course is the most dominant and prevalent form of bullying in today’s society. Bill 13 only touches on this phenomenon.

What Bill 13 does do is single out specific victims of bullying rather than addressing the far broader aspects of it. All victims of bullying are equal. They share a common pain, a lack of self-worth, a helpless anxiety of who they are and where they come from, and this is the problem. Our education critic, Ms. MacLeod, has done an excellent job in her analysis of the bill—her examples that she’s brought from her riding have been actually nationally portrayed—and the changes that we’d like to see.

But this government believes that some victims of bullying are more worthy of special focus and attention and need to be specifically singled out in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I’m reminded of the great George Orwell classic Animal Farm, in which the animal kingdom is ruled by the pigs and other animals are there to serve them. In that social satire, the first item on the animal bill of rights is that all animals are created equal, except pigs, who are more equal. Bill 13 creates a super class of bullying victims, and that’s not right. No victims of bullying are more worthy of support, compassion and understanding than other victims.

As my colleagues have already said, I’m appealing to the Minister of Education to draw on the comprehensive and well-researched bill which my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo has put forward, and which passed second reading two or three weeks ago. The incorporation of Ms. Witmer’s ideas into the official government bill would strengthen it immeasurably. As my colleague the member from Dufferin–Caledon yesterday said so eloquently, simply because an idea originates on this side of the House does not mean that it’s unworthy of consideration and further discussion.

This is not a game of good guys and bad guys. As members of the House, we are all elected by our constituents for whatever skills and talents we have to offer the people of our ridings. We all stood for office and come here every day to do our small part to try to make this province a better place for all our citizens. None of us comes here in the morning saying, “What can I do to make Ontario a worse place and make life more miserable for our citizens?” To take this type of approach is silly, childish and, I believe, political. It is partisan politics at its worst.

As many of us have said, Bill 13 would be vastly improved by incorporating much of what Ms. Witmer has put into Bill 14. As Bill 13 currently stands, it is too narrow and one-dimensional. It does not recognize the complexity of bullying in terms of both the victims and the degree and variety of bullying to which these victims are subjected.

This is not the time for partisan politics. We have pleaded on that for weeks and months—I see the education minister shaking her head, but really the stakes are too high. Stop it.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m surprised you’d do this.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Really? Too many innocent young victims and potential victims are counting on us to do the right thing and make their environment safer and more respectful. Again, I implore the Minister of Education to put aside the partisanship which we have seen in the preparation, introduction and debate associated with Bill 13. As I said earlier, there is no one in this House who has the knowledge, expertise, wisdom and passion for this subject as do my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo and my colleague from Nepean–Carleton.

The government needs to put aside its fear of ideas which don’t originate on the government side of the House and embrace good ideas from proposals, regardless of where they come from.

So we cannot support Bill 13 as it is currently crafted. However, a modification of this legislation to reflect the main components of Bill 14, the Anti-Bullying Act, would undoubtedly produce a bill that’s worthy of support. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this, this morning. I trust that the minister and the government—I’ve genuinely got up and said my piece—will do the right thing and amend this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Mr. Speaker, I support much of what the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has said, and I’m concerned about both political parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. We’re dealing with an issue of bullying here, and it’s clear to me that there is bullying on both sides, and this has got to stop.

The New Democrats could have introduced Bill 15, and we didn’t because we thought that would be yet another element of division within the political parties, and we thought, given the topic, that that wasn’t a fair thing to do.

I think the Minister of Education has really—I mean, she says she’s making efforts to reach out, although in her work with the school boards, I notice that she has been quite a tough person—dare I say that she has bullied some.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have it from good sources. What I really want to say to both parties is, just reach out a little bit on either side and end the schoolyard stuff, because this is what we’re talking about. I think if you did that, we can solve this.

I support Bill 13. We do. We supported Bill 14, and there are elements in both bills that are reasonable. So I reach out to both political parties—you are both equally unfair around this issue—and I say to you both, stop it. We’re dealing with bullying, and I think one of you has to stop it.

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

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I’m pleased to rise again to speak to Bill 13 as we continue this discussion with regard to accepting schools and making children feel safe and helping our schools accept all our children. As a mother, again this is an area that I speak to my children about. I hear the stories, and we can all remember when we were younger, as was pointed out earlier. This isn’t a new phenomenon but one that has certainly come to the fore in terms of the changes that are occurring in our schools.

We’ve had many hours of debate on this bill. Quite evidently, we all agree: Something needs to be done. But we are spending so much time here talking about which is the better bill, who has the better definition and who has the better information, where what we should be doing is proceeding with this, bringing this to committee and making changes if we need to make them so that we can actually go forward and protect our children. We are spending too much time discussing which is better, Bill 13 or Bill 14; again, another point where the opposition seems to think they have all the answers, they have the right

definitions, they have the right bill,

whereas we have the wrong bill.

So I would agree with the statement that was just made: We need to work together on this; we need to bring this forward. Bring this to committee so that we can continue to do what we need to do, and that is to protect our children, support our schools, and support our families and our community.

Our legislation provides clear expectations. I know that the opposition seems to think it doesn’t. It increases accountability. It’s a complete bill. I can’t agree with the statement that this government has been selfish or that we’re not doing what we need to do for our community. This is a world-class bill, and this government has invested heavily in our schools and our education system to work with our children and with our school boards.

So let’s remember, it’s all about the children. That’s what we’re here for. And as we continue to spend time here debating this or debating what should or shouldn’t be said in the bill, we’re wasting time. We need to bring this forward. Thank you.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock on her opportunity to speak to the anti-bullying legislation.

I’m a bit disturbed at what I heard from the New Democrats and from the Liberals today that they effectively think we shouldn’t continue to debate important issues of the day in the chamber and do our due diligence. That’s the right of the opposition; it’s also the right of every single member here to actually talk about the important issues of the day, and this piece of legislation, of course, is one that’s important to my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party. I know it’s important to members of the other parties as well, but we shouldn’t be bullied for our points of view. I mean, that’s where they need to be careful, because at the end of the day, this impacts kids’ lives.

Parents have contacted us. As education critic for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, I can assure you that I speak about this on a daily basis with concerned parents throughout Ontario and from my home community of Ottawa. We know, for example, that we can be doing better, but doing better doesn’t necessarily mean doing it faster. We must do our due diligence. We must allow members of this assembly to have their say. After all, Speaker, that is why they were elected to this place in the first place. They were elected to bring their views from their constituents.

I think we all agree that the stories we have been hearing and that have been told in this Legislature on this anti-bullying law have been very important and have helped shape our views, and we find that there are actually elements of commonality among all of us in this chamber, because at the end of the day, we all care about Ontario’s children. Thank you very much, Speaker.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: I just wanted to weigh in on this debate. First of all, I think the term “bullying” has been taken way out of context that somehow what goes on in this House between the opposition parties and the government on this particular bill can be referred to as bullying. You know, bullying takes place in our schools, in our schoolyards, on our streets, when kids feel so intimidated that it changes their lives forever. To relate what’s happening in this House on this particular bill, or any other bill, to parties somehow bullying one another is really taking that totally out of context.

These two bills both have good aspects to them. We have a government bill before the House that we would urge all parties in the House to get along with, so that we can actually do something of a very definitive nature with respect to the bullying that goes on and has been going on in our schools for years. I can remember instances when I was a child many, many years ago—my kids say it’s so long ago it was probably in the Stone Age, you know—when kids were bullied, and they carried that stigma, that feeling that goes along with it for many, many years to come.

These are good attempts to stop the kind of activities that have been going on in our schools, at times—not by most students, but by some students—for too long. It’s important that we get a hold of this by giving the school authorities the right kind of mechanisms—and that’s the way I look at this—to stop these kinds of behaviours and to also be of help to those individuals, those kids, that are involved in the bullying that takes place in our schools.

Let’s not somehow pretend that the kind of discussion that takes place here, let’s not relate that and say that that’s bullying of any nature whatsoever. This is the typical kind of political debate that takes place. We’re all adults here. We know how to take care of that. Let’s deal with the real issue, and that’s with the bullying that takes place in our schools on a day-to-day basis.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock has a two-minute reply.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I thank the member from Trinity–Spadina with his comments on the bill, but also him saying to stop it and let’s all work together on the bill. He’s right, and that’s what I’m saying. We are here to debate the bill and to try to make amendments. We have the right to bring forward amendments and make changes, and we’ve articulated this. We had the opportunity for Ms. Witmer to have her private member’s bill brought up and discussed, and her points made and the changes she’d like to see.

The member from Windsor West: We’re not blocking it from going to committee. That is the next stage. We are still in the debate here. We’re doing our times; we’re on our 10-minute cycles. Yes, we do need to work together, and I said that in my comments. I was very, very serious that this is a huge issue that we need to get right. Yes, we have felt some partisan pushback from you, and I’m not going to hide that. I say we shouldn’t be doing that on this bill. It’s a very important issue.

The member from Nepean–Carleton is correct with her passion, her articulation of what she’d like to see, her real-life examples that she’s spoken so passionately about here. When you see members of the opposition kind of heckling when that happens, it’s absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for in this bill. I know that partisan politics is part of our culture here, but this bill is very serious. When we see that being abused and used for political purposes, of course we get upset, and we have a right to do that.

The member from Kingston and the Islands: Sure, bullying that happens to children at a young age does shape their lives, and you see lots of newspaper articles that say if that occurs, the less chance of getting a better education, the less self-confidence they have, the less productive they are in society. This is a serious issue. We all need to deal with it. We are here to work co-operatively. We are giving our feedback, and this government should listen.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to stand today to participate in the debate for Bill 13. Yesterday, we had some colleagues in the PC caucus who were very, very eloquent and stated so many examples of bullying and why it’s so important to address this whole issue in a very comprehensive manner.

Yesterday, I literally had tears in my eyes as my colleague from Prince Edward–Hastings was sharing real-life experience of bullying from his riding. It just breaks my heart. I was inspired by my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon when she so sincerely stood up and spoke for the need to collaborate between Bills 13 and 14.

This is not the time to be partisan. This issue is so important to every individual in Ontario. We need to set aside party colours and do what’s right for both the victims and the bullies themselves.

It’s interesting, because I found it very unfortunate yesterday—I’m a rookie in this House, and I’m very, very inspired through the history and motivated to represent my riding to the best of my ability, but I have to admit I was taken aback a little bit and disappointed when yesterday I heard the Premier himself say to the leader of the loyal opposition that Tim Hudak, the leader of the PC Party, was not allowed to ask questions, and it’s like, “Oh, my goodness. What on earth is this?”

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Check the Hansard. He said, “You are not allowed to ask questions.”

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order, Speaker.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: This is a sensitive issue. I don’t understand why the government, if they don’t like what they have to hear, then leave—this is a serious issue—and not heckle her.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Continue.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that no one is above any other in this House. We all have an opinion and we should have the right to express it, and no one should be told whether they can or cannot ask a question. You know, I haven’t decided yet whether yesterday was an example of bullying in and of itself, or just simple arrogance.

But here’s the deal: When I worked for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, one of my favourite responsibilities was staffing provincial 4-H leadership camp and regional camps, and also other experiences around leadership development with regard to the Junior Farmers’ Association of Ontario and the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. In those leadership opportunities, I just took great pleasure. There were individuals from all points of Ontario—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member from Huron–Bruce to stick to the bill. You’re wandering a bit. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a point, and I beg some lenience here.

The fact of the matter is, a topic that we studied and that those young people, and young at heart, identified as a priority was the fact that diversity mattered, situational leadership mattered, problem-solving mattered. And these young people, ranging in age from 12 to 21 to 32 and, as I said, to the young at heart, came to understand that every individual mattered. That experience that we had in those leadership environments was like turning on a light bulb that had a dimmer switch. Essentially, those lights got brighter and brighter and brighter. It is absolutely not acceptable to let any individual who for whatever reason chooses to bully dim those lights.

The fact of the matter is that every child, every person, deserves an uninhibited opportunity, like they did in 4-H camp, to discover their potential and discover who they are meant to be without any bullying, without any stress. Because let’s face it, life can have a lot of pressures in and of itself, and we do not need any extracurricular or extraneous events that maybe make individuals question themselves or their self-worth.

No one can argue that support systems and prevention of bullying in our schools should be overlooked. The support systems in our schools and the prevention of bullying should be paramount. Legislation to protect our children should be all-encompassing and made to protect every child from any instance of bullying, and that’s why I’m very pleased to support my colleague the member for Kitchener–Waterloo in her bill, Bill 14. Bill 13 just doesn’t go far enough. I find that Bill 14 is a comprehensive anti-bullying bill that focuses on prevention, accountability and awareness.

Awareness is so important. We have to get to the root cause: Why are people choosing to bully? Bill 14 provides students, parents, educators and the community at large with a strategy to raise awareness and prevent bullying, as well as a process to resolve it. That is so important. We need to collect data and report back to the ministry so that we can build, as I said, a comprehensive bill like our esteemed member from Kitchener–Waterloo’s. She has spent so much time making sure all the i’s are dotted, all the t’s are crossed and that her approach is relevant in terms of identifying, addressing and, most importantly, resolving the whole act of bullying.

We have to find a way to compromise. Speaker, we have to find a way to massage both Bills 13 and 14 together, because this is an issue that should not have any partisan stripes in terms of colours. This is an important issue wFhereby we need to take off our party hats and do what’s right for the children and all victims of bullying.

Again, that comes down to collecting data, reporting to the ministry and having a comprehensive anti-bullying bill that focuses on prevention, accountability and awareness. We believe in tackling bullying head-on and, unlike the Liberal bill, the PC bill does so with four critical areas: (1) reporting and investigating bullying; (2) the accountability of school officials and boards to the ministry; (3) education and public awareness to prevent bullying; and (4) remedial education for bullies to teach them that bullying is unacceptable.

Bill 14 requires anti-bullying lessons to be incorporated in the provincial curriculum from JK to grade 12, and I would suggest to you that that’s exactly what we’ve done in terms of our leadership experiences in rural Ontario—again, the Junior Farmers’ Association of Ontario, 4-H, the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. We learn about diversity. We learn about coping and dealing in difficult situations. We learn about situational leadership. We learn that no matter what community you come from, what religion you represent and what ideals you have, everybody matters.

That is so, so important, and I feel very strongly that the member from Kitchener–Waterloo held that in her heart when she took so much time to get it right in Bill 14.

Again, Mr. Speaker, every individual in this province deserves an opportunity to discover their potential and to discover who they’re meant to be in a totally uninhibited environment. Unfortunately, if we were to move solely forward with Bill 14, it wouldn’t allow that environment. We need to explore the best of the best, take off our party colours, work together, collaborate and appreciate the essence that comes out of Bill 14 and, as I said before, massage Bill 13 and Bill 14 together. We have a chance to make a difference.

Last night we heard very eloquently from Speaker Levac that history could be made in this session, and I think we can do that again with the massaging of Bill 13 and Bill 14. Again, it’s because every individual deserves the utmost opportunity to discover who they are and make the best of their lives and feel proud about who they are. In actual fact, even the bullies themselves need a little bit of attention. They need to understand why they’re choosing very obtrusive actions to validate themselves so that they too, the bullies themselves, can address their potential and discover who they’re meant to be as well. Thank you very much, Speaker.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m happy once again to rise to this very important debate regarding bullying. We’ve definitely faced quite a bit of it in Hamilton. My niece is still in high school and I speak to her on a regular basis and question her about what’s going on in the school, and over and over and over again I hear how bad it is in her high school.

The biggest issue with these bills that I see—and that’s from listening first-hand right from the children’s mouths—is that there’s nobody there to enforce it. So if we’re not providing funding for the schools to be able to bring in people to watch over them, to be there, and make sure that there’s adults in place to monitor these situations and that there’s therapists on-site to deal with these situations, we’re just going to continue to beat ourselves in the head here. Because no matter how many rules we make, if we don’t give them the tools to do it, they’re not going to be able to do it.

So between both good bills, Bills 13 and 14, if we’re not providing them the tools to be able to implement it, we’re not going to get any further. So hopefully when this goes to committee, these will be the changes that are put into place. We need funding to go with this bill. We need to make sure we have adults on duty who are specifically going to pay attention to this kind of stuff, and that’s the only way it’s going to work, because regardless of what they’re being bullied for, they’re being bullied and it needs to be addressed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to be able to stand to have an opportunity to speak in support of Bill 13. I want to share with the Legislature what I learned and heard last week in a constituency week with my residents and students in Scarborough–Agincourt.

I heard very clearly from my constituents that they do support Bill 13, particularly the fact that this is about inclusion, this is about acceptance. Okay? This is nothing about sex education. This is not about changing the curriculum. This is about making our schools safe. That’s the first thing I heard very clearly.

I also had an opportunity last Tuesday to visit one of my high schools, Dr. Norman Bethune high school, to speak and to consult the students about this particular bill and to talk and also to thank the students for their efforts in making their school an inclusive and accepting school. Let me share with you what the students are doing in this particular high school. They’re making the entire school turn pink for the month of May as well as the month of April. So they’re having activities every day in the school to celebrate pink. So this is a very diverse school, Mr. Speaker.

Over 99% of the students in their school are Asian students. So for me, this is what the school is all about: making acceptance, inclusiveness.

But the other piece I took some time to ask the students with regard to Bill 13—I asked them, “Can you share with me, do you have any problem with regard to

section 303.1(d), dealing with having ‘activities or organizations that promote the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, including organizations with the name gay-straight alliance or another name’?”

They said to me, “What’s wrong with having a club? What’s wrong with having a club that has a different name than us?” They very, very clearly told me, “Do not back down, Soo. Do not—do not. Support every student in our school.” This is what this bill is all about.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I have to agree with the member from Hamilton Mountain that we should collaborate on these two bills. We should put it together. We should work together on this.

However, from the first day in this House, I saw leaders of all three parties get up and say, “We have a minority government. We have to work together and we have to get the job done.” And unfortunately, the members opposite didn’t hear the same speech I did. We need to merge these two bills. There are too many people in my riding who do not like Bill 13 for obvious reasons, and I certainly couldn’t support it.

Mr. Bob Delaney: What are the obvious reasons?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Obvious reasons?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s not comprehensive enough.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: It’s not comprehensive enough. It singles out too many people to be specialized. So that’s why they don’t like it.

However the member from Kitchener–Waterloo has submitted a very good bill, and we on this side of the House believe that you should look at it. However, like happened in the past, we never see any co-operation from your side of the House. And that includes on things such as the budget and whatever. We need to—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: So it is my opinion that since there’s no co-operation on your side of the House for this bill, that the other two parties should put pressure on you to merge these two bills because of the good ideas in Ms. Witmer’s bill.

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

The member from Huron–Bruce has a two-minute reply.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Again, I have to draw everybody’s attention back to what really matters here—and again, I’m a broken record—but I believe with all my heart it’s about young people discovering their potential and being uninhibited and realizing the person they’re meant to be without any sense of bullying whatsoever, no matter what walk of life they come from, what jurisdiction in the province they come from. Everybody matters. Just like rural Ontario matters, I might say.

But that said, I really appreciate the comments that were shared. Our member from Hamilton Mountain—absolutely. It’s disappointing to hear that your niece is still reporting the fact that it is still really bad in her high school. I totally agree with you: The right people need to be in place, and we have to have the tools at hand to implement the proper approach.

That reinforces the fact that the member for Kitchener–Waterloo was so much on track when her bill revolves around (1) the importance of reporting and investigating the issue of bullying; (2) the accountability of school officials and boards to the ministry; (3) the education and public awareness to prevent bullying; and (4) the remedial education for bullies to teach them that bullying is unacceptable, and that perhaps in that whole experience they can realize what they have that’s special so that they too can discover the person they’re meant to be instead of trying to tromp all over top of other folks.

I totally agree that this issue is properly addressed in Bill 14, and it needs to be massaged together with Bill 13.

To the member from Scarborough–Agincourt: I agree, schools definitely need to be made safe, but I respectfully say it’s so much more than just acceptance or inclusion. It’s about a comprehensive approach to managing the whole issue of bullying.

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

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s my pleasure to stand here today and give my two cents’ worth on this very serious issue of bullying.

We have two bills that have been brought forward, 13 and 14, and as noble as the members who crafted those bills are and the sincerity—I honestly do believe there’s a sincerity to move on the issue of bullying, because bullying affects, of course, young people. As a former educator myself, Mr. Speaker, for the last 13 years, I can honestly say that I have witnessed and experienced bullying first-hand.

One of the things that disturbs me the most about individuals who bully others is the fact that it’s obviously a self-esteem issue. There are issues behind the scenes that, as educators, we are not necessarily privy to: their lifestyle at home, what happens at home, among their peers etc. It’s a human instinct to lash out, sometimes, especially for young people who don’t know exactly how to focus their energies, and so they pick on younger individuals because of their differences, their variances. It has to be through the education of such seriousness that we extend that to those young individuals.

So I think as nice as Bill 13 is and as nice as Bill 14 is, the member from Hamilton Mountain is right: We have to work together, collaboratively, towards the betterment of such a serious issue.

One thing that is concerning, however, where I have to disagree with my esteemed NDP colleague, is more funding to address the issue. As an educator myself, one of the frustrating things is, teachers and administrators don’t have the tools and resources, the power, if you will, to enforce. If an individual does something or bullies an individual, what kind of—not punishment, but what are the alternatives for an individual who does that? We need to work with the young individual, but at the same time that’s what, as an educator, I do. That’s what the guidance teachers do, right? We have other staff members—EAs, ECEs—who work with those individuals.

Interjection.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: They’re being cut because my esteemed government’s budget is going to do that.

So the funding isn’t an issue and I don’t see it as an issue. What we need to do is give the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would suggest that the members go through the Chair if they want to talk, not to each other. This should come through me, okay? Thank you.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Sorry. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. You’re absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that we actually need more funding in order to educate the young people about bullying and the seriousness of the impact bullying has. I think Bill 14 is a huge step forward in fighting bullying within our education system, and I honestly think that what the member for Kitchener–Waterloo has done is the correct approach to addressing any issue.

This is a nonpartisan issue. This is an issue that goes beyond political stripes. A young person on the playground being picked on can be a Conservative, a Liberal, a Green Party—it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, their religion, their creed. What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to make sure that this doesn’t happen at all; equality for all across the board. It doesn’t matter. Equal: We are all equal, Mr. Speaker. That’s what I think Bill 14 definitely addresses, the equality for all.

It outlines the parameters which those individuals will face if they do not adhere to what I, as an educator, and as my colleagues in the teaching profession try to do, which is instill good character in individuals.

A good point was made earlier that we, regardless of political stripes—my Liberal counterparts are great individuals. My NDP esteemed colleagues here are great individuals. They come to the House and they have great ideas. They represent their people. This is a nonpartisan issue.

I think the member from Nepean–Carleton had it right as well. She has worked very diligently with local groups in her riding and she’s done a fantastic job of reaching out to families and communities who have been embraced and thrust into situations that, quite frankly, are almost unbearable. We have individuals who have taken their own lives, and it’s very sad because no one, regardless of their religion, creed, where they live, what their beliefs are, what their value systems are—these are individuals that should be nurtured in our society.

I think Bill 14 addresses that and I think the member from Nepean–Carleton would agree with me when I say that what Ms. Witmer has actually done—and I’ll say this again with the stakeholders, listening to them—is an extensive, extensive outreach. “Listen” is the key: Listen to what people have to say. Only by listening can you actually get to the bottom of things and resolve those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the NDP is correct. My esteemed colleague from Hamilton Mountain is correct in a sense, and what I’m hearing from my esteemed colleague is that no piece of legislation is perfect. We understand that. That’s the humanitarian part of what we do. You’re not going to get everything perfect on the first try, but we have to try. And this is why I think, Mr. Speaker, when Bill 14 goes to committee, hopefully when it’s in committee, we can actually collaboratively work together to ensure that amendments from various bills—in Bill 13, I’m sure there are parts that may improve Bill 14.

My esteemed colleague here said, “Well, we could introduce Bill 15.” In committee, that’s essentially what we’re doing. We’re working towards the betterment of a more perfect piece of legislation that’s going to have a positive impact on the lives of so many.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add, as I close today, that it’s a great honour to stand here and debate this bill in the sense that we honestly have to take a positive approach. I think Bill 14 is a massive leap towards addressing the issue of this serious nature. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to say that I agree with everything that the member from Northumberland–Quinte West has said. I have two comments in relation to what he said, however. One of them has to do with listening. Listening is always a two-way issue; it’s never one-sided. So when one person claims that the other person isn’t listening, it’s very likely that two parties are not listening, and it’s often possible that three parties may not be listening. But you have to remember that unless we mutually listen to each other, it’s not going to work. So one-way listening doesn’t work, and that applies to all groups, is the first point.

The second point has to do with funding. Not all teachers know how to solve problems. You would know that. Some mediate well, and some don’t know how to mediate problems. In some elementary schools and some high schools, some teachers are incredibly frightened to be involved in solving a bullying issue, with individuals potentially being very, very aggressive and teachers not knowing how to deal with that from a physical point of view, or indeed even a social/psychological point of view. So when you say that we are skilled as teachers to be able to tackle that problem, it isn’t so.

We need help. Teachers need support and principals need support to be able to do this job well. So when the law prescribes that school boards will have to solve the problems of bullying, it means that you as a teacher, now, and a principal, have an additional responsibility to deal with it, and unless they are trained and unless they are given support, it’s not going to be easy. It means another responsibility on teachers that they have to deal with, and that’s a problem of funding.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me a brief opportunity to talk about this bill and the debate that’s taking place on this very important bill, Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act.

I’m heartened to hear the comments I’m hearing that we need to work together, that this is an important issue, that we need to ensure that students are protected. These are all steps in the right direction. What’s also important, Speaker, is timing. Time is of the essence right now. We need to make sure that we’ve got protections in our schools as soon as possible. This message of urgency is not just from us, the members. We’re not in schools anymore; we really don’t know what’s happening. I think all of the members talk to students in schools. This is a message coming from the students.

Like everybody else, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in our schools just last week. I do that pretty much every Friday when I’m home. Students don’t get this debate. Students don’t get this politics. And I don’t blame them. They are saying, “Am I going to have an opportunity to ensure that there’s programming available in our schools starting this September?” Guess what, Speaker? I couldn’t give them an answer, because we don’t know what’s going to happen.

So my request, my urging to everybody is, let’s get together and get working on this. I was really disheartened when I read in the Toronto Star today that Mr. Wilson, the House leader for the Conservatives, said, “We will continue to ring bells and use whatever tactics we can on our side to delay government legislation”—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Ottawa Centre knows we don’t use names; we use ridings.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My apologies.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The House leader said that they will continue to use delay tactics to delay any legislation, and that’s not what we need to do, Speaker. We need to pass.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Just to the other member’s point, the reason bells are being rung in this place is in opposition to this government’s refusal to follow the will of this assembly in calling for a select committee on Ornge and the abuses that were taking place. I just—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member knows that’s not the topic. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: But to point out that our party is trying to delay this is really not quite—it’s heifer dust, Speaker, because we know that we all have a vested interest now.

Yes, I actually have been to schools. I went to a few last week—one in your riding—and in fact I’ve also spoken to a number of other people who have been affected by this, and I must say, people want to make sure we get it right. Doing due diligence is a good thing. Allowing members to speak to this topic, anti-bullying legislation, is important work. If the members opposite really want this to be done ASAP, they’ve got their tools in their legislative toolbox to do whatever they like. They’re that major minority government, as you remember Mr. McGuinty talked about.

I do say this: We have an opportunity to have a fulsome debate, a great discussion here; we are having that. We know that there are parents who are concerned with the legislation. We’re going to hear them out at committee. But don’t try and shut down the voices of members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, because we do speak on behalf of our constituents, and we do have a right to our opinion, and we do have a right to share those views.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I listen to the constituents of Algoma–Manitoulin, and the opinions of my constituents vary in support of Bill 13 and Bill 14, which is why I think there’s good in both and which is why I really think that we should sit down and get this done properly. However, you need to have those discussions, and there seems to be an air of darkness here right now, that we can’t seem to get to that point.

The last time I rose, I spoke about a young woman. Her name is Candice, and unfortunately—she’s from my riding—she made a difficult decision. But what she managed to do is to get a group of us together, and when we sat down, we sat down in what’s referred to as a sharing circle. A sharing circle is a First Nation practice. When you sit down, you try and use some of the sacred words that they’ve used, and also their teachings, words like love, respect, courage, honesty, wisdom, humility and truth.

When you look at these words, let’s try and use them to get to the point that we need to get to with these two bills. If we love our kids, then let’s get this done. If we respect each other across the way, it should bring us to the proper table in order to address the issues that we need to address; and respect means listening to both sides. And then if we take the courage to take that next step in order to get together, to get to that table, that will demonstrate that we are working together in this House. Honesty: It speaks for itself.

Let’s show the wisdom that we’ve learned from each other and that we’re going to present a bill that is actually going to be beneficial to our kids. The humility: Let’s check our partisanship at the door before we get in here, and let’s get this done properly for our kids. The truth: Let’s keep it, let’s live it and go forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West has a two-minute reply.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from Trinity–Spadina, who eloquently expressed his concerns for more funding in education. As an educator myself, I agree that we have to have the funding in place to ensure that not only bullying is addressed but other aspects of making our young people the best-educated individuals on the planet.

Also, to the member from Ottawa Centre, and perhaps the future Minister of Health: I agree that we need to work collaboratively, again, towards this. I hope that, as the member from Algoma–Manitoulin pointed out, it’s a matter of respect, Mr. Speaker.

I also am very happy to say that I listen. I truly do try to listen to all sides of what is being presented to me, and I, honestly, would love to work with each of the parties involved in this. I do, however, think that there are certain individuals, or perhaps partisanship sometimes—and I understand partisanship. I do get what partisanship is and what it does, but I think once partisanship gets in the way of progress on something non-partisan, like a piece of bullying legislation that’s actually going to have positive influence and impact on the lives of our young people, surely as mature adults we can sit down and agree.

I’m hoping, Mr. Speaker, that once these bills go to committee, we can come to some understanding, some appreciation, that is going to be for the betterment of the people which we represent.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to speak for a few minutes on Bill 13. It’s a bill that, I think, is in the media pretty well every day. In fact, just riding in on the GO train this morning—I’m just going to read from local papers.

On the very front page of the paper that most commuters read: “Teen’s Racist Rant Shocks Peers”. It goes on to say, “Students at Brampton’s Turner Fenton Secondary School said they were shocked by a YouTube video of a girl from their school making racist comments.” That is related, because I think we’re all talking about cyberbullying and the damage—and with this whole social networking, you’re kind of anonymous when you’re trashing someone, and that’s kind of the growing part.

In fact, another

article in the same paper—I just took a few of the pages out; there were three different articles on that same issue: “Nova Scotia to Propose Legislation on Online Bullying”. It goes on to say, “Legislation aimed at cyberbullying to be tabled Wednesday in the Nova Scotia legislature is being described by the education minister as a first step in the government’s approach to bullying in schools.”

It talks about the Minister of Education and says: “For faster government action from the family of a teen who committed suicide.

“Jennex didn’t reveal details about the legislation, but she said it would address recommendations set out by a task force on online bullying last month.”

So it’s clear that the largest and fastest growing of this is the online bullying.

I think if you look at Bill 13 and Bill 14—there’s been much said about them—I think it’s unanimous that all members agree on a general statement that all forms of bullying are reprehensible and unacceptable. In fact, I think our critic, Lisa MacLeod, has spoken quite passionately and in a very informed way with respect to an incident in Ottawa, on which she’s given out a piece this morning, on the Hubley family calling on quick action on this bill.

I think the government and some people viewing say that there’s been some inappropriate use of procedure wrangling here to make another point, which isn’t related to Bill 13, but it is related to the idea that the government of the day—that’s the McGuinty government—should be listening.

Let me say this: I’ve put on the table a couple of things. In my riding of Durham, which is the community of Uxbridge, Scugog and Clarington, I have called almost all the members of the clergy: Islam, the imam of that particular persuasion; the Baptist church—all of the churches that would respond directly or indirectly about their impression of this. They want to be considered. All of them want to be considered, whether they’re Christian or non-Christian—I would just generalize that way. They are looking for leadership from the church group. We’ve heard that out here.

But what I’m hearing, most importantly, is that Bill 13 somehow ranks bullying, and that’s what I find wrong. All forms of bullying, whether it’s your body shape, your colour—whatever it is—are reprehensible, unacceptable. There are certainly going to be children of all persuasions, whether it’s their gender orientation—whatever it is. I understand that. I’m a parent of five children. I have nine grandchildren. I’ve been a school trustee. My wife’s a teacher. She’s now a trustee. We’re engaged on this.

I have a couple of articles here and I won’t, in the limited time I’ve been allowed—I may seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to have more time.

But the issue here is that the parent is the primary educator for sure. I can say, with all due respect, that I would encourage all families to be engaged in that and that the parents have—they have to consult with the experts; I understand that fully. But they are the primary educator, and as such, when I look at all the documents, I want to see a role for the parent.

The provision of opting out of some of the classes would be an appropriate compromise. Opting out, you maybe want to sit down with the parents and explain the reason. Maybe it’s a conflict with the particular perspective of those religions. And that’s the challenge here. In a nutshell, that’s the challenge.

Now, I have talked directly with the conference of bishops and also read the document respecting differences from the Catholic school trustees, and from that document—I’ve cited it in the House here before—there’s about four reasons. But I want to repeat, repeat and reinforce: All forms of bullying and intolerance are unacceptable. Education is the forum for changing your mind, learning, expanding and appreciating, respecting differences. That document says that respecting one another and not taking action to belittle the other person in any way, physically or intellectually or whatever, is where the real essence of this debate is.

Power, in its definition, is the ability to have others do your will. If you look at the study of power, it’s the ability to have others do your will or conform with your ideology.

Now, we’re seeing that in the Legislature, about how much waste is tolerable. On the McGuinty side, it seems quite tolerable. They wasted billions of dollars on eHealth and Ornge and OLG—you name it. It’s intolerant for us, and we discuss it and argue, and the people of Ontario make the decision.

But on this issue here, we’ve got to move forward. I’d like to see something in place myself for September, some clear rules. But don’t forget for one moment that there’s lots on the agenda in our schools today. I’ve listened and heard from schools, even now, about certain agendas that are being aggressively pushed in the school. I will put that on the record, and I can refute it from parents and students from high schools and elementary schools who are upset with the current curriculum driving an agenda. That’s really the issue there. I think parents should have the right of opting out.

It might be important for them to sort of sit down and explain their reasons, “It conflicts with the teachings of my faith.” I’m putting that on the table.

Now, if we don’t like that, then we’re moving to a secular model of the world. And I believe that in life our children should be taught that faith is important, whatever faith. That’s important.

In law, under the charter, it’s called the duty to accommodate. As we found out last summer, certain religions pray during the day, and the public school board was accommodating them in Toronto, which is the proper thing to do if they’re praying on a Friday or whatever it is. I’m saying the duty to accommodate will arise. Some faiths will not accept teaching things that are in conflict with the values and teachings of their faith. That’s the essence of this whole thing.

Let’s get on with it. Let’s not force schools. Let’s not bully them into having these particular clubs of a particular name so that it satisfies a particular goal. All I’m saying is, we can move forward in consultation, step by step. You can educate people over time to these various combinations that are required. I would say the names of groups.

The use of technology in these meetings that may occur—children in the schools are tweeting and twittering all the time on their little BlackBerrys or iPhones; if they’re going to be saying things that people are confiding in a meeting, that could constitute them harming themselves in the public by some electronic means. How about the home schooling groups? Are they going to be forced to accommodate to get their diploma or whatever it is? How about the freedom of religion itself?

I think this bill can move forward in an incremental way, looking at and respecting the work from the member, Ms. Witmer, and her Bill 13. But bullying, as the minister has said—as she is saying now with the teachers in their negotiations, “My way or the highway.” That’s not the way, in a democracy, to move forward. We can deal with bullying. We can respect parents, we can respect students, and Respecting Difference is the document that I’m referring to. It’s a document by the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association. I would encourage it for all members, for your reading. There’s an extremely exemplary

section in it that I would say is mandatory reading. It’s on page 5 and it says, “To insist that others share our beliefs and to eradicate the frameworks that make ... choices ... forced acceptance of beliefs ... is not the hallmark of a ... democratic society,” but quite the opposite. I think that is a very profound statement and is something we can learn from here. By me, I should first respect people with differences, and not humiliate or demean them or diminish them, and they should also accept my

interpretation of the world as well, respectfully. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to welcome Dr. Viran Toor, a dentist from Port Elgin in my riding of Huron–Bruce, who is here today for the Ontario Dental Association’s Queen’s Park day. Welcome, Viran.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’d like to welcome Girls Government here from Holy Family and Parkdale public. We’ve got Nicole Cebuano, Sobana Thanablasigam, Carolina Deguzman, Yeshi Lhamo, Ivana Mihalovic, Danielle Silva, Helen Costa, Patricia Dumlao, Lobsang Dolkar, Yangchen Domo, Akira Ali, Seemal Syed and Dave Belanger, their teacher, and Tanya Ricci, their teacher. So welcome all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have the very special honour to welcome for his first visit to the Ontario Legislature His Holiness Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Sri Swami Narendracharya Maharaj, the esteemed Dharmaguru of the Hindus who is visiting us in the Legislature today. He is joined by Harish Gandhe, Kishor Gore and Jay Prakash, who are my friends from the Hindu Heritage Centre in Streetsville. It is a matter of honour for this Legislature, Swamiji, to welcome you.

Remarks in Hindi.

Please join us in welcoming them.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome today to the Legislature Sonny Allinson from the Canadian Kennel Club, Heather Mack, Frances Coughlin and Elizabeth Sullivan from the Support Hershey’s Bill group, and Sarah Dann, who are all here in the Legislature bright-eyed and bushy-tailed this morning to make presentations to the committee on Bill 16.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kenora–Rainy River.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker. You should know this one by now.

It’s my pleasure to welcome Dr. Les Armstrong from Longbow Lake, who is here for the meetings with the Ontario Dental Association.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’d like the Legislature to welcome Dr. Ivan Hrabowsky from the city of St. Catharines, representing the Ontario Dental Association.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome, joining us in the Speaker’s gallery no less, Dr. Kevin Roach and Dr. Bruce Harle from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. They’re here today with the Ontario Dental Association. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to present to the Legislature, sitting in the members’ east gallery, a member of the Ontario Dental Association, a great friend of mine, my dentist and an old high school basketball teammate, Peter Hyriniuk.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House today Dr. Arthur Worth, president-elect of the Ontario Dental Association. Dr. Worth has extensive background with the Kent County Dental Society, has served with the ODA board of governors and general council. He will soon become the 135th president of the ODA, which, by the way, is 145 years old, just six months older than Confederation. An author of several clinical papers and a proud practitioner in rural Ontario, I’m pleased to count Arthur as a friend and a fellow ballplayer.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s my pleasure to welcome Dr. Rick Caldwell to the House today.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m really honoured to recognize Dr. John Thompson over in the members’ gallery. He’s with the Ontario Dental Association, but more importantly than all of that, he’s my dentist from Niagara Falls. So thank you very much, John.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my privilege to welcome to the Legislature today, from the great riding of Sarnia–Lambton and the Bluewater Bridge duty-free shop, Tania Lee and Peter Brain, and from the Peace Bridge duty-free shop, Glen Mills and Jim Pierce. They’re here today representing the Ontario Duty Free Association, who will be hosting a reception in room 230, and I take this moment to invite all members to join us between 11:30 and 1.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today the family of page Shanice Nazareth. Joining us in the members’ gallery are her mother, Annette; her father, Cederic; and her sister, Sherece Nazareth.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais prendre l’occasion de remercier M. Michel Gravel, qui est un dentiste de Kapuskasing, ici aujourd’hui pour nous parler.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’m glad to introduce—I have my brother Brad Milligan here with us today.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to welcome—although they’re not yet in the chamber—the students and teachers from St. Brigid’s school in Beaches–East York.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I’d like to welcome to the Ontario Legislature Dr. Diri from the great riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, a member of the Ontario Dental Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I regret to inform you that we are well past the time limits established for introductions.

I would take this moment to welcome all of our guests today, and I would ask all of us to join in welcoming all of them to the House today to observe question period.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Acting Premier. Since the election just over six months ago, we have heard from a number of people, including Roger Martin, your hand-picked economist Don Drummond and even the Ontario Auditor General. All of them have told us one very simple thing: Ontario’s corporate handouts aren’t working. Your lack of leadership has put us on the path towards a $30-billion deficit and staring directly in the face of a $400-billion debt. Will you continue to try to spend your way to prosperity, or will you take control of your government and make serious efforts to reduce the size and cost of government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I was pleased last year when the Auditor General signed off on our budget books and our estimates. I was pleased to appoint Don Drummond. I was pleased to receive his report, with some 362 recommendations. We have acted on all but nine of those recommendations. We have said “no” specifically to nine of them. We did that because we do believe that we need to be continuing to invest in education and health care, full-day learning, smaller class sizes and lower surgical wait times. These are important values, not just for this government but for the people of Ontario.

We’ve also met the expenditure growth targets that Mr. Drummond has laid out, which the official opposition refuses to acknowledge. In fact, we’ve been criticized in some circles because, in the first few years, the health number is actually below that forecast by Mr. Drummond.

We’ve laid out a plan. It’s a clear plan to get back to balance that protects the important gains we’ve made in health and education.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, back to the Acting Premier: Your government has spent billions to help out various hand-picked corporations. Indeed, the current budget shows corporate welfare amounting to over $3.5 billion. I was recently briefed by Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation officials, and we talked about WindTronics. WindTronics is a company that your government handed $2.7 million of wasted taxpayers’ money to, to open in Windsor. Now Windsor families are realizing the 200-job-loss nightmare of your failed corporate welfare policy.

When will you give up on the fantasy that job creation can be achieved by government spending and put forward a real jobs plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Today in Windsor, 8,000 people will go to work at Chrysler Corp. as a result of this government working with the federal government and with the government of the United States to protect those jobs.

In addition, workers across Ontario that feed General Motors and feed Chrysler Corp. are going to work today with good-paying jobs, greater job security. We’re seeing a rebound in the auto sector. It’s important that the people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s not helpful that when I’m standing, other people continue to talk. And it is also not helpful when the answer being given—I hear heckling from the same side and also the yelling on the other side.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Those investments were important, and we were happy to partner with the federal Conservative government in spite of the fact that—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —and their provincial cousins opposed it. So there’s a long track record of success in places like Windsor, in places all over Ontario, where businesses are operating and running today as a result of careful consideration and investment made by the governments of Canada and Ontario. We stand by those decisions. We’ll continue to work with every—

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I can tell you, economic recovery will come to Ontario the day Dalton McGuinty loses his job.

Back to the Acting Premier: While it’s insulting to Ontario taxpayers to see billions of dollars being wasted by your government, it’s more insulting that you’re continuing down this path with no plans to reduce corporate welfare and, clearly, no plan to create jobs and grow the economy in Ontario. Your failed $3.5-billion corporate welfare scheme is just another example of your government’s failure to manage the public purse; add that to the money your Liberal government has wasted on eHealth, Ornge and the Mississauga power plant.

When will you stop the waste and stop trying to spend your way out of this jobs-and-debt crisis that you, yourself, created, sir?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I need to respond to this and, at the same time, respect the rules of the House.

The member opposite is trying to have it both ways. He stands in the House today and speaks about corporate welfare, but when he’s out in his riding, he staunchly defends giving more money to racetrack owners. That is having it both ways. He says one thing here, something quite different over there, and he’s quite consistent with his party.

The leader of their party says we should have adopted every one of Don Drummond’s recommendations; no, I think the words were “no cherry-picking.” Two minutes later, he rejected the recommendation on subsidies to horse racing.

Sir, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t stand in here and complain about subsidies to business and then go home to your riding and advocate—

Interjections.

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

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Deputy Premier as well. Over the past week, the Ontario PC caucus has offered strong proof that your budget is nothing but a weak response to a looming $30-billion deficit. You, meanwhile, spent your week ignoring our questions, as you spent the past six months ignoring our recommendations. You also ignored the Auditor General who told you that you had to “provide legislators and the public with long-term targets and a strategy for how” you plan “to address the current and projected debt burden.”

I couldn’t find that strategy in the budget; could you? And if so, what page is it on?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They said they were voting against the budget before they read it. They are continuing to nominate candidates across Ontario.

They stand in here and say no to business subsidies. They go to their ridings and tell the racetrack owners they’re going to keep giving them $345 million a year. They can’t have it both ways.

They tell us to adopt all of Don Drummond’s recommendations. Let’s look at the ones they’ve rejected. Mr. Drummond said keep LHINs. We are; they said don’t keep them. Mr. Drummond called for our wage freeze; they’re against him on that. Mr. Drummond talked about the Niagara casinos; they disagree with him on that. Mr. Drummond said not to subsidize horse racing; they said no to that. Mr. Drummond said to introduce school bus competition; they said no to that.

Mr. Speaker, this party has a consistent, well-thought-out plan. We’re working with all Ontarians to build a better future, because Ontario rejected them and their right-wing—

Interjections.

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

Interjection: Another question from talk radio.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: They talk about the radio a lot. You know, when I was on the radio, I could call him what he really is.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There is a way to say things without saying them, and I think the member came close to that, so I’m warning him.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Your responses to our questions, Deputy Premier, over the past week have been pitiful, and you continue to ignore us when we tell you that Ontario needs urgent and immediate action to get our debt under control, but you can’t ignore this: RBC said your budget was only “one third of the way there.”

Empty gestures and halfway measures will not get it done, Deputy Premier. Where is the rest of your plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that member and his party want an unnecessary election that will put at risk hospital expansions in Cambridge and in Burlington, that will undermine our ability to continue to reduce the deficit—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to implement. We will implement a budget that is bringing down the deficit. We will implement a budget that continues to protect the important gains we’ve made in health care and education.

They can resort to name-calling, and they can say things in this House that really don’t add to the public debate. But I’m confident that the people of Ontario share our objectives; that is, to get back to balance, to build a strong and growing economy, and to protect the gains we’ve made in education and health care. That’s what this government, this party, are all about, and I’m confident the people of Ontario share those objectives.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Your Premier used to say, “We will make sure the debt goes in one direction only: down. We will not add to the provincial debt.” He used to say, “We will continue to ... pay down the provincial debt.” He used to say, “We need a plan that reduces the debt....”

Now having failed in all of those commitments, you of all people have the audacity to dismiss our right to comment on your budget. You are the Minister of Finance. You are not the king of Ontario. You follow the same parliamentary rules that we do; you do not write them. Sir, you are accountable to the people of Ontario, who we represent, as you do. Now tell them and tell us, where in this budget is your debt reduction plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives chose to walk away from any form of negotiations. They have chosen not to do what the people of Ontario want them to do.

Interjection: Abdicated responsibility.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They have abdicated their responsibility as the official opposition. Instead of sitting down and talking with us and the third party, they’re out nominating candidates right across Ontario. Instead of having a thorough debate, they choose to use language more attuned to low-rated radio station programs, Mr. Speaker.

I reject their ways. I reject their desire to have an election. The people of Ontario rejected them last fall, and if they insist on an election now, I believe the people of Ontario will overwhelmingly reject them in a general election if that’s what they try to force.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Since their election in 2003, the Liberal government has imposed a regressive health tax and an unfair HST on Ontario families. Can the Deputy Premier explain, then, the government’s concerns about a tax on high-income earners in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would refer the leader of the third party to some work done by Hugh Mackenzie, called Not a Tax Grab After All. We were quite pleased to have the support of people like Mr. Mackenzie, like virtually every major anti-poverty group in this province who said that that was the most progressive tax budget in the history of Ontario. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because we made it more progressive. We introduced the most generous sales tax credit anywhere in the country. People in the lower-income brackets are paying less in overall taxes.

That’s not me saying it, I say with respect to the leader of the third party. That’s from somebody like Hugh Mackenzie, like people from a whole variety of anti-poverty groups.

That was the right thing to do for low-income Ontarians. In fact, it raised taxes on higher-income people but lowered them for lower-income people. We’re proud of it, it’s working for this province, and it’s creating jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Over eight long years, people have been hit with two regressive, unfair tax hikes. They’re finding it a little hard to take, Speaker. Now we have an opportunity to make life a little bit better for them.

The Liberal government hasn’t hesitated to hit people with unfair taxes. Why won’t they try a fair one, Speaker?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would refer the leader of the third party to a comment that her finance critic made on March 11, 2011, referring to our tax policy. He says, “I mean, the tax burden has gone down on everyone, in spite of what people think. You know, taxes have gone down, literally on all income groups.”

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has come forward with a number of proposals to try to make the budget better from her party’s perspective. We welcome those. We’re looking at them. The leader, I think, has done so in the hope of keeping this Parliament working, unlike the official opposition, which is nominating candidates and can’t wait to get out and campaign. Lord only knows why, because they’ll be handed their heads if they do it.

Mr. Speaker, we stand by our budget choices, and I do look forward to dialoguing further over the next few days with the third party to try and achieve a better budget for all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, here’s what people have seen: first, a regressive health tax that hit middle-income households the hardest; and then they imposed an unfair HST that strained family budgets even further, all the while handing out billions and billions in tax giveaways to Ontario’s richest corporations.

Now, this government has made it clear that they’re happy to raise taxes on everyday people. Why are they then afraid to raise taxes on the super rich?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad that we are able to find common ground with the third party in some areas. I look forward to continuing the dialogue as we move forward towards the vote next Tuesday.

I think the member needs to remember that, in fact, there was more than $12 billion of tax relief as part of the 2009 budget that went to all Ontarians, particularly Ontarians of lower and more modest incomes, Mr. Speaker. I have to refer her back to the work by Hugh Mackenzie, where he said that it was not a tax grab after all, that in fact it was very positive.

I’d also remind her that her NDP compatriots in Nova Scotia raised their HST by two points, and I remind the member opposite that her predecessor wrote to us and asked us to raise the provincial sales tax. We don’t think that’s the right thing to do.

We believe you’ve brought forward some constructive proposals to make the budget fair, and I look forward to working with her and her party as we move forward.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In putting my next question to the Deputy Premier, I’ll remind him that the Nova Scotia NDP took the HST off home heating, and they just, as a matter of fact, started reducing the HST costs on their people because they know it’s an unfair tax.

Rob from Campbellville said this about the budget, though: “I could find nothing good for regular people that go to work every day to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.”

The Liberal government has not hesitated to hit everyday families with unfair taxes. Why are they unwilling to make this budget a little more fair?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the member opposite that the NDP government of Manitoba just raised the tax on gas yesterday. I think it’s important to keep these things in mind, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the leader of the third party and the Premier pointed out yesterday—again, Mr. Speaker, I want to respect the Chair—the dichotomy of view in the NDP policy. On the one hand, she calls for a tax increase on the wealthiest. On the other hand, she proposes a big tax cut. Frankly, the leader should know that the people who will benefit the most from that are the people with the biggest houses, the most expensive to heat, the ones with pools—all of that. We need consistency in our tax policy.

Unlike the NDP—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —we don’t want to raise the HST. Unlike the NDP in Manitoba, we don’t want to raise fuel taxes. We believe we’ve found the right ground here. The leader of the third party has brought forward some constructive ideas, and I look forward over the course of the next days to continue—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Skye from Kenmore writes: “I do not see shared responsibility in this budget. The rich should be contributing far more, instead of penalizing the middle- and lower-income citizens.”

The Liberal government has asked people to sacrifice in this province again and again and again. As a result, they’re falling further and further and further behind. What do they now say, the Liberal government, to people who don’t see the shared responsibility in this budget, who don’t see it at all, Speaker, as New Democrats don’t see it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite about a number of the undertakings we have worked together on; first of all, the corporate tax freeze. That was a reasonable response put forward by the New Democratic caucus, and we were pleased to work on that.

Infrastructure: $35 billion over the next three years, which will create or sustain more than 100,000 jobs. I know the New Democrats support that.

The 30%-off-tuition credit: Over 300,000 students are eligible. We were pleased to work on that together. That helps average families.

We’re protecting 10,000 education jobs through full-day kindergarten and small class sizes. I know the leader of the third party shares our values in that area.

The Ontario child benefit: We’re continuing forward with it, Mr. Speaker—the largest tax cut for families of modest incomes in Ontario’s history.

I look forward to continuing to deal with the leader’s ideas, her caucus’s ideas, her party’s ideas as we move towards the vote next Tuesday.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people are telling us that this budget simply is not balanced. It hits everyday families the hardest, while those who can most afford it get off scot-free.

Zak from Oakville writes that there is “no plan for jobs, [or] families.”

The Liberal government has not hesitated to hit Ontario families with unfair taxes. Why aren’t they willing to make this budget a little more fair?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the budget is fair. I’ve had an opportunity to go over a number of the recommendations that are already in the budget that I know the NDP support.

I’d remind her that today Chris from London announced that we’re going to merge the IESO and the OPA. I’ll remind her that Kathleen from Toronto has done more to improve the relationship with municipalities than anyone else. Dalton from Ottawa has worked very hard on an anti-poverty agenda for many years.

Mr. Speaker, we’re pleased to work with the third party. I hope we can resolve some of the challenges. I know you don’t want an election like the Conservatives. You’ve been responsible in this and progressive. We’re pleased to work with you and hopefully to resolve some of these challenges.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I suspect that, while tongue-in-cheek, the member does know that we use, in this House, all members’ ridings.

It is now time for the next question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Finance. This morning in the public accounts committee, it was confirmed that the entire government—certainly the Ministry of Finance—was fully briefed before Ornge floated a $275-million bond offer. It was also confirmed that that debt, which was implied to be guaranteed by the government of Ontario, is, according to the secretary of cabinet, not really the responsibility of the government.

Given the scandal at Ornge, I’d like to know from the Minister of Finance, what does he have to say to those bondholders as to who will secure the debt that they hold?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the member opposite of the entire testimony that was given today. Ornge was consolidated into the financial statements of the province starting in 2007-08. Like other senior Canadian governments, Ontario’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with the accounting standards independently established by the Public Sector Accounting Board. The consolidation of financial information has no bearing on the roles and responsibilities of an agency or organization, its board of directors or responsible ministry for program management.

As Ornge is not a provincial crown agent, the province of Ontario did not guarantee the bond issue, nor was the government’s approval of the financing required. That was the testimony. It’s consistent with public accounting. It’s consistent with the treatment of debt on provincial statements, not only here but across Canada and other jurisdictions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Now we know the minister can read, but we also know that he doesn’t understand the question. I made it very clear, Speaker, that what we heard today from the secretary of cabinet was that in his opinion, the government of Ontario is not responsible for that debt.

My question to the minister is, what does he say to the holders of those bonds, $275 million worth? Given the scandal at Ornge, given the bankruptcy of most of those companies, who will stand good to pay the $275 million, and who will pay the interest on those bonds? Will the minister tell us who will stand behind that debt?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the secretary of cabinet was entirely correct. The government did not back up the bonds, and bondholders purchased them with that full knowledge and disclosure. That’s the way it is.

What we haven’t talked a lot about on this is a chap named Kelly Mitchell. Let me tell you a little bit about Kelly Mitchell. He is a Progressive Conservative Party stalwart. He was paid almost $400,000 by Ornge to lobby and schmooze the PC Party for Ornge and its profits. At the same time, he was on the board of directors for Ornge and five for-profit companies, the same companies that paid Chris Mazza $1.4 million. Kelly Mitchell was also a top fundraiser and close adviser to Mr. Hudak’s leadership campaign. His company donated $17,000 to the party, 15 candidates, and he personally donated $7,500. We’ll be exploring those—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister, take your seat. A reminder to all members: When I stand, you sit down.

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre adjoint. Former Liberal Party of Canada president and Ornge lawyer and financier Mr. Alfred Apps said that the government was fully briefed every step of the way in the development of the web of shell companies at Ornge. He even threw in a chat with the Minister of Finance over cocktails about Ornge practices. He also said that although the government was fully briefed, they never raised a single objection. Is any of that true?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Speaker, I followed the testimony given by a number of individuals today. First of all, the secretary of cabinet, who was my deputy minister at the time, informed the committee that at no time had I been briefed on Ornge formally or informally by him and the officials in the ministry.

I can confirm with you that, yes, I think Mr. Apps’s testimony is correct: I never met with him; I was never lobbied by him. We did travel in similar social circles, and he did raise the issue of those bonds with me in informal conversations, just like he pointed out that Guy Giorno was very involved through a contract. In fact, I haven’t reviewed all the testimony but I will confirm what Mr. Apps said and I can also confirm what the Deputy Minister of Finance at the time said, that the elected officials were never briefed by their department on these issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, Alfred Apps claims that the ministry—actually, ministries, and that went on for the Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care and Finance, and even the Premier’s office—had been fully briefed every step of the way about the corporate structure, but they only started to react to this in December 2011. How can you explain the disconnect? How can you explain that Mr. Apps himself said that he attended the briefing, that the ministry was fully briefed every step of the way but that only in December 2011 did it become unacceptable, when you knew all along?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health moved quickly, responsibly and in a fashion that was open and transparent, in an appropriate time frame, as was identified at the time. We have legislation before this House which will help us prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. We have this before committee. The OPP are investigating this. The auditor had a good look at this. And so I’m confident that the challenges associated with this file have been well handled by the Minister of Health and by this government. Our challenge now is to move forward and ensure that we continue to build the best and strongest health care system that this province can offer.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The operating funds that our government provides to colleges and universities help ensure that post-secondary education stays accessible, affordable and of top quality. It’s very important to note that last month here in our great province of Ontario we achieved the highest enrolment rate among secondary students in a decade. This shows we are well on our way to ensuring 70% of all Ontarians will have a post-secondary education.

By introducing the 30%-off-tuition grant program, our government shows its leadership to students and families, ensuring that all Ontarians are able to transition from the best schools in the world to post-secondary education. Minister, how have you ensured that Ontarians will have access to publicly funded post-secondary institutions across the province?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As you know, Premier McGuinty has made a priority of higher education and public education for a very, very good reason: 70% of all jobs right now in Ontario require apprenticeships, trades, colleges or universities. Our universities and colleges and our trades are doing an excellent job advancing that.

Beyond the simple creation of a sufficiently skilled workforce, we also know that we are second only to California in direct foreign investment. We also know that one of the biggest determinants of where international capital goes is to where the highest-skilled workforces are. So those hard-working young Ontarians who are going to university and colleges now, 210,000 more than eight years ago, are also not only helping their own future, they’re one of the largest reasons that we are one of the world leaders in attracting foreign capital investment and generating wealth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Minister. As we all know, the budget is about choices. That’s why our finance minister listened to Ontarians and the choices that Ontarians make. I am proud that our government has included indexing of the tuition reduction plan, unlike the PCs, who are going to reject that in our budget. It’s most unfortunate. My constituents in Pickering–Scarborough East keep telling me they don’t want an unnecessary and expensive election. They want us to put our partisan issues aside and work together to create the jobs, ensure we have the right education.

Minister, how specifically will the government show commitment to post-secondary education through the 2010 budget and ensure we continue to build on the great investments we’ve made since 2003?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Pickering–Scarborough East. There is a very high collaborative relationship between my ministry, Minister Duguid in Economic Development and Innovation and the Ministry of Finance.

The investments that we’re making are really extraordinary. Brock University, since we were elected, has seen a 69% increase in its budget. Nipissing University in the opposition has seen a 92% increase in its budget. UOIT, also in an opposition constituency, has seen a 368% increase in its budget.

While I was supposed to be meeting with my opposition critic to discuss this budget and how we could work, he thought it was more important to be here trying to ring bells. But he should know that Waterloo University and Wilfrid Laurier University, in his part of Ontario, have seen over a 75% increase—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Finance: I am asking this question because I believe the financial markets will be very interested to know what the finance minister of the province of Ontario has to say about a $275-million bond offering that is out there that has been taken up by investors. Now we’re told that the organization behind that bond offering, namely Ornge, is no longer the entity that it was when that offering was made.

We hear the finance minister tell us that the government of Ontario is not responsible. The organization behind that is the air ambulance service of Ontario. Will the province of Ontario allow Ornge to default on that offering?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m glad that the member raises issues that came up in committee, because we have some issues we’d like to raise in committee.

Will that member and his party agree to have Kelly Mitchell come before the committee? We are given to understand that this person, who was a member of the board of Ornge, made $17,000 in donations. He made a donation to the leader of your party, the members for Simcoe North, Whitby–Oshawa, Leeds–Grenville, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, and Thornhill. Those were all contributions. Did he inform any of your members? Did he talk to your members about these issues at all?

So, I would ask the member—we’re interested to know—will you agree, here and now today, to bring Mr. Mitchell before the committee so we can understand the full extent of the relationship of your—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The government House leader will inform the Minister of Finance that anyone who is called by the committee will show up, and if not, we’ll issue a Speaker’s warrant.

But I want to go back to the question I asked the minister that the financial markets are very interested to hear. Will the Minister of Finance of the province of Ontario allow that $275-million bond offering to default? Will he stand up and tell us whether, notwithstanding what the agreement said, the government of Ontario will stand behind that debt?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member didn’t answer the question. Will they agree to bring Kelly Mitchell before the committee? They’re stonewalling in this House in front of the cameras. They’re playing the same game they’ve been playing right from the beginning with this.

It’s a simple, simple question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Will they call Mr. Mitchell to appear before the committee? I remind the member that Mr. Mitchell was paid almost $400,000 to lobby and schmooze you and your party on behalf of Ornge. Will you or will you not agree to call him, or will you continue to stonewall and play silly political games instead of working with us to get at the real truth?

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: This morning, you announced that the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator will be merged, but, Minister, privatization stays. Privatizations that followed the disastrous 2002 deregulation of the electricity system have led to skyrocketing rates. Will the minister admit that ongoing privatization of local utilities will wipe out any savings that will come from this merger?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I was pleased this morning to have announced the intention to merge and consolidate the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator, a consolidation that the NDP had specifically asked us to consider. We have common ground on this issue.

For months, we’ve been making announcements in this sector about finding ways for families and businesses to get their electricity supplied at lower administrative cost. We’re going to keep doing that.

What we did with the local distribution centre consolidation panel is simply set up an advisory panel to give us some insight into whether those families and businesses would benefit from any form of consolidation. We look forward to receiving their advice in due course.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, no one will disagree that getting rid of some high-paid unneeded executives and CEOs is a good thing. But you know that that panel you’ve set up is an open door to privatization of local utilities, and you know the impact it will have on the cost of electricity. Will you admit that we would be far better served for you to consolidate all four agencies and stop the privatization initiative?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Over here, we’re on the side of families and businesses. Families and businesses want us to deliver power as effectively as possible and at as little cost as possible. So we set up this panel with Mr. Elston, Mr. Laughren and Mr. McFadden to take a look at the 78 distribution companies we have around the province and answer a simple question: Can it be done more effectively for less, and do those families and businesses benefit?

I think we should find some common ground with the NDP on this: That it is about families; it’s about making sure families can better manage their budgets; it’s about finding savings wherever we can. I hope, in the months to come, we’ll find more common ground in supporting families, as we have in the budget of the province of Ontario.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy as well. Minister, many of my constituents asked me if more could be done to find efficiencies within our electricity sector. I know that both Hydro One and OPG have been working hard to find efficiencies from within and reduce costs for ratepayers while at the same time ensuring that Ontario families have a strong, reliable and modern electricity system. I know that my constituents appreciate the hard work of these agencies to better serve them on a daily basis. Minister, can you please tell us what is being done to find efficiencies within our electricity system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Do you know what? It’s a really important question from the member for Ottawa–Orléans because he hears from families and businesses in his riding, as I do in my riding; we all do. They want the most effective system at the least administrative cost.

So we’ve taken a number of steps. The major agencies—Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One—have launched a cost reduction exercise. They’re already at half a billion dollars, and they’re looking for more.

When we launched the green energy review, we saw that the prices paid for renewable energy—extremely important—are going down. Last Friday we launched an international benchmarking exercise which will help us in our major agencies, like Hydro One and OPG, further reduce costs. We’ve launched a review of the local distribution companies to see whether we can get the power delivered for less. Today we announced another step, the consolidation of two agencies.

It’s all about delivering it for as little as possible to families and businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for that excellent response.

I know that my constituents will be pleased to hear that the merger between the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator—

Interjections.

Mr. Phil McNeely: It’s strange; every time you talk about energy or conservation or the environment, that group across starts to yell.

We want a more efficient organization that will save families and businesses money. Minister, I know that the Independent Electricity System Operator plays a vital role in managing the day-to-day operation of the electricity system and the Ontario Power Authority is responsible for the long-term planning of our electricity supply, as well as ensuring that clean energy comes online. Both of these organizations ensure that Ontario families have a clean and reliable supply of electricity that they can count on tomorrow and into the future.

Minister, how will the day-to-day operations continue during this process to ensure the vital functions of our electricity systems are not compromised?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That’s a good point, because the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity Supply Operator perform extremely important functions every single day. They’re both involved in planning. In fact, they are our two largest planning agencies. So bringing them together, we want to not only maintain but build on their planning expertise. That will be better for today and tomorrow.

The IESO manages the market. We’re going to make sure that that continues, because that’s a very important and independent function. The Ontario Power Authority manages our conservation programs. We’ve taken great steps, very involved across the province, in ensuring that we only use the power that we need. Those contracts will continue. The Ontario Power Authority also manages the tens of thousands of contracts, which are really ways that families and businesses in the province participate in clean, green renewable energy. Important work—it will continue, just at less cost for the people of this province.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Back to the Minister of Finance: I want to bring to the minister’s attention just how serious this question is and the fact that this is not about playing politics in a sandbox. This is about—a very serious question to the Minister of Finance—$275 million of debt that was used by Ontario’s air ambulance service to buy a fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft and a number of other assets. The minister is saying that the government of Ontario is not responsible for that debt. They have put into bankruptcy companies that comprise most of that Ornge organization. There is one organization left, and that is the organization supplying the air ambulance service.

My question to the minister is this: Will the government of Ontario guarantee the interest payments and the principal of that $275-million bond offering?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I repeat for the member what I said right at the very beginning: The government of Ontario will honour its commitments. There would have been a prospectus, a syndicate; all these things would have been very clearly disclosed as to whose obligations are what. So, until he’s read those—which I’m quite certain he hasn’t, and if he has, I’d like him to share with me the sections that say that Ontario has guaranteed them—we’ll look forward to continuing to work on getting this thing back in order and continuing at the committee hearing.

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And that’s why we want to hear from Kelly Mitchell.

You know, we do $35 billion to $40 billion a year in bond issues, Mr. Speaker. They continue to sell out around the world. They continue to be repaid according to schedule. In fact, indeed, we’ve been paying them back ahead of schedule.

The government of Ontario will honour all its undertakings, its commitments. I’d be curious to hear what the member’s views on the prospectus are and on the syndicate—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to assure the Minister of Finance that I did read the prospectus. If he reads it, he will also see that the government of Ontario is very prominent throughout that entire offering. There is an implied guarantee by the province of Ontario, and now what I want to know is, will the government of Ontario stand behind that? And by the way, the minister introduces a very interesting scenario, because through Infrastructure Ontario there are many, many more offerings very similar to this that offer the same implied guarantee.

Yet what we want to know is, is the government of Ontario in fact guaranteeing those bond offerings? Will the minister at least answer that question once and for all?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I won’t use the same kind of language that he has, but the word “implied” is very interesting. Obviously, he has read it and he knows what the undertakings are, and it’s a shame he chose to play politics before he revealed that in the House.

I should say that Ornge is still responsible for the bonds, and yes, Ornge still has a very good credit rating.

Quit playing games. Call Kelly Mitchell. Let’s work together to fix this once and for all.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Ms. Najla Mady of Hamilton contacted my office recently. She is 73 years old and struggling to pay the bills. She is at high risk for a broken hip and takes injections of Prolia for bone strengthening. These injections cost her almost $400. She said she was counting on a lump-sum income tax refund to pay for her July 3 injection but was shocked to discover that she would not be receiving it because of a change that was made without notice to anyone at all, and without consulting those who are the most impacted. Can the minister explain how he is going to help people like Ms. Mady?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to thank the member for his question. In fact, the member, I believe, either has introduced or is about to introduce a private member’s bill. We intend to give people choice. We did consult in advance. There were, however—the member is right—a number of people who did not like the way we set things up. I’ve indicated that we’ll change that. I also indicated to the member that I’m quite prepared to work with him based on his private member’s bill. I thank him for raising this case with us, and I’ll make sure I follow up with finance and health officials to see if we can be of some assistance to your constituent.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the minister for his considerations, but the bill that he speaks of was tabled a month ago. We understand that the minister and the ministry said that if the bill was tabled, efforts would be made to ensure quick passage, because the minister at that time agreed that changes were unfair. But a month has gone by and nothing has happened.

My question: What action has the minister taken to date to ensure that people will have the choice in how they receive their tax refunds, and when can we expect this bill or something similar to this bill to be passed?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I appreciate the member’s inquiry. Unfortunately, the official opposition has been ringing the bells in here, and we can’t get things to the floor of the House—blocking important legislative initiatives like that.

I give the member opposite my undertaking to continue to work with you. I do want to thank you for your work on this—a number of my colleagues as well—and I look forward to moving as quickly as we can on this with you.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Since the budget, like others, I’ve been out in my riding speaking to constituents. During these tough economic times, many were concerned that our government would be making cuts that would hurt them, that would hurt our families, especially those that need our help the most, like the previous government, who cut social assistance rates by over 22%. Through you, Speaker, to the minister, can you please tell the House how this year’s budget, Strong Action, impacts social programs for people in my riding?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question, and she’s right: In the recent budget, we had to make some tough decisions. But to reiterate what both the Premier and Minister of Finance have said often, we focused on three key areas: education, health care and the other one, the area of social services. Unlike the party opposite, Mr. Speaker, we did not dramatically slash rates for those on ODSP or Ontario Works. In fact, over the life of this government, we’ve seen seven increases to those rates, and they were maintained in the recent budget.

I’d also point out, Mr. Speaker, that moving forward, when you look at what’s called the children and social services cluster in the budget, it’s actually going to increase by an average of 2.7% over the next three years. In fact, my ministry will be increasing by 3.7%.

We recognize the needs of those who are marginalized, the less fortunate in our society, and we’re going to continue to identify that area as a special priority for this government as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Minister. I’m pleased to hear that we won’t be punishing some of the province’s most vulnerable with cuts to social assistance rates. I also know that the social assistance system is currently being examined by the social assistance review commission, so I look forward to seeing their report in June, as I was involved with some of those meetings in our community.

I was also pleased to see that this year’s budget allocated an additional $25 million for residential placements for adults with a developmental disability. Please explain how this investment will help those in need of service across the province.

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question, and I’m pleased that she referenced the social assistance review, which is undertaking one of the most dramatic examinations of our social assistance system in decades. It’s being led by Frances Lankin, a former member of this Legislature, as well as Dr. Munir Sheikh, the former head of StatsCan.

As well as the social assistance side of the ledger, my ministry of course also deals with those with developmental disabilities. As the member pointed out, our most recent budget committed an additional $25 million for people with a developmental disability in urgent need of residential services. This additional funding is based on anticipated need for residential placements for our clients, some whom live with aging parents who can no longer care for their adult children at home.

This funding and the placements it creates will also help support the ongoing transformation of the developmental services sector as we continue to move away from the old institutional model to one that’s based more on community living.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Not only does the government not know or understand how to prepare a proper budget to deal with the debt crisis and the jobs crisis that we have in the province of Ontario, but the government is also confused about whether they authorized robocalls be placed in my riding, in the riding of Burlington and other ridings across the province of Ontario.

In the Legislature, the finance minister seemed very familiar with the content of those robocalls, but in the scrums outside this place, he wouldn’t commit to having knowledge about them. So since the finance minister is out of the loop on this question, maybe I’m going to ask the Deputy Premier if he was aware of these robocalls and if the Liberal Party actually authorized them.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: When I became aware of them, Mr. Speaker—I’m glad they went out, because they told the people of Cambridge that he’s voting against their hospital expansion. They told the people of Cambridge that he wants an election. The people of Cambridge want their hospital, they want that expansion; the people of Cambridge do not want an election.

They know that he’s scheduled his nomination meeting, Mr. Speaker. Instead of working with us to pass a budget that will build the hospital, the hospital expansion, he chooses to

schedule a nomination meeting.

So yes, we’re going to do phone calls, we’re going to knock on doors, we’re going to go into Cambridge and we’re going to tell the people of Cambridge that that member, his leader and his party want to kill the hospital expansion in Cambridge. Someone has to stand up for Cambridge. It’s unfortunate their local member won’t.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s quite clear that in one personality the finance minister really is going to be confused.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m trying to hear your own member’s question, and that’s it—here too.

Interjection.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: The April 13 edition of the Windsor Star says that the finance minister is looking for a campaign manager. Who’s gearing up for an election, Minister?

As a result of the Liberal leader’s authorization and actions, Mr. Speaker, I have sent an official complaint to Elections Ontario to investigate the robocalls and the potential illegality of those calls. I am encouraging all citizens, like Tony Malvar, to do the same thing in Cambridge.

It is clear that the government has so much contempt for the people of Ontario that they have refused to accept the results of the last election and their minority status by governing like they were a majority.

They want to go back to the polls. They’re gunning for it. They’re putting Liberal ads on the radio. They’re putting them in ads—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member did not impress me.

Answer.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m less concerned about cheap politics than getting that hospital in Cambridge done, and I want to get the hospital in Burlington done next. At least that member hasn’t scheduled her nomination, that I’m aware of.

I would urge the member, work with us. Do what the third party is doing. Instead of scheduling nominations, work on your hospital. That’s what you were elected to do.

This party, this government will stand up for the people of Cambridge. Why won’t you, sir? You’re not representing your constituents. Let’s make it work. Let’s make it work together to provide the best health care possible for the people of Cambridge and the Cambridge region.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

New question. The member from—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am disappointed in the fact that you know I’m standing and there continues to be heckling.

New question.

CURRICULUM

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Bealart program in London has been providing high school students with an excellent art education for almost 100 years, but access to this program, which is being provided to students who have completed their grade 12 requirements, is being threatened by the McGuinty government’s plan to charge fees for fifth-year credits. Over 3,000 people have signed a petition. Why won’t this government listen to the people and stop permitting the Bealart program to be in jeopardy?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me be absolutely clear that, unlike Don Drummond’s recommendation to charge students for credits, we will not charge any Ontario student for their credits.

Let me also be absolutely clear that although Ontario moved to eliminate the fifth year of high school more than a decade ago, we continue to see 13% of our cohort continue in that fifth year.

We want to work with our partners in education, work with our school boards, our guidance counsellors, our parents and our students to plan a successful journey through high school for our students so that they complete it and graduate in four years.

We will work with our partners. This is about more students graduating.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Charging fees for fifth-year credits will threaten the viability of a renowned educational program like Bealart—and hitting families with costs they can’t afford. Why is the McGuinty government willing to deny Ontario families access to the public education they need to succeed?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’ll repeat again, because I think my friend opposite was not listening: We will not charge students to take their courses.

What we are doing is working with our partners. The students should work with their board. The work that we’re doing in the province to ensure that more of our students graduate and have a successful future is about ensuring that we work with them and continue to see success.

Students like this and programs like this are not meant to be impacted by this initiative.

We look to continue to work with our partners across the province to ensure that more students, not less, graduate.

VISITORS

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to again invite all the members to room 230 for the reception from the Ontario duty-free people.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Legislature Dr. Vipin Mithia. He’s a friend, a supporter and has been a dentist in Mississauga for the last 22 years. I want to extend to him a very warm welcome.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to recognize a number of people from my riding: Ananya Majumder, Chandras Swargam, Indra Ali, Asgar Ali, Phillip Niedzielski, Haruko Cornish, Govind Kantawalla and Ramila Kantawalla.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’d like to warmly welcome the president of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Harry Höediono, who’s from the riding of Kitchener–Waterloo.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome guests from my riding of Durham. They’re members of the Central East Local Health Integration Network: Wayne Gladstone, the chair; Deborah Hammons, the chief executive officer; James Meloche, senior director of systems; Paul Barker, senior director of finance; Katie Cronin-Wood, communications; and Karen O’Brien, a very good friend, who’s the communications coordinator. They gave us a briefing on the Central East LHIN action plan.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome Dr. Ron Yim, from Burlington. He sits on the board of directors for the Ontario Dental Association and is part of the zero tolerance task force.

I’d also like to welcome Dr. Larry Pedlar. He’s on my board as well, here today from Burlington.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président, de m’accorder quelques secondes. Le D r St-Aubin, un dentiste de Sudbury, a pris le temps de descendre pour venir nous voir ici à Queen’s Park. Je voudrais lui souhaiter la bienvenue.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome Dr. Don Friedlander, from Ottawa, and Dr. Khaled Hashem, who is also v