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

November 6, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Nov-06 (PDF)

L026 - Thu 6 Nov 2014 / Jeu 6 nov 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 6 November 2014 Jeudi 6 novembre 2014

Orders of the Day

Child Care Modernization Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la modernisation des services de garde d’enfants

Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés

Introduction of Visitors

Remembrance Day

Oral Questions

Air ambulance service

Wind turbines

Public services

Public services

Taxation

Public transit

Building code

Agri-food industry

Forest industry

Labour legislation

Hospital services

Environmental protection

Nuclear energy

Poverty

Awards to members

Visitor

Legislative pages

Deferred Votes

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’amélioration du lieu de travail au service d’une économie plus forte

Child Care Modernization Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la modernisation des services de garde d’enfants

Introduction of Visitors

Display of poster

Members’ Statements

Royal Agricultural Winter Fair

Remembrance Day

Guru Nanak Dev Ji Gurpurab

Lost Airmen in Muskoka Project

Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry

Trees of Caring

Milton courthouse

Remembrance Day

Polish Independence Day

Petitions

Health care

Missing persons

Legal aid

Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease

Private Members’ Public Business

Bob Mackie Act, 2014 / Loi Bob Mackie de 2014

Pan Am and Parapan Am Games

Private members’ public business

Pancreatic cancer

Bob Mackie Act, 2014 / Loi Bob Mackie de 2014

Pan Am and Parapan Am Games

Pancreatic cancer

Bob Mackie Act, 2014 / Loi Bob Mackie de 2014

Motions

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de sauvegarde de l’intégrité des soins de santé

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Child Care Modernization Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la modernisation des services de garde d’enfants

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to enact the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, to repeal the Day Nurseries Act, to amend the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the Education Act and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 10, Loi édictant la Loi de 2014 sur la garde d’enfants et la petite enfance, abrogeant la

Loi sur les garderies, modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les éducatrices et les éducateurs de la petite enfance, la

Loi sur l’éducation et la

Loi sur le ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités et apportant des modifications corrélatives et connexes à d’autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated Wednesday, November 5, 2014, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Sandals has moved second reading of Bill 10,

An Act to enact the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, to repeal the Day Nurseries Act, to amend the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the Education Act and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to promote public sector and MPP accountability and transparency by enacting the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 and amending various Acts / Projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilisation et la transparence du secteur public et des députés par l’édiction de la Loi de 2014 sur la rémunération des cadres du secteur parapublic et la modification de diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item of business was last debated, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka had the floor.

Further debate?

M. Gilles Bisson: C’est avec plaisir que j’ai une chance ce matin d’être capable de participer dans ce débat. J’ai besoin de le dire : les libéraux sont toujours les mêmes. Ils ont des beaux projets de loi avec des beaux titres qui parlent de faire bien des belles affaires. Mais quand tu regardes les détails du projet de loi, tu vois que les libéraux sont très bons pour communiquer un concept à travers un titre, mais quand ça vient à être capables de vraiment faire les changements qui ont besoin d’être faits pour faire ce qu’ils disent dans leur « bill », c’est une toute autre affaire.

Écoute, c’est très connu que ce gouvernement, sous M. McGuinty et puis à cette heure avec M me Wynne, est un gouvernement qui était plein de scandales. On a vu ce qui est arrivé avec cyberSanté, avec les ambulances aériennes Ornge et avec les centrales de gaz à Mississauga et Oakville. Dans tous ces cas et d’autres—j’en passe—le gouvernement a été vu comme un gouvernement qui était non seulement incompétent, mais aussi comme un gouvernement qui avait des problèmes à, comment dire, faire des affaires d’une manière correcte.

Donc, on voit un gouvernement qui était plein de scandales, et là, on voit M me Wynne qui dit : « Je suis une première ministre qui est différente. Oh, mon Dieu! Je vais faire les affaires différemment. Moi, je ne suis pas comme ce méchant M. McGuinty. Moi, je vais faire les affaires d’une manière qui est transparente et qui inclut le public. Je vais avoir des conversations avec le monde. Vous allez voir que ça va être bien différent. »

Mais quand je regarde ce projet de loi, c’est la même affaire qu’on a vue avec M. McGuinty : un projet de loi qui dit une affaire, mais qui, franchement, ne marque pas sur les points du

titre du projet de loi. Je vais regarder le projet de loi dans une couple d’instances. Et vous allez voir, j’ai de très belles lunettes, données par ma belle-soeur, parce que j’ai perdu mes lunettes. Je les ai cassées. Ça, c’est ce qu’on appelle en anglais « my cheater glasses ».

Vous allez voir; la première

partie du projet de loi, c’est la question de la compensation pour les exécutifs qui travaillent pour le gouvernement dans leurs agences et à travers le gouvernement. On l’a vu à beaucoup de reprises : quelqu’un qui travaille comme président ou la personne qui est responsable d’une grosse agence provinciale et qui d’habitude, on va le dire, est payé une couple de 100 000 piastres. On a vu des instances où les personnes ont été payées jusqu’à 1,6 million de dollars de salaire, et où la personne précédente était payée bien moins que ça.

Parce que les libéraux sont très bons à prendre soin de leurs amis, hein? Quand ça vient à leurs amis, il n’y a rien comme de s’assurer qu’ils ont l’habileté d’enligner un peu plus d’argent dans le portefeuille. Et là, le public regarde ça et ils disent : « Écoute, ça ne tient pas debout. » On voit quelqu’un qui fait un salaire qui est très élevé et on ne reproche pas au monde de le payer ce qui lui est dû pour le travail qu’il fait. Mais quand tu vois que le salaire payé avant, dans les gouvernements précédents, était beaucoup plus minime que ce que les personnes ont présentement dans ces postes-là, tu te dis : « Il y a quelque chose de différent et de mal. »

Donc, sur ce point-là on dit que quelque chose a besoin d’être fait. Ma chef, M me Horwath, la chef du NPD, a dit qu’on a besoin de mettre ce qu’on appelle des « hard caps » sur les salaires pour s’assurer qu’une personne qui travaille dans ces postes-là n’ait pas plus que le premier ministre, fois deux.

La première ministre est payée combien? Je pense que c’est environ 240 000 dollars par année de salaire. Je ne suis pas sûr à 100 %. Peut-être que quelqu’un peut me clarifier sur le montant exact. Mais on dit que si la première ministre ou le premier ministre est payé un salaire pour être capable d’être responsable d’un budget de 130 milliards de dollars, certainement une personne qui est responsable pour une agence avec des responsabilités très minimes comparées à celles du premier ministre—ça ne tient pas debout que cette personne soit payée quatre, cinq ou six fois plus que la première ministre. So, nous autres on a dit : « Pas plus que deux fois. »

Voit-on ça dans le projet de loi? Non. On voit de beaux mots qui disent qu’on va faire quelque chose pour limiter les salaires payés aux exécutifs de ces agences-là, mais quand tu regardes les détails, il y a assez de trous dans le projet de loi que si on mettait de l’eau dans le seau, toute l’eau tomberait. On pourrait payer cette personne-là ce qu’on veut selon la manière de ce projet de loi-là.

Sur le deuxième point du projet de loi, on voit, par exemple, que des personnes qui ont été congédiées de leur poste parce qu’elles ont fait quelque chose de mal—on voit ce monde recevoir des paquets de « severance » qui sont beaucoup plus élevés que ce à quoi on est habitué dans le secteur public ou dans le secteur privé.

Écoute, moi, quand je travaillais à la mine, si je faisais une erreur et que mon « boss » arrive un bon matin et Gerry, mon « boss », qui était—comment est-ce que j’ai pu oublier son nom? Ça, c’est grave. Anyways, Gerry Savard, disons, arrive et dit : « Écoute, Gilles, tu ne fais pas un bon job. Tu t’en vas, je n’ai plus besoin de toi. » Il ne me donnerait pas deux ans de mon salaire pour m’envoyer parce que je n’ai pas fait un bon job. Il te paye le salaire qui t’est dû, puis tu t’en vas, tu as tes « severances », tes vacances et c’est tout.

Mais dans le cas des libéraux, on a du monde qui ont été payés deux fois leur salaire annuel pour partir parce qu’ils ont fait quelque chose de mal. Écoute : paye-moi 1,6 million de dollars, puis moi, je vais aller gâcher un organisme quelque part et ils vont me payer 3,2 millions de dollars pour l’avoir gâché? Ça ne tient pas debout. C’est stupide.

Est-ce qu’on voit quelque chose dans ce projet de loi qui va changer? Non, il n’y a rien là-dedans qui va changer.

It tells me that the government is yet again doing what they do. They put a nice, shiny title on a bill. It’s called the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. If I read that, I’d think, “Man, this is great legislation. There’s going to be transparency. There’s going to be accountability.” But there’s no transparency and accountability in this legislation. This is nothing but window dressing; it’s bafflegab. It’s exactly what the Liberals do best: “Let’s tell you what we were talking about doing over here,” but when you look over there, it’s completely the opposite.

I just used the example of what happens with salaries when it comes to people working in agencies of the crown. You’ve got people who work at agencies of the crown who are being paid far more than what they would normally be paid if it had been under previous administrations, or as compared to other sectors within the economy. And what’s worse is that if they do something wrong and get fired because they mucked up, they get severances that are worth as much as two times their annual wage.

Listen, if I offered Sally who lives down the street from my place a job for $1 million a year and I said, “If you muck it up, we’ll give you $2 million,” she’ll be running real quick to muck it up, if she can get the two million bucks and get the heck out. It’s a silly system.

When we look at the bill, you would think that’s being fixed. You would think, “Oh, my God. That is all taken care of because Kathleen Wynne says it’s so. It’s accountability and transparency.” But when you look at the details of the bill, we’re still going to be able to pay those executives the salaries they’re getting and they’re still going to be able to negotiate those types of severances. That’s not at all what the Premier has promised the people of Ontario by way of the title of this bill or what she talked about in the election. I think it is yet just another example of the duplicity of this government.

They love to talk a good line, they love to say the right words, but when it comes to the actions, they do completely the opposite.

They’re the Tories who are in a hurry. The Liberals will do things on the right wing that even the Tories wouldn’t attempt to do. There are all kinds of examples of that. If you take a look at the privatization within the health system, there is more being privatized in the health system today by the Liberals than the Tories ever dreamed of doing under Mike Harris. There is more being privatized in the Ministry of Transportation when it comes to maintenance of our highways than even the Tories dared to do.

There is more being privatized under the Liberals under energy and electricity than there ever was dreamed of even under Ernie Eves, who was talking about privatizing the whole thing. Even Ernie Eves backed down and got out.

So I say that the Liberals love to pretend they’re a big, progressive party that is doing all the right things, but, Mr. Speaker, when you start to pull away the veil of what they’re doing, they’re Tories in a hurry. They do exactly the opposite of what they say. A good example, when it comes to transparency, is what they said in the last election. I think what Mr. Hudak did in promising to cut 100,000 jobs was not a very wise policy decision, public policy position, and certainly politically not very good for the Tory party, at the very least. But here’s the point: The Liberals campaigned against Mr.

Hudak on the 100,000 jobs that were going to be lost. If you take a look at their own budget, they’re saying that 6% will be cut in each of the various ministries; and I would project that the revenues are not going to be as good as we think they’re going to be in the upcoming months because of what we’re seeing in the energy and resource sectors.

So the question goes to the Liberals: How many people are they going to lay off? I bet you we end up by the end of this, by way of attrition and direct layoffs, probably laying off about the same amount of people Mr. Hudak talked about in the last election. But yet these Liberals tried to make it look as if they didn’t stand for that, they were completely the opposite. That is not transparency. That is just political bafflegab; and it’s politics, I think, of the worst kind because it makes people more and more cynical.

We wonder why we get 49% of the people coming to elections. I don’t remember the exact number in the last election, but I remember that in the one previous to that 49% of the public voted in the provincial election—at least in my riding; I don’t know what it was everywhere else. Part of the problem is that people look at that and they say, “Why should I be engaged in politics? They say one thing and they do completely the opposite.”

If we’re serious about providing accountability and we’re serious about applying transparency to government, and we actually did what we said we were going to do, I think the public would be more engaged. I think the public would say, “Hey, I’m getting good value for my tax dollars that I’m giving the government. The government seems to be trying to do a good job”—whatever stripe that government might be—“of making sure there is accountability and transparency for decisions,” but we’re not seeing that.

A good example is what’s happened in regard to the daycare bill that we’re about to vote on later on this afternoon. We New Democrats are in favour of the bill that is being proposed. We don’t think it goes as far as it should, and deals with the issues of daycare for most parents, but it’s a step in the right direction. We’re regulating parts of the daycare sector that need to be regulated; nobody argues that. But we asked a very simple thing. We said, “Listen, daycare is an issue across this province.

It doesn’t matter what community you live in.” I don’t care if you’re from northern or southern Ontario, eastern or western Ontario, if you’re a parent and you’re looking for daycare, a lot of you have issues.

So why didn’t we take the time, as suggested by us, the New Democrats, and the Conservatives, to actually take some time to send that bill into committee so that the public outside of Toronto—and in Toronto—can have their say about what they see in the daycare bill as proposed and what they think generally should be done around daycare? The government said, “We’re transparent and we want to be accountable.” Well, in this case they’re transparent and accountable for two days in the city of Toronto.

They’re saying, “If you have an issue and you want to come and speak to this bill, come to the city of Toronto between 3:30 and 6 at night and between 6:30 and 9:30 at night, two nights, sometime in a couple of weeks from now, and you’ll get to have your say.”

What happens if you live in Cornwall, Ottawa, Sudbury, Timmins, Sarnia or wherever it might be? You have to either—“Well, maybe I’ll watch it on the legislative channel, if I can find it.” Depending on which committee room it is in, it may not even be televised live. And it’s not going to be run in real time; you’re going to have to stay up in the middle of the night to watch it. Maybe you can watch on the Internet if you’re lucky and you have good enough bandwidth to see it. Or you’re going to have to drive down to Toronto.

You know what? There’s a huge province outside of Toronto. If you go to Kenora–Rainy River, my good friend’s riding, and you go to Fort Frances, it’s 1,600 kilometres from here. Who’s going to jump in a car and drive all the way to Toronto from Fort Frances for a 15-minute presentation to a committee here at Queen’s Park? You may feel strongly about the situation of daycare in your community if you come from Fort Frances, but my God, are you going to drive 1,600 kilometres to come here?

It’s incumbent upon this Legislature to allow the committee to travel to some of these communities so at least some people outside of Toronto can have their say. Was there any transparency? Was there any accountability? Mr. Speaker, the government just used its majority and said, “No, we know best. We’re Liberals. I’m Kathleen Wynne. I am the Premier. I know what’s good for Ontario. Here’s a bill and if you don’t like it, too bad.

I’ll use my majority and I’ll just push this thing through the House by way of time allocation and I’ll send it to committee for a couple of days in Toronto—done.” I think that’s a bit arrogant. I was thinking that the Premier was serious in her word when she said that, in fact, she was going to engage with citizens and have real dialogue about the issues that face us.

I can’t think of an issue that is not as important to young families as is daycare. I talked about it the other day in the second reading debate. I’m a grandparent. Our daughters each have two children: a little boy and three little girls. There are two in each of the families. The ones who were in daycare are now out of daycare. They struggled in order to find some daycare spots. It’s very expensive. Luckily, our daughters and their husbands are doing well enough that they can pay for it, but they ended up in a private daycare because it’s hard to get into not-for-profit daycare; there are not enough spots available.

Clearly, there are parents who are struggling for daycare spots. What do you do if you’re not as fortunate as Natalie and Julie, our daughters, who make at least a decent wage, who can afford to pay the daycare? What happens if you’re working in a job that pays 12, 13, 14 bucks an hour and you might be the only bread-earner in your family and you have to pay for daycare? It becomes very, very difficult.

So I say, this is not about transparency, Mr. Speaker. This bill is more about the government trying to be seen as doing something on an issue where people really want the government to do something. They have a big, shiny title: MPP transparency and accountability act. If you looked at the title, you would think, “Boy, that’s a good bill, because it’s all about accountability and transparency.” But when you look at the details, it’s not there.

One of the other issues we talk about is limiting the ability of lobbyists to do some of the things they’re doing now. First of all, I want to say up front that lobbyists are a necessary group of people in our system. You have to have professionals who work with organizations to do the work that has to be done to prepare them to lobby governments and opposition, to be able to move their agenda forward. That’s what lobbyists are. They shouldn’t be seen as a negative.

But we have rules here that allow the former Premier, Mr. McGuinty, who is working for an educational software company that his government gave money to when he was Premier. When he was Premier, his government gave money to this company to do work on some educational software—whatever it is they do in that company—and now Mr. McGuinty is hired as their lobbyist. I think the average person would look at that and say, “My God, is that right? Does it make any sense that the guy who gave them money gets hired by the company that got the money?” It doesn’t look good on the surface.

There has to be some sort of mechanism where you can’t do that kind of thing, or at least have a real cooling-off period of a couple of years that you cannot be involved in something you were directly involved with as a government member or as a member of this assembly or as a Premier or as a cabinet minister. I’m not saying that an MPP who leaves this place couldn’t get a job as a lobbyist somewhere, but there have to be some sort of conflict-of-interest guidelines that say you can’t be lobbying on things that you were responsible for when you were in government, because it does look to the public, at least on the surface—it doesn’t smell well, I guess, is the only way I would put it.

The other part of this bill is that they’re posting MPPs’ expenses. This is supposed to be something that’s really great. So we’re now going to post the expenses of myself and all of our colleagues when it comes to the two budgets we have: We have one budget to run our constituency offices, which we call our global budget, and we also have our travel expenses. We get money to travel to and from the riding.

So a person like myself, I take an airplane ride once a week. The government pays for that, including the taxi. They’re saying, “Look at this. We’re going to be posting it. It’s such a wonderful thing.” It was information that was already available to anybody who wanted to find it. It was already on government websites. All we’re doing is making it a little bit easier for people to find.

But let me tell you: People in my constituency who are looking for how much I spend on travel or in my global budget, as with every member in the assembly, never have a problem trying to find that, because your local papers right away will publish what it is that you spent the year before. Normally, there’s an

article that is written about how Gilles Bisson is either the highest- or second-highest-spending member when it comes to travel. Normally, Kenora–Rainy River is number 1 and I’m number 2 or I’m number 1 and Kenora–Rainy River is number 2. Well, you know, surprise, surprise: My colleague and I live far away, and we take airplanes to come to work because we’re more than eight hours’ drive.

In your case, how many hours’ drive would it take you to get here? Two days?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Twenty-one.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, it would take two days of driving. Well, excuse me, you’re not going to drive four days to come to work for a four-day workweek at Queen’s Park when we’re sitting. You’d be missing a day. So, of course she’s going to fly, and of course I’m going to fly.

To me, it’s a little bit silly. Everybody knows how much I spend every year, but somehow this is seen as transparency because it’s in the bill. It was already public information. It wasn’t as if nobody could find it. All you had to do was go to the legislative website, go searching around and you can find the report that lists how much each and every member in this assembly charged in travel and how much we charge in our global budgets to pay our staff and buy paper and pay rent.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I say this is a case where the government is saying they’re going to do one thing, when it comes to having a really nice title that says it’s transparency and accountability, and be seen as doing something, but in fact the details leave a lot to be desired.

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

Mr. Yvan Baker: The other day when I stood in the House, when I followed Minister Matthews as she presented this bill, I was very proud, and I’m proud to stand here again in support of this bill. It’s an important bill; it’s an impactful bill. We are not just talking about accountability; we are doing something about it and strengthening it.

During the election campaign I was knocking on doors and spoke with many constituents. Many of them talked about the need to make sure that government is accountable, that it’s transparent, that we get value for taxpayers’ dollars. I know from my experience in business and in the private sector that one of the best ways to ensure value for dollars is that the information that shines light on how we spend those dollars is so important. Having access to that information and making sure that’s available to all concerned, and easily accessible, is important. That’s what this bill strives to do.

This is a signature bill, Mr. Speaker. It’s a broad-ranging bill. I believe it’s an impactful bill. It’s going to do a number of things. I would just like to reiterate some of the highlights of what the bill does.

It enables the government to directly control compensation of senior executives in the broader public sector. We’re going to gather the information we need to make sure that we make an educated and responsible decision about public sector executive compensation, and then we can impose the right frameworks to make sure we control that compensation.

It expands the Ontario Ombudsman role to include municipalities, school boards and universities.

It requires expense information to be posted online for cabinet ministers, for parliamentary assistants, for opposition leaders, their respective staff and all MPPs. I think this is important. I think the people of my community and all our communities expect no less.

It requires all institutions covered by the provincial municipal freedom-of-information legislation to securely preserve and prohibit the wilful destruction of records, to make sure that information will always be present and available.

It gives the government greater oversight over the air ambulance service providers.

It allows the government to appoint a patient ombudsman to respond to complaints and to eventually help to make changes to improve our health care system.

It’s a broad-ranging bill, Mr. Speaker. It’s an impactful bill. We’re not just talking about transparency; we’re doing something about it. The people of Etobicoke Centre deserve this; I think the people of Ontario deserve this.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I have to commend my colleague for raising such important issues on this bill. I’ll be joining in the debate as well, but I think it’s important to note that there is a lot that the government is simply talking about, even in the bill. The bill is really, as we’ve described, window dressing. There is so much in the bill that was already happening, so much more that could have been done; really, it’s a form of distraction.

For example, air ambulance: All the measures in this bill would not have changed anything. The government knew very well that there were serious problems going on. The government received an audit that they requested. They hired a company, Meyers Norris Penny, and had them do an audit. The audit clearly stated there were a number of problems. They received this document. I was in the committee; I was shocked at how exhaustive that report was. It went through and showed all the problems that existed—this is years ago; this was 2009, well before the scandal broke—and they did nothing about it.

Really, what needs to happen are some systemic changes to the overall structure, the way in which this government responds to red flags, the way this government responds to problems.

Speaking about the Ombudsman, it’s a great idea to expand the scope of the Ombudsman, but why is the government not expanding it to the area where there is so much in terms of scandal, like the health sector—eHealth, Ornge? These are some serious concerns, and particularly serious because health is something that everyone is concerned about. So why is this government appointing a patient ombudsman when we know very well that the Ontario Ombudsman is one of the most skilled individuals in terms of oversight? It’s an office that has done great work.

This government, again, is not really implementing transparency. They’re simply talking about it.

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

Au début, je ne sais pas s’il y a un mot pour « bafflegab » dans le dictionnaire, mais bon. Le troisième parti a jeté plein de « criticism » sur ce gouvernement pour le projet de loi pour « transparency » et « accountability ». Enfin, c’est quelque chose dont je me sens très fière.

C’est vrai que nous sommes prêts à faire quelque chose à propos de « accountability ». Nous avons fait une campagne électorale qui soulignait ce fait-là. Ce n’est pas quelque chose pour faire distraction. C’est une loi pour dire à nos commettants que nous sommes sérieux à faire un gouvernement ouvert.

I believe that we owe it to our constituents. I stand in this House confident that this is a principle that we will abide by. It’s something that we are all very proud of. I look forward to working together to see this bill passed into law.

There is nothing more important than accountability in today’s government, and we owe it to our constituents on a daily basis, with every single act that we do in this House, whether it’s our expenses online—we need to make them accessible to constituents. They shouldn’t be hidden in the depths of a website. They should be accessible.

I’m proud of the work that this government is doing.

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

We need to have not just talk, but we need to have real accountability. I think we’re seeing that too many people don’t even go to vote at election time. Why don’t they vote? Because they’re not engaged, because they hear the government say one thing and do something completely different. People are very disappointed.

It’s up to us to communicate with the public. That’s what we’re here for. We’re here to represent the public, not just at Queen’s Park but across the entire province. We need to hear from the public. How can we hear from the public when, as the member from Timmins–James Bay has just said, people cannot be expected to fly in or drive for two days to come and give their opinion and share their opinion?

We need to have enough times where we reach out to the public. Video conferencing could be set up in these locations, at the bare minimum, so that people are able to come to their local community centre or town hall and speak to us in the committees through video conferencing.

All the communication networks are out there. The Internet now is making us so much more accessible, and it’s disappointing to me to see that we’re not using it more.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Timmins–James Bay, you now have two minutes.

Again, thanks to my colleagues for replying in French. I do want to say, though, that I really do see this bill as essentially a communications exercise on the part of the government. This is transparency and accountability by title; that’s really what this bill is. It’s not about the things that we need to do to really make transparency and accountability work.

As I said in my speech, and it was repeated by the member from Thornhill, in fact, people are disconnected and don’t participate in politics exactly because politicians and governments tend to say the right things but take very little action on the things that they say they’re going to do.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to address Bill 8. It is of course the curiously titled Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. I say “curious” as I don’t think there has ever been a more clear example in this House of a government saying one thing and doing another. Perhaps one would say they’re talking out of both sides of their mouths.

“Accountability” and “transparency” are two words with such importance when it comes to democratic governments, and certainly concepts that we on this side of the House support wholeheartedly. Yet these two words seem to lose all meaning when dragged through the mud by the Wynne Liberals. I feel it’s important, as we move through this legislation, to understand just what accountability and transparency mean and how they apply when it comes to expected outcomes for this legislation under the current Wynne regime.

Let’s take a clear look at these two words. We’ll take “accountability” first. I have taken the opportunity to look it up, and according to Merriam-Webster, accountability is defined as, “An obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.” Then they provide an example, which I will read as well, as it applies to this situation: “public officials lacking accountability.” I didn’t write that, Speaker, but it seems someone at Merriam-Webster must have a familiarity with this Ontario Liberal government.

So accountability is a “willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.” I submit that this willingness is clearly absent in this House. I would advise that without that willingness to accept responsibility, there is no legislation wording that will restore the principle of accountability from a government whose actions continue to ensure it is not accountable.

Just in the last couple of weeks, we see this government, despite the announcements surrounding this legislation, moving again and again to ensure it cannot be held to account. Look at the legislation that is being rammed through this House at rapid, unaccountable speed. Let’s take Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014, where we just had one day of public hearings here in Toronto following time-allocated debate last week. Then one more quick day of clause-by-clause before it’s to be returned to the House and ramrodded through to shut down any sense of democratic input. How is this democratic? How is this accountable?

Last week it was Bill 18, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act. It’s the same story here, Speaker: time-allocated to shut down debate, one day of hearings here in Toronto to shut down input, one day of clause-by-clause to shut down amendments, and quickly back to the House. In the end, we’ll be left with neither stronger workplaces nor a stronger economy, but we will have a piece of legislation that says we do. Welcome to Premier Wynne’s Ontario, where government talks about doing the right thing but fails to walk the walk.

Talk is cheap, Speaker, and the people of Ontario deserve a government that tells them what they’re going to do and then actually does it. That’s what the people of Ontario deserve, yet we’re left with a government that brings forth snappy-titled legislation like the accountability and transparency act when its actions are clearly anything but accountable and transparent.

Of course, the fast-tracking of legislation follows hard on the heels of the government’s complete lack of accountability when it comes to allowing the people of Ontario a glimpse into the deals they’ve made to tie us to the white elephant known as MaRS, just out those front doors. Time and again, our members worked in committee to draw government out, to hold it to account on its MaRS dealing. Time and again, we were met with a solid brick wall of deniability.

My colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington was persistent in his questioning in estimates, prodding the minister to simply provide the documentation, the agreements made by this government that have left Ontario taxpayers holding onto a multi-million dollar bill that I don’t even think government members know the total of. We’re still waiting for those documents, those agreements, while government hides behind their new buzzwords “commercial sensitivity” to keep the truth from getting out.

This is a project that has left us paying $65 million to buy out an American real estate partner while also paying interest on a $224-million loan issued by the province itself to get a second tower built in the first place. The minister wouldn’t even tell us how much we may end up paying for the project in the end. It’s hardly accountable, Speaker. And it makes me question the government’s intentions when it comes to inserting accountability into this legislation.

What about those gas plants? I don’t think there is anyone in the entire province who would consider this government’s actions in the wake of the Liberal gas plant scandal to be accountable. It’s completely the opposite, and the games continue. Seemingly emboldened by their new majority status, this government is doubling down on its unaccountability when it comes to the gas plant debacle. Where is the accountability when the government uses its majority to refuse the justice committee from hearing the testimony of Peter Faist and Laura Miller?

All those in opposition stood in a united front to increase accountability with respect to the two cancelled gas plants while, of course, the government voted to shut us down. It’s more of the same cavalier attitude that cost taxpayers $1.1 billion, all in the name of winning the 2011 general election.

You’ll have to forgive us in opposition for being skeptical of the government’s intentions when it puts legislation before the House with laudable principles of accountability and transparency while completely ignoring those principles when the rubber hits the road. The frustrating part for us in opposition and those across Ontario watching this play out is that it doesn’t seem to matter what legislation is in place to hold the government to account and ensure transparency. This government simply pays lip service and goes on its merry way doing what it wants when it wants and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

For instance, in the case I just mentioned—the government’s refusal to allow Mr. Faist and Ms. Miller to appear in front of a committee—their testimony would not have even been required if the government had behaved in accordance with legislation already on the books in the first place. You see, there was already legislation in place to protect public archives and public record-keeping before someone from government ordered the destruction of emails. Obviously, that legislation was completely ignored, so it’s questionable how the simple addition of another clause in this legislation is now going to protect future records.

You can change the legislation but a leopard or cheetah doesn’t change its spots. In fact, a number of different pieces of legislation to bring increased and enhanced accountability and transparency have been enshrined into law right here in this assembly, but they’ve all been ignored. After every scandal, it’s the same routine:

(1) introduce legislation to make it appear like government and its agencies are finally going to do things right: be accountable, be transparent, provide proper oversight;

(2) pass the legislation and announce all is right again, and the government can be trusted—don’t worry;

(3) wait until the people aren’t looking and engage in the same unaccountable actions that got you into trouble in the first place—cue crisis;

(4) stir and repeat.

We had legislation to prevent an OLG-like crisis from ever happening again. Before you knew it, there was eHealth. Then eHealth crisis-prevention legislation gave way to Ornge, and Ornge begat the gas plants. The cycle just goes on and on, and at no time does it appear that this government actually gets it, actually understands what it is doing to prevent the very accountability and transparency that it pretends to defend. If it sounds frustrating, that’s because it is. We have had more than a decade of this back-and-forth gamesmanship, and now we see the latest

chapter with Bill 8.

I already told you about the MaRS questioning in committee. So, too, in the House during question period, we in the official opposition were stymied by a government and a Premier that simply refuse to be responsible, to be transparent. After the minister refused to release the business case for the MaRS loan and other relevant information related to the MaRS bailout in committee, Premier Wynne herself followed up in this House, refusing to release or even acknowledge that a business case existed that showed the MaRS phase 2 bailout of over $309 million was in fact in the best interest of the Ontario taxpayers—they want to know.

This is a Premier that was supposed to be changing the scandal-plagued Liberal government, supposed to be ushering in a new era of openness and transparency. This is simply not the case. It makes me question the purpose of legislation like Bill 8 if it is going to be completely ignored once it’s on the books, just like so many others in the past. I’m further concerned when I see members of this government—new members of cabinet who we hope aspire to be different when it comes to transparency—show that in reality it is the same old same old for a government that refuses to meet its responsibilities.

That concern was clearly front and centre again in estimates last week when we had the Minister of Transportation appear before the committee to answer questions on his ministry’s plans moving down the road, a very important file as we continue to hear government make a pledge of $29 billion to spend over the next 10 years on critical pieces of infrastructure—but I will remind them that they have been around for about 11.

This minister was asked for documentation, business plans and background material for issues, including high-speed rail from London to Kitchener to Toronto, maybe even including Windsor, the UP Express—the high-speed electronic link from downtown Union Station to the airport—LRT and more. Yet, at every turn, he refused to provide the committee with requested documentation. Further, he refused to even provide timelines on projects for his government announcements that they’ve actually previously announced, indicating, “I’m not here to announce specific timelines or to make confirmations.”

And here is where it gets a little strange. When I asked the minister to confirm the timeline announced by his predecessor for all-day, two-way GO service to Kitchener-Waterloo in five years, his answer seemed to indicate that Liberal commitments during an election are not commitments at all. Now, I don’t want to mislead or put words into the minister’s mouth so I will read his reply, and you can be the judge.

He said, “You would understand, as a veteran member of this Legislature, that there are a lot of commitments that governments make, that parties make, that individual MPPs make that are aspirational in nature....” There it was, in front of the entire committee: an admission that commitments of this government are not actually commitments at all but in fact are aspirations—aspirations.

As I said in the House to follow up on that questioning, where we come from on this side, commitments are your word; they’re your promise. Where we come from, there is of course a four-letter word for those who dress up their commitments as aspirations.

I put it to the members opposite: Here we are. After years of scandal, after years of legislation paying lip service to concepts of transparency and accountability, after one of your own cabinet ministers admits that your commitments aren’t what they’re made out to be, how are we supposed to believe you when you tell us that your latest for-sure, we-really-mean-it-this-time commitment to transparency and accountability is anything but another measure to divert the public’s attention while you move on to your next scandal? And I’m sure it will be a good one.

How are we supposed to believe that this piece of legislation, as laudable as some of its goals may be, will end up actually instilling the principles of transparency and accountability instead of being ignored like the long line of ignored ethics proposals that litter the twisted trail this government has left for us to clean up?

I know there were comments earlier that talked about the Ornge scandal. We all saw, after the committee spent hours and hours and hours interviewing folks and coming up with a report—I’d like to specifically thank my colleagues, especially retired MPP Frank Klees, from Newmarket–Aurora, for his extremely great work on this file to bring and shed some light for Ontarians on just what happened at Ornge and how it got so bad.

But how careless the former Minister of Health was, when she was in fact warned, given a letter identifying all the red flags at Ornge. I’m not sure if she just has an inability to manage correspondence, or if she simply ignored the warning signs that could have prevented unnecessary deaths and tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars that were squandered by Ornge.

We can’t forget, of course—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Point of order, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order: the member for Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, I would hope that the member will get back on track and speak about the legislation that is in front of us today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’m listening carefully, and I’ll bring him back if he drifts.

Continue.

Mr. Michael Harris: I do appreciate that interjection, perhaps, to get a bit of a break.

We are talking about transparency and accountability. Now, I know your colleague from Trinity–Spadina encourages his colleagues to simply be transparent when it’s good for the government, perhaps, just like the member stated. It has got to be a convenient time for us to be transparent with Ontarians. But we believe on this side of the House that that needs to happen 365 days a year, at every turn.

A report was recently tabled into the on-goings at Ornge. It was transparent. In fact, it was endorsed by the committee wholeheartedly, I suppose.

Then we can’t forget about eHealth, the $2-billion, maybe even $3-billion, scandal that Ontarians, who still don’t have electronic health records, are more than familiar with.

I guess I go back again to, how are we supposed to believe this piece of legislation will end up actually instilling the principles of transparency and accountability instead of being ignored like the long line of previous pieces of legislation to go back on? I just mentioned Ornge and eHealth.

We understand that this is simply another attempt by government to deflect from the decade-plus of scandal we are all paying for. I can assure you it’s expensive.

That said, I do hold out hope that this is something more than an exercise in public relations and a continued cover-up, more than just the next

chapter of scandal and denial. I hold out hope, but until I see this government actually engaging in the accountability and transparency this bill aspires to, I’m not going to hold my breath.

I’ll leave it at that, Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to hearing questions and comments from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Joe Cimino: Thank you to the member from the Conservative Party—very well spoken.

I sit here on this side of the House as a newer member. I can’t use that phrase for too much longer, because five months have passed, but I’ll still use it. As a newer member, or a new member, I’m starting to see how titles are extremely important. I can assure you, when my private member’s bill comes forward, the title will match what’s in the text.

I spoke for quite a long time on the fighting fraud and reducing auto insurance motion, or bill, that came forward a couple of weeks ago, or a week ago. I love the title, so I read that title and I got into the bill, and I had some support from researchers etc. Then I looked into it and it was really nothing about that. It was about having an appeal process—the courts—taken away as a right of claimants, and it was about reducing the interest rate that insurance companies have to pay for pain and suffering from the time a claim is awarded until the time it’s paid. So that bill didn’t really match the title.

Then I take a look at this bill that’s in front of us today, the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. I believe that every single member of this House wants exactly that. Every single person in this province wants exactly that. The problem is, the bill does not go far enough. We take a look, for example, at the salaries of public sector workers. How in-depth are we going? Are we attacking the severance packages? No. Are we attacking the bonus systems that up the salary that they actually get at the end of the year? I didn’t see it in there.

Again, if we talk about transparency and accountability—and then there’s the whole piece about not destroying information. It’s very ironic, I would say, considering what’s going on with the gas plant investigation by the OPP.

Again, I’m hoping, as time passes, that there is more accountability and transparency.

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

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act.

Since the beginning, the Premier has made it a top priority to make openness and transparency available for all. This is what we campaigned on, this is what the people of Ontario elected us to do, and this is what we hope to deliver on.

What are people going to get with this act? First of all, let’s look at executive compensations. We want to have a look at this and try to control these compensations in the broader public sector. We want to set some fair compensation frameworks, including hard caps.

When it comes to a patient ombudsman, we want to have a person in place who is going to be able to listen to complaints from people who have gone through the health care system and have concerns. This is what we want to deliver on.

We want to also expand the Ombudsman role. This person should be able to look at municipalities, school boards and publicly assisted universities.

When it comes to MPP expense reporting, the public is going to be able to go to our websites and look up how it is that we spent their money on out-of-town riding travel, hotels related to that travel, meals and hospitality, and that will be posted online. That’s going to be there in place not just for MPPs but for cabinet ministers.

This act is going to strengthen political accountability by requiring the public posting of expense information for cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants, opposition leaders and their respective staff.

Again, I say, this is what we campaigned on. This is what we show the people of Ontario, and this is what they elected us to do. They favour this, and they want this.

I’m hoping that our colleagues in the Legislature are going to share our commitment to openness and to work with us to pass these new measures.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: It’s a pleasure to respond to my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga’s comments on the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act. You know, it’s these types of legislation brought by this government, with its long history of 11 years of scandals—

Interjections.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I know the member from Northumberland is shouting something—but really, scandals. You don’t come to this job over there with a sense of integrity, or else you wouldn’t be making rules up to try to make it appear that you’re running a transparent and accountable government, because you have to make the rules up after you have broken most of them. It’s like the old story of closing the barn door but the horse has already left.

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes, way gone.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, it’s way past. The government is famous for lip service: they can put titles on bills that make the public think, “My gosh, they’re the best and most integral and honest government out there,” but really the scandals—MaRS being the most recent, the power plants, eHealth, Ornge. We’ve been asking for Ornge—we’ve asked for witnesses they will not let come forward to account about the power plants, the most recent being Laura Miller and Peter Faist—scandal after scandal. So they bring in pieces of legislation to try to—a shiny bauble over here, transparency and accountability.

We have an obligation to tell the public that we don’t believe that this piece of legislation is going to do anything.

Mrs. Julia Munro: We’ve seen this before.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, we’ve seen this act before; 11 years—we don’t expect a lot of changes.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’m pleased to be able to rise to speak to this bill with the title of “MPP accountability and transparency.” I believe the bill is good in theory, but theory is not enough. The government actually needs to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I think we’ve all seen over time that that’s not what is happening; they’re not walking the walk. It’s all just lip service.

In fact, if we want to talk about transparency and openness—just a couple of days ago I was denied access to a public facility in my own riding, so I don’t really understand how they can talk about openness and transparency. As a matter of fact, I haven’t received an invitation for that tour that was brought up, just to clarify that.

Also, we need to look at the public sector CEO salaries. We would like to see hard caps on those salaries, not the approach of, “We’ll just keep an eye on it and see what goes on”—you know, if you like this one better than that CEO, this one’s going to get paid more. There need to be hard caps on those salaries.

Back to accountability and transparency: I again bring up the gas plant scandal. We have witnesses that they’re not bringing forward. The public needs to know. They deserve to know what happened, not to be shut out of any processes.

So again I say accountability and transparency—this government has not been walking the walk; it’s all been lip service. It’s good in theory, but my concern is that this government is not going to be really practising what it is they propose this bill to say.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member from Kitchener-Conestoga. You have two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Michael Harris: I would obviously like to thank those who had an opportunity to listen to my 20-minute remarks on this particular bill. Of course, the new member from Sudbury, I appreciate your comments on that. I know we were in committee together just last week and experienced some of those similar frustrations with the Minister of Transportation. Of course, my new colleague next door to me, from Kitchener Centre—and Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, thank you for chiming in and repeating some of the things that seem to light a fire under them. They don’t like hearing about the past.

We will be here each and every day to remind you of that, because as I said earlier, a leopard and cheetah don’t change their spots, Speaker.

Ontarians sent us, of course, to continue to hold the government accountable, so that we can ensure we don’t have $1.1-billion power plant scandals in the future. I mean, $1 billion. I often hear about how Obama spent $1 billion to get elected in the United States—$1 billion, President of the United States of America. He fundraised and raised that money on his own. We used $1.1 billion to get a few Liberal MPPs elected here in Ontario.

Hon. Michael Coteau: What about the 407?

Mr. Michael Harris: You guys keep talking about the 407. You know what? Pensioners in Ontario and Canada will be thankful down the road that their pension is steady and wholesome because of their stake of ownership in the 407. It’s the only thing you’ve got over there, the only thing you’ve got and you want to talk about; yet pensioners will have a secure pension because of their stake in such an important piece of infrastructure.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned, unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Mr. Speaker, we wish this debate to continue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We want to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m glad that the members of the government would like to hear my input. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. It makes me feel very warm and fuzzy.

Interjection: You are fuzzy.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I am actually warm and fuzzy, aren’t I?

Because I was so kindly received, I want to start off that there are certain elements of this bill that are good, I think it’s important to note. I’ll quickly mention the ones particularly that we have no issue with. I think it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

I’m particularly happy to see steps taken with regard to lobbyists.

Schedule 8, amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act: That’s a good step and I commend you for making the right decision in terms of expanding accountability in that area. These are some of the propositions that were raised by our member from Welland; and most of the additions to this component of the bill are well received and are similar to what she had put forward in her bill.

I also want to mention that there are good amendments put forward with respect to the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Act. That is an important amendment that you’re proposing and I also recognize that’s a good step forward in terms of accountability; as well as the amendments to the Public Sector Expenses Review Act. Those are some good areas and I think they’re important.

There are certainly some good steps taken, but I have to come back to the overall name of the bill. Again, I think this is a good PR strategy and I recognize the skill that it takes to do this, but the reality is that when you have a bill with such a strong name, the contents have to match the strength of the name, otherwise it makes people somewhat cynical. The bill being named the MPP accountability and transparency act is quite a lofty name. But if you look into the bill, the substance is simply not there, in a number of other areas. The areas that I did earlier note—those are strong, those are good.

But let’s get into some of the areas that are really important and where the accountability is simply lacking or the transparency is lacking.

One of the first examples I’ll turn to is the broader public sector executive compensation component of this bill. Now, it’s good that you acknowledge there’s a problem. Thank you. That’s something that we salute and recognize, that you realize there’s a problem. The public has complained about it, that there seems to be this runaway executive compensation in the public sector. The problem with this bill is, what is the solution that the bill is proposing? The bill says, “Hey, we’re going to obtain in-formation.

Once we get that information, then we’re going to create a framework and then we’ll do something about it.” That’s not really transparency. That’s not really accountability. That’s saying, “We’ll do some stuff, we’ll put some stuff together and maybe we’ll come up with some stuff.” It’s very vague. It’s not really anything concrete.

Why couldn’t any of this be done without a bill? You could review information of public sector salaries for executives. You’re paying them, so you could review that information. There’s nothing stopping you from doing that. There’s nothing stopping you from putting together a framework. You could do that. There’s nothing stopping you from putting together a policy on this. All of those steps could easily be taken without a bill.

What makes it cynical is when you say, “We’re taking action on this. We’re taking some steps on this,” and your actions are not really actions. There’s stuff that you can do without a bill, and the bill’s not really doing anything; there’s no cap. Then, you say, “Okay. We’re not in a position to make a cap yet.” That’s fair, but then you can’t put it into the bill and say, “Hey, we’re going to take action on broader public sector executive compensation. We’re going to do something about it.” You may in the future, and I hope you do, but you’re not right now. This is not taking any steps. This is nothing that you couldn’t otherwise do. So that’s a concern.

We proposed a hard cap. That’s a starting place, saying, “Listen, there needs to be a hard cap in this province. For a public sector executive, there’s got to be some level of a cap.” We have caps on the Premier. The Premier who runs the entire province has a clear cap. Why can’t we put a cap in place for executives? That seems to be a logical step, and that would be some action. You could say, “We’re putting in a concrete cap. We’ll review and modify it given the expertise and given the area we’re dealing with.

If it’s in the health sector or the energy sector, we’ll deal with it appropriately, but here’s a general guideline for a cap that’s subject to some changes.” That would be a step, and I wouldn’t be able to criticize that. I’d say, “Hey, listen, that’s a step. You’ve definitely taken something bold and you’ve put in a cap.” But without a cap, without even a framework for a cap, just saying, “We’re going to obtain information to then maybe do a framework for something in the future” really is not doing a lot.

Schedule 2, amendments to the Ambulance Act: This is something I feel very strongly about. I spent a lot of time in the Ornge committee, the special committee struck to deal with Ornge. What we learned was quite compelling, quite dramatic. In Ornge, the Auditor General made it very clear—and let’s just look at what happened. We saw that there was a serious problem. We noticed that there were some red flags. As the opposition, we raised those red flags.

What happened was, all of the changes that happened at Ornge, all of the improvements that happened at Ornge: changing the entire board, getting rid of the chief executive officer, the CEO—all of these steps, in terms of improving Ornge, happened without a bill, without any new legislation.

What does that tell you? We had the tools already. This government had the tools already to actually do the oversight. They had the tools. The Auditor General said very clearly, “They had the tools; they simply didn’t use them.” That’s the problem. You can have legislation, you can strengthen the bill, you can strengthen the oversight mechanism, but at the end of the day you have to actually do something about it.

If you’re not using the tools you have, it doesn’t matter how many tools you have—you could have the nicest, fanciest tools, and if you’re not going to build anything with them, you’re not building anything with them. That’s the bottom line. In this case, all of the amendments proposed would not have prevented Ornge—it’s the actions that were required, and the Auditor General makes this absolutely abundantly clear.

Given how much of a problem Ornge was, given how much of a problem we’ve seen in the health care sector in general and given the fact that that’s our largest expense—health care is our largest expense in terms of provincial expenses. The fact that, right now, as it stands with these amendments to the Ambulance Act, there is still no oversight of Ornge by the Ombudsman. In addition, Ornge is still an organization that can’t be called to the government agencies committee. It still can’t be brought in front of the committee that gives oversight to these arm’s-length agencies that do work for us as a province. It still can’t be done.

Again, the reason why I question the substance is that, at the end of the day—this is a clear example—this bill doesn’t change the accountability. It doesn’t address the Auditor General’s concerns that it wasn’t the legislation that was needed, it was action needed by this government.

We had the Meyers Norris Penny report that was released. The report clearly indicated all of the problems that existed with Ornge, yet—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome my two constituency assistants from Brockville, Renee Jackson and Rebecca Williams. They’re looking right at me, up in the upper gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome the parent of Danielle Beaudoin, who is a page in the Legislature here in this session. Kim Beaudoin is with us, who comes all the way from Timiskaming–Cochrane. We’d like to welcome you.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Today we have three members of Renée Grenaway’s family here. Renée is a page from my great riding of Davenport. I’d like to welcome Renée’s mother, Sandra Grenaway, her grandmother Gloria Bradey, and their fabulous neighbour Bernadette Boyle. They’re sitting here in the members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It’s my pleasure to welcome two people who are here today, Shelley Ratelband and Elaine Scriven, two very hard-working people from my constituency office. They’re in the gallery.

I also have two other people in the gallery: Gregory Van Boekel’s mother, Jennifer Van Boekel, and aunt Mary Tubbe. They’re in the public gallery this morning to make sure that Gregory is doing his job. I see he’s very attentive.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m delighted to have in the members’ gallery Frank Franciosa and Matt Novak, who are visiting today. Welcome.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to welcome students and staff from Northern Lights Public School, here in the gallery today.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce two of my staff here in Queen’s Park today: Michelle Roe and Dela Horley. They keep the office in Sarnia working.

Hon. Mario Sergio: From the wonderful school of Gulfstream in my area, I have page Faith Ebanks, who has been serving during this particular session of Parliament. Her mother, Denise Lindo, is with us today. I hope she enjoys her visit to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome the best constituency team in Ontario: Diane Foxton, Janet Haines, Lynne DiCocco, Sarah Ross, Victoria Stevenson, and our latest addition, Kristy May, our intern.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m very pleased to welcome the family of our page captain Félix Nunes: mother Malika Nunes, father Carlos Nunes, grandmother Jeannine Nunes, grandfather Arthur Nunes, grandmother Juliette Losier and grandfather Jean-Yves Losier. They will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m pleased to welcome Aaron Van Tassel. He is one of the OLIP interns who I’m fortunate to have in my office, and he is here with us in the members’ gallery.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to welcome to Queen’s Park Ms. Trish Wilde, who is in the gallery here today. Unlike in some constituency offices, Trish is all alone, looking after the Alliston office.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to welcome to the assembly today my two staff members from the constituency office, Lucille Rose and Kathy Link.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We’ll be joined today by four members from United Way Toronto: Pedro Barata, Nauman Khan, Stephanie Procyk and Michelynn Lafleche; and from the Workers’ Action Centre: Rubeni Ahilah, Beulah Paul, Beixi Liu, Justin Chung and Karen Cocq. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome my staff: Sandra Breedon, Karen MacInnis and Lisa LaPierre.

I’d also like to extend a very happy birthday to my colleague Randy “Milo” Pettapiece.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I know we all welcome people in the building here from Ontario Pork and the egg farmers—that makes a real nice ham and eggs combination. Those who attended their breakfast can look forward to a pork reception this afternoon at 4 o’clock.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today is my House leader’s 38th anniversary with his wife, Murielle. We should all wish him congratulations.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m very pleased to welcome the finest constituency office staff team, who work at the Wellington–Halton Hills provincial riding office, Judy Brownrigg and Karen Thomas, who are with us today.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature two of my constituency staffers: Nicole da Silva from my Chatham office and Sue Adamson from my Leamington office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: From the great riding of Dufferin-Peel—Dufferin–Caledon—please join me in welcoming—

Laughter.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Actually, she lives in Brampton, so it is Dufferin-Peel, but we’ll go with Dufferin–Caledon—Lavinia Trask, who actually lives in the leader’s riding, and Carole Clark.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That means I get a pass on my next stumble.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome my executive assistant from North Bay, Andrea Stoppa, to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Harris: I, too, would like to welcome, from Kitchener–Conestoga’s constituency office, Natalie Gleba. Thanks for joining us today at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Lindsay Rennick, who is part of my team in Stratford, here for constituency training.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I thought I’d go last and welcome my EA from St. Thomas, Whitney McWilliam, from the land of no windmills.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome, from my Parry Sound office, Jess Fargher, who is going to be here at Queen’s Park today; and from my Bracebridge office, Christine Marshall, who will also be here at Queen’s Park today.

M. Michael Mantha: J’aimerais introduire un vraiment bon francophone, M. Jean-Yves Losier, qui est ici comme grand-père, en train de regarder son beau petit-enfant, Félix Nunes—qui est le capitaine aujourd’hui—et aussi qui a eu la difficulté et la grosse tâche d’enseigner à un de nos membres, Taras Natyshak.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Bienvenue.

Remembrance Day

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader, on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that up to five minutes be allotted to each caucus to speak on Remembrance Day; and that following all the remarks we rise and observe two minutes of silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to pay tribute and to include two minutes of silence after the tributes. Do we agree? Agreed.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: My dad was a navy veteran. He was a brave man. His ship was torpedoed twice. He couldn’t swim.

Growing up, he used to say, “Son, you haven’t paid your debt to the past until you’ve left the future indebted to yourself.” I used to wonder what he meant by that, but standing here today, I understand. In a few short days, we will gather together, heads bowed, in sombre and solemn remembrance to honour the sacrifices Canadian soldiers have made in the two great wars, in Korea, in Afghanistan and in numerous peacekeeping missions.

As the sound of the Last Post touches our ears and the familiar words of Colonel John McCrae’s memorial poem, In Flanders Fields, once again touch our hearts, our thoughts will be filled with sorrow for those lost on foreign battlefields, be it on the land, in the air or at sea.

The contributions Canadians have made in these historic conflicts solidified our reputation as a nation that doesn’t look for fights but will not shirk from them. Those who answered the call to serve defined our Canada, known across the globe as a strong, peaceful and multicultural country—our Canada, a nation that stands up in defence of freedom; our Canada, a free nation, a privilege earned by the soldier and then donated to us all.

It is our duty to remember how they died and the sacrifices they made. But it is equally important to remember how they lived—with duty, selflessness and honour—and to reflect on those who came home, our glorious veterans. Let us pay tribute to how they went on living and the values they represent, values forged in the despair of war, values learned on battlefields, values then brought home to build this great province and this great nation. How they lived.

Last week, I attended the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in my beloved hometown of Hamilton. This young man’s life was taken so callously because he represented the very ideals that define Canada: strength, tolerance and peace. Those of us in attendance and, indeed, the entire nation were given the unique privilege to hear about Corporal Cirillo’s life, to catch a glimpse of a proud single father who adored his little boy, Marcus; a man with an infectious smile and a huge heart; a soldier who found the greatest honour in representing his regiment, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, while guarding our country’s most treasured memorial.

Reflecting on how Nathan and all our veterans lived is truly the essence of Remembrance Day: to celebrate rich lives lost or forever changed in the defence of freedom and ideals we have come to cherish. There simply is no greater sacrifice.

They believed in a cause worth fighting for. They believed in a greater good and that their endeavours, rife with great peril, had a purpose for future generations. What a great lesson for us all, especially each and every one of us who has been granted the extraordinary privilege to serve in this place and to try as best we can to make a difference for future Ontario generations. To make lives better for future generations, we must overcome adversity and emulate the hard-won values our soldiers have forged for us to follow.

We are indeed indebted to those who served, Speaker, both living and dead. It is our duty, as Lieutenant Colonel McRae reminds us, “To you from failing hands we throw / The torch; be yours to hold it high.”

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, lest we forget not only how they died but how they lived: For to live in the hearts of those we leave behind is not to die.

The question we should ask ourselves today is, how will we live? Let us resolve to leave a future indebted to ourselves, for that surely would be the best way to remember those who showed us how to live. It is also the best legacy we could possibly leave to our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m humbled and proud to deliver Remembrance Day remarks in this Legislature on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Usually, this chamber echoes with partisanship and confrontational arguments from members representing communities all across Ontario, holding strong views and beliefs on any given number of issues. However, this is an occasion when partisanship is set aside and consensus is easily reached, a time when MPPs of all parties are united in pausing together to remember and honour those Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice to defend freedom and democracy.

As we strive to represent the people of Ontario in this place, we must always remember the noble efforts of those who served to preserve and protect our just society. We debate issues of the day in this chamber in absolute freedom. It should always be remembered that this absolute freedom came with a price, and to this day it continues to come at a price.

On November 11, we will honour the thousands of Canadian men and women who risked their lives and all those who lost their lives to defend freedom and democracy and those who continue to do so today. Canadians are painfully and keenly aware that our safety and security are not taken for granted.

In less than a week, Canada saw two men who served this nation struck down. The loss of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo reminds us that the danger for our armed forces personnel begins the moment they the don uniform of public protection and service.

Those of us who had the privilege of attending Corporal Cirillo’s funeral will never forget the image of his young son wearing a smaller version of his father’s glengarry, the military headdress, knowing that he will grow up without his father. It hit home for me—and, I’m sure, for all—the tremendous sacrifice that we ask of our men and women in uniform and their families.

Mr. Speaker, Remembrance Day is of special significance, whether we are 10th-generation Canadians or new Canadians. Canada and the world we know today would not be possible without the courage, valour and sacrifice of our veterans and fallen soldiers. They fought for our right to assemble. They fought for the very diversity that we prize in this country. In times of war and on peacekeeping missions around the world, our troops have served Canada with courage and resolve.

We will remember that their sacrifice made way for our liberties. We will remember the honour with which they served, which in turn shaped our democracy. We will remember that those values that we hold so dear, which include the fundamental freedoms of democracy and liberty, are a direct result of their selflessness and their patriotism. We thank them for their service that has kept and continues to keep Canada strong and free. They put our safety and our security above their own. They do this for us.

Thank you to the Canadian men and women, past and present, who served our country with brave resolve, who have risked and given their lives so that future generations could enjoy the blessings of peace and democracy. They deserve our greatest gratitude. We will remember them.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As Remembrance Day approaches, next week, it’s vitally important that we in this House do what we are doing, which is take a moment to pay tribute to our veterans and to our fallen soldiers.

I rise on behalf of my caucus and on behalf of New Democrats across Ontario to say thank you to those women and men who have served and, in some cases, given their lives for our country. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude—a debt of gratitude to veterans and to their families. We know that without their sacrifice we would not be standing here today, enjoying the freedoms that they fought for and which we all hold so dear.

In light of the recent tragic events in Quebec and Ottawa, this year’s Remembrance Day ceremonies will take on a particularly sombre tone. I would like to recognize again the two men lost to their families and to us as Canadians just a few short weeks ago. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo will forever be remembered by the people of this country, and I ask everyone who is marking Remembrance Day next week to give special thought to their families.

It is said that in war there are no unwounded soldiers. How we, as Canadians, take care of and pay respect to our veterans should always keep this fact in mind. Veterans and their families deserve respect and dignity. I think that’s a value that all Canadians agree upon. This is why taking the time to mark Remembrance Day every year is so important to all of us.

Today New Democrats join with our House colleagues in the Liberal caucus and Conservative caucus to say thank you to the loyal and courageous soldiers who have and will continue to risk their lives for our safety, for our freedom and for our democracy. We will never forget your service. We will never forget your sacrifice. We will remember you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the three members for their very heartfelt and powerful words. At this time, according to the unanimous consent, I would ask all members and guests to rise for two minutes of solemn quiet.

The House observed two minutes’ silence.

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

Oral Questions

Air ambulance service

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for Deputy Premier. Deputy, in November 2008, the Ministry of Health received a letter from a whistle-blower who had worked at Ornge. In his letter of April 2008, Keith Walmsley said that there were two sets of accounting books: one was used for internal reporting and the other was used for quarterly reporting to the ministry—all with a view to hiding the surplus of money Ornge had received from the ministry.

Deputy Premier, were you briefed on the problems at Ornge raised by this whistle-blower when you first became Minister of Health in October 2009?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the Minister of Health would like to speak about further progress at Ornge.

As the member opposite knows, we have had years now of discussion about Ornge. The committee has met. There has been great debate in this House.

The fact is that we’ve moved on at Ornge. We have new leadership. When I became aware of the problems at Ornge, I worked closely with the Auditor General to ensure that he had the information he needed as he did his audit. We brought in a completely new board, new leadership and new quality improvement plans.

The answer is that Ornge is a far, far better organization now than it was when I became minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Deputy Premier: From my experience in having held a number of cabinet positions, the minister would have been fully briefed by ministry officials on the top issues and concerns when she first took office, and that was October 2009. So I say to you, Deputy, that it’s beyond believable that you would not have been briefed on the serious allegations raised by the whistle-blower’s letter.

In addition to alleging shady accounting practices at Ornge, Mr. Walmsley says, “Individuals are also benefiting far too luxuriously, for example the president’s bonus of $250,000.”

Deputy Premier, how can you continue to stand up every day and insist that you knew nothing about the problems at Ornge until December 2011?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I was called to committee. I testified on three different occasions. I would be happy to send you the transcripts from that if you would like. I stand by my testimony at that committee.

What I can tell you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I can tell you is that, in response to concerns at Ornge, it was almost three years ago that I introduced legislation in this House to remedy things at Ornge. That bill has been debated on an astounding 23 different days in the Legislature. It was sent to committee in April 2013, more than a year ago, but both the opposition parties ganged up to refuse hearings on that issue.

It’s time to vote for Bill 8 and get this matter behind us.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again to the deputy: The consequences of the Deputy Premier’s failure to act could not have been more serious for Ontarians. The committee learned that, between October 2009, when the Deputy Premier became the Minister of Health, and December 2011, when she says she first became aware of the problems at Ornge, there were at least two serious incidents that are now the subject of multi-million dollar lawsuits against this government. In May 2010, a patient had to undergo an amputation as a result of a delay in transport. In July 2010, a patient from the Soo area died as a result of a delay in transport.

Deputy Premier, patients have died because you sat back for two years as Minister of Health and did nothing about Ornge. How can you not feel a moral obligation to do the right thing and step down?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side of the House are proud of the work that the Deputy Premier did when she was Minister of Health to turn Ornge around, to make the necessary changes to restore the public’s confidence in this important organization.

Not only the former minister—now the Deputy Premier—but we continue to make important changes. She has mentioned that we have new leadership: a new CEO, a new board, a new chair. This Deputy Premier introduced changes including a new performance agreement, conflict-of-interest guidelines, a patient advocate—many changes.

There are changes still required. That’s why we speak to the importance of getting the opposition’s support to pass Bill 8, to make those further changes and complete the transition.

Wind turbines

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. A total of 86 Ontario municipalities have now declared that they are not willing hosts for the continued spread of green energy projects. These include the four municipalities that surround wpd’s application to build eight, 500-foot—sorry, the Premier is not here.

Interjection: The Deputy Premier.

Mr. Jim Wilson: The Deputy Premier—to build eight 500-foot-tall wind turbines on the flight path of the Collingwood Regional Airport.

I say to the Deputy Premier, this is the very same project that the Premier committed to personaly review the weekend before she became Liberal leader, when she held a press conference in Collingwood. At the time, she said she would personally review that project.

So I say to you, when all four municipalities are against this development in my riding—because at that same press conference, the Premier said that if the municipalities are against it, they shouldn’t have these projects forced on them—is your government still going ahead with this dangerous proposal to build 500-foot-tall wind turbines in the flight path of the Collingwood airport?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I recognize that it may have been a slip, but I do want to remind all members—I take it as an opportunity, not a criticism, to remind everybody we do not talk about anyone’s attendance in this place.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, because there’s a lot missing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me, Minister. I’ve already explained my circumstance. I don’t need editorials. I did say that I believed it was a slip, so I wanted to leave it at that—a teachable moment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Was Ornge a slip?

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We have looked at the procurement process for renewables, and we have a new regimen in place. In fact, there is a very current procurement going on at the present time for large renewable projects which require and will require very significant municipal participation.

On the other hand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to let it build, so stop.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: On the other hand, there are a number of existing contracts which are out there, which we will not break because we will have the types of liabilities which occurred, as they know, with several of our other energy projects at very significant cost.

There are communities that are asking us to break contracts for large renewable projects. There are some that are asking us to extend contracts—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary? The member from Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: This is not about old projects, Minister. These are new problems.

Placement of industrial wind turbines and the related transmission lines are causing problems all across Ontario. When you allowed the Green Energy Act to strip municipalities of their planning power, you also left those same municipalities to clean up your mess.

This summer, Dufferin Wind Power has been installing a transmission line for its wind farm in Dufferin county—this summer; now. In Melancthon, there are some transmission poles that are so close to the road, the mayor has told me they’re not going to be able to safely plow that road. The municipality knew this would be a problem, raised it during the consultation in the spring, raised it with the Premier and your ministers through numerous letters, and you still allowed the company to ignore their concerns.

Is this your idea of your new consultation process?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: That party continues to ask us to break existing contracts. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what they did—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Come to order. The clock is still running.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The PC plan was to cancel existing contracts. They introduced legislation which would give the Minister of Energy the right to cancel existing contracts. Our calculations would show that that would expose the provincial government to liability to the extent of about $20 billion to cancel power purchase contracts.

They continually have risen in this House to ask us to break existing contracts and expose the province to billions of dollars in penalties—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, who’s not in his seat, will come to order.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: This is about public safety, and that is your job.

Speaker, I’d like a page to bring the minister a picture—so that you start to understand how close the utility poles are to the existing roadway. If these poles aren’t relocated, Melancthon may be forced to redesign the road to ensure safety and and allow winter maintenance. The Minister of Energy or the Minister of Transportation could direct that these transmission lines be moved, so that Melancthon residents are not forced to pay the additional costs of redesigning the road. Will you do it?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that there’s an environmental process—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce will come to order. The member from Simcoe North will come to order. And some are getting close to warnings.

Carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You couldn’t bear to look at the picture.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I have a quote here from the member from Nipissing when he was mayor.

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The MPP from Nipissing said, “Taking advantage of locally available green power resources is a good fit with the long-range development strategy we have for the community. I am particularly pleased with the relationship we have struck with West Wind Development … for the first half of the project. I am confident that the company’s reputation as a responsible wind power developer can put North Bay ‘on the map’ as a showcase for the sensitive and responsible development of this great renewable energy resource.”

Mr. Speaker, they continually stand up and challenge us to cancel existing contracts which will expose the province to $20 billion—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: There is a process for environmental assessment—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand. You sit.

New question.

Public services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. I want to ask the Deputy Premier an extremely important question. It’s a question that matters to Ontarians in every corner of this province. How many people will this government fire as part of the Liberal austerity budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure the leader of the third party that our government is determined to get to balance by 2017-18, but we would not do it at the expense of our growing economy.

We have a plan in place that will get us to balance. I have been appointed as President of Treasury Board with a strong Treasury Board. We are looking very closely at how we can get better value for the money we spend, so that we can provide better services to the people of this province. The status quo is not an option. We must get to work and get the best value possible for every tax dollar.

I look forward to working with the NDP because I think they may even have some good ideas on how to continue to get better value for our hard-earned dollars.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberal austerity budget will cut 6% from most ministries each and every year. Don Drummond looked at the Liberal budget and he said that would mean 100,000 job cuts. The people of Ontario soundly rejected the Conservative plan to cut 100,000 jobs. Why are the Liberals now picking up the same plan and firing 100,000 people?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think anybody watching at home might need a little reminder that in fact the NDP built their platform—all nine pages of it, including the cover and the back cover. Their nine-page platform used our assumptions, and then they said, “We can actually go further. We can find an additional $600-million worth of cuts.”

I find it puzzling a little bit that the third party would be concerned about cuts when they actually promised to cut further and deeper—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s just take a look at how we are doing in this province as our economy continues to improve. Since 2009, the recessionary low, we’ve added over half a million jobs. Our unemployment rate is down. Our job numbers are up. Last year, Ontario employment increased by 100,000 jobs. We’re on the right track and we will stay on the right track.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, 1,000 jobs not coming to Windsor with the Ford plant; Windsor’s transmission plant closed; Oshawa’s truck plant closed; Ford’s St. Thomas plant closed; St. Catharines’ components plant, Navistar in Chatham—the list goes on and on.

The fact is, Bloomberg News said that the Liberal budget means the deepest cuts since Mike Harris. You know, the Premier used to say that she actually got into politics because of Mike Harris. We used to think that was to oppose him, not to imitate him. Now she’s going to go even further than Mike Harris went.

The Premier called the PC plan to fire 100,000 people “disastrous,” but she’s going to tint 100,000 pink slips with Liberal red instead of Tory blue, and she insists that that’s a progressive plan. Do the Liberals think it’s progressive to fire 100,000 people?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sure the leader of the third party will be very pleased to join us in celebrating a very significant investment that is happening today in Alliston. I’m very pleased that Honda is making the Alliston facility the global lead for the very popular Honda Civic. That is very, very good news for Ontario and very good news for Alliston.

Not only, these investments—it is almost a $1-billion investment—safeguard 4,000 highly skilled direct positions and help thousands more who are in that supply chain: Honda’s investment, $857 million over the next five years in the latest assembly and engine manufacturing technology. This is fantastic news and a sign of—

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

Public services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If you keep jobs at Honda and still fire 100,000 people, that’s 100,000 people who are still unemployed.

My next question is also for the Deputy Premier. Last week, 15 nurses in Leamington learned that they’d lose their jobs when the hospital decided that they’d be cutting the obstetrics and gynecology unit at the hospital. Not only will that put nurses out of work, it is going to make it extremely difficult for women in this part of the southwest to access ob-gyn services close to home.

What other health services in Ontario are being cut as part of the Liberal austerity budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m happy to speak about the Leamington hospital and the decision that was taken by the board of the hospital on a go-forward basis to close the obstetrical unit. It isn’t a final decision because, in fact, it’s a decision by the LHIN. In fact, the LHIN has announced already that next Wednesday they’ll be having a community meeting. They’re going to have an open board meeting of the LHIN specifically on this issue, including one hour set aside specifically for members of the community to speak to this important issue. Although, in fact, it was a decision by the local board of the hospital, it isn’t a decision which is finalized.

I should add, as well, that currently, Windsor Regional Hospital is a—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: —destination for the people in Leamington. Already, roughly 50% of the women who deliver and who are from the Leamington area do already deliver in Windsor.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Two weeks ago, 40 nurses at the Timmins and District Hospital found out they would be losing their jobs, and 26 beds will disappear. So I repeat the question: What other health services in Ontario are being cut as part of the Liberal austerity budget?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know that from time to time specific changes are made by hospitals in terms of their staffing requirements. The fact is that in the last year alone, 4,000 more nurses were employed in this province. In fact, 24,000 more nurses are working in Ontario since our party, the Liberal Party, took power in 2003.

I understand that the member opposite, the leader of the third party, wants to focus on specific incidents where human resources decisions are made—frankly, where those decisions should be made: at the locality, by the hospital, in concert with the local LHIN as well—but the reality is that we’re deeply committed to the nursing profession in this province, and the evidence is that we’ve dramatically increased not only our investments in that profession, but we’ve increased the scope of practice, the nurse practitioner-led clinics, but also 4,000 new nurses last year alone.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When it comes to Liberal austerity cuts, the health care system is not the only victim. People for Education has reported that the Liberals have slated 125 schools for closure before 2015. That means throwing parents and students into chaos across Ontario. Can the Deputy Premier tell students and their families just what communities will be losing their local schools as part of the Liberal austerity plan?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m always fascinated when I get these numbers that pop up out of nowhere. I can guarantee you that there has been no directive, so I have no answer to what 125 schools, because there is no list.

What I can tell you is that we do know that there are over 600 schools in Ontario which are more than half empty. We are actually spending on the order of about $1 billion per year on empty seats. We think, on our side of the House, that it would be better—

Interjection: Change the funding formula.

Hon. Liz Sandals: That’s a very good idea. We will change the funding formula.

We think, on our side of the House, that we should invest money in the children who are in our schools rather than empty seats.

Taxation

Mr. Michael Harris: My question this morning is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, last week when our tourism critic asked for the economic analysis supporting the punitive aviation fuel tax you’ve placed on Ontario families, you avoided the question. Minister, let me help you with the math. We told you about the loss of 3,000 jobs and $100 million in GDP predicted by Dr. Fred Lazar of York University’s Schulich School of Business.

Dr. Lazar also told us that eliminating the tax—as in BC, New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan—could provide a $138-million economic boost and add 52,000 additional tourists and close to 2,000 jobs. But we’re going in the wrong direction. In fact, we’re the only jurisdiction heading in the opposite direction.

Tell us, Minister: What is the secret? What economic analysis have you done on the impact of job and revenue losses that this aviation tax will cost?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Since we announced the modest aviation fuel tax increase of a penny, Air Canada has launched new flights from Toronto to Rio de Janeiro, Amsterdam and Panama City.

We should also note that in comparison to some other jurisdictions—and I believe they’ve named Buffalo as one. There are 68,000 flights in Buffalo; in Pearson in Toronto there are 420,000 flights. There are seven airlines in Buffalo; there’s over 65 airlines in Toronto at Pearson. They only serve 22 cities; in Ontario at Pearson, they serve over 180 destinations worldwide. In the analysis that he makes, they’re comparing five million travellers in Buffalo; at Pearson it’s over 36 million in 2013 alone.

You should also note that when they talk about the increase, which hasn’t been touched since 1992—and it’s a penny—they are asking the wrong level of government. If they’re going to petition anybody, they should let it be known—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, as I have mentioned, every other province in Canada is going in the opposite direction from you.

As I’ve said before, your numbers just don’t add up. In fact, you’ve marginalized them by characterizing the increase as a mere penny. Minister, your tax creates one of the highest—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. It cuts both ways.

Please finish.

Mr. Michael Harris: I know it’s tough having to hear and be reminded of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, your tax creates one of the highest fuel taxes in North America. That means higher ticket prices for travellers—families and business people. It means, Minister, another 400,000 travellers diverted from Ontario airports on top of the three million who already cross the border to fly from aviation-fuel-tax-free airports like Buffalo.

We’ve seen the headlines: The Buffalo airport will take advantage of your increases, putting on a full-court press courting travellers as well as airlines south of the border. Sunwing is just the wing tip of the iceberg.

Minister, you have no economic analysis. Will you please join us—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Heed our call to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand you sit.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The marketing manager at Buffalo airport called Ontario’s fuel increase insignificant compared to the federal taxes and surcharges that are being charged now.

Pearson has actually indicated that it will continue to grow, regardless of the issues that we put forward.

The member opposite should know this: An average ticket price domestically to Vancouver from Toronto is about $284, of which $5.90 goes to the province of Ontario. How much goes to the federal government? Fifty-two dollars, Mr. Speaker. An international flight to Orlando: $4 goes to the province, $44 goes to the federal government, and $34 goes to the US government authorities.

You should be fighting for Ontario. You should tell your cousins to stand up for Ontario and give more of that money back to us so we can invest—

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

Interjections.

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

New question, the member from Parkdale–High—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, in the middle of my sentence, will now be warned.

Interjection.

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

The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Public transit

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. We now know that the government only got two bidders for the Eglinton Crosstown public-private partnership—just two. With only two giant consortia bidding, taxpayers are going to pay more; that’s inevitable. In fact, last year, the Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario said the government was about to overpay by half a billion dollars for the Eglinton Crosstown P3 alone. These same warnings came from ATU local 113, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the TTC and experts in the American Public Transportation Association as well.

So with the contract about to be signed, how much, in fact, will the government overpay for the Eglinton Crosstown mega-contract?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for that question. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT project is one of the most exciting projects that our government has in our lineup. As the member there knows, there is already work that’s under way.

Speaker, it’s important to put this project, in terms of its scope and its importance, in context. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT will run about 19 kilometres through midtown Toronto, with 25 stations and stops. The province of Ontario, because of the leadership of our Premier and this government, is investing $5.3 billion in this project. This means that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is the largest public transit project in more than half a century here in the province of Ontario.

That work is taking place in communities represented by people like my parliamentary assistant, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, our new member from Davenport and others. It’s going to provide positive results because of the leadership that we are showing on this side and the importance that we assign to building Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: With public-private partnerships, the public is kept in the dark, as the minister knows, while the important decisions are actually made. We don’t find out about surprises like a half-billion dollar overrun in costs or dirty diesel trains until it’s way too late.

We know the plans for the Eglinton Crosstown have changed. There’s no question about that. Kennedy station might need to be moved, and there will be complicated conversations and connections with TTC bus and subway lines and the TTC itself. We don’t know if expensive change orders will be needed. The public is completely in the dark.

Instead of negotiating the final plans for Eglinton behind closed doors, with private contractors, will the government publicly disclose the contract requirements so we can know exactly what we are paying billions for?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Well, Speaker, I think it’s important for me to say, and this has been said by the Premier and it has been said by others on this side of the House, that this is in keeping with the unfortunate mythology that this member and that caucus continue to spin about how our government moves forward with important transit and transportation infrastructure.

The member speaks about the impact this is having on people and whether they know transparently about what’s happening. Speaker, in fact, my own in-laws live a stone’s throw away from where this Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be built, in the neighbourhood of Dufferin and Eglinton. When I see them on a regular basis, they are excited; they are thrilled because a part of their neighbourhood will be built up over the next number of years. That’s the kind of transparency that we’re delivering. That’s the kind of positive results that we’re delivering.

Speaker, it’s important to note that over the last number of months, at every opportunity, when our government has provided a plan to the people, be it in the budget, in an election platform or in the second version of the budget, that member and that party have voted to stop public transit investments, and that, Speaker, is a shame.

Building code

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, last month you announced some significant changes to the Ontario building code. Taking effect on January 1, 2015, Ontario will now allow the maximum height of wood-frame buildings to be increased from four to six storeys.

While new to Ontario, mid-rise wood construction is common in parts of Europe, such as Scandinavia, Austria and Italy. British Columbia introduced amendments to its building code in 2009—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: —to allow six-storey lightweight wood-frame construction for residential occupancy. Now over 100 mid-rise wood buildings are currently built or are in construction in BC.

Minister, although mid-rise wood might be permitted in other jurisdictions, Ontarians need to know these changes are the right fit for our economy.

Speaker, can the minister explain how mid-rise wood construction will impact Ontarians?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, I sure can, Mr. Speaker, and I’d be delighted to do so. I want to thank the member from Cambridge for that question.

Allowing mid-rise wood construction will encourage the building of affordable housing across the province. As Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I know this is incredibly important. In fact, some people in the building industry say it could lower the cost of some houses as much as 30%.

These changes will also give builders more choice in how buildings are designed, filling a gap in the housing market between high- and low-rise buildings, and that will certainly enhance our streetscapes.

The change will also help strengthen the forestry sector, which creates thousands of jobs and sustains the local economies of more than 260 communities across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, mid-rise wood construction is just one way that our government is working to build Ontario up.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Minister, in my riding of Cambridge, three-storey buildings on Main Street in Galt were initially built from wood in the mid-1850s. After a devastating fire in the mid-1850s, these buildings were rebuilt in stone.

Speaker, there is some concern regarding the safety of six-storey wood-frame buildings. Many wonder about an increased risk of building fires and whether occupants’ and firefighters’ well-being will be compromised as a result. In addition, Ontario is moving ahead on its own mid-rise wood amendments before similar amendments are made to model the national building code.

As with any impactful province-wide change of this nature, Ontarians need to know that considerations of public safety are paramount. Speaker, through you, can the minister explain what safety—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Please finish.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain what safety measures have been incorporated into these amendments to the building code?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, that’s a good and fair question, and it deserves a good and fair answer. Thank you.

Speaker, safety is always our number one priority when considering changes to the building code. Our choice to allow mid-rise wood construction is based on extensive public consultation with the fire service, building regulators and building professionals.

We believe our made-in-Ontario model for mid-rise wood offers the highest degree of public and firefighter safety in Canada. For example, all mid-rise wood buildings in Ontario must have stairwells and roofs built with non-combustible materials. Ontario requires all new construction to meet very high safety standards, especially with respect to fire safety, and mid-rise will be no different.

Lastly, I would like to thank a couple of colleagues: the honourable member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, who first introduced a private member’s bill, capably assisted by his honourable colleague from Thunder Bay, the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Agriculture: Today is the one-year anniversary of the Local Food Act, which you chose to proclaim in sections and play politics with for election purposes. We shamed you into finally proclaiming the

section for increased access to local food through the tax credit for farmers who donate to community food programs, food banks, churches and other groups like that. That was an amendment based on five years’ work by our colleague, the member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Applause.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Good work, Bob.

But you still haven’t proclaimed other parts of the bill. You speak of being open and transparent, but today you should be publishing your first annual report on local food in Ontario. Minister, today is your opportunity to be open and transparent. Why are you saying one thing and doing another?

Hon. Jeff Leal: That question is a bit rich from that member. When it came to developing the Local Food Act, we took the opportunity to reach around to all sides of this House to put together a piece of legislation that is profoundly changing the agricultural sector in the province of Ontario. We’ve introduced the sale of VQA wines at farmers’ markets in the province of Ontario. Since May, the sales of those VQA wines are a quarter of a million dollars, contributing to the great success of the Local Food Act right across the province of Ontario.

But the fact is that on numerous occasions I’ve gone out of my way to recognize the member from Sarnia–Lambton. When we did the announcement in Hamilton, I made sure that the member from Sarnia–Lambton was up front with me and gave him a chance to speak to the gathering that day and—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, it’s a little baffling. It’s been a year; there’s no data. One of the provisions of the Local Food Act was to publish goals and targets. Minister, you’ve had a bit of a rocky start, obviously, with farmers and food banks—and the needy, who would truly benefit from this kind of legislation.

Again, you talk about being open and transparent. This is a prime example of how you aren’t and how you fail to live up to your own legislation. We all voted for it. Your Premier boasts of being a champion for local food, yet years later I ask, why do we still not see local food in our schools, in our hospitals and in other government institutions? Why are you holding back? Why has that initiative not been proclaimed?

Hon. Jeff Leal: The Local Food Act has been an overwhelming success in the province of Ontario. Everywhere I go, in the north, south, east, west, I visit farmers and they continually talk about the success of the Local Food Act.

Just this morning—perhaps the member for Haldimand–Norfolk was a bit late when he came to the Egg Farmers of Ontario’s omelette breakfast this morning. But again, during my remarks, I paid tribute to the member from Sarnia–Lambton, the gentleman who developed the tax credit for donations that are made by farmers to food banks in the province of Ontario. That’s the way we operate on this side of the House. We recognize people who make contributions to the agricultural sector in the province of Ontario. I don’t share the member’s assertions at all on the Local Food Act.

Forest industry

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Natural Resources: Minister, you met with the Rainy River district delegation that travelled to Queen’s Park to ask you and the Premier for your government’s help with ensuring the mill in their town resumes operations. They have asked for your help—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: —and as minister, you have a responsibility to the people of Fort Frances. You can’t leave this to the two companies to solve. As minister, you need to involve yourself and your ministry in helping to broker a solution. You know as well as I do that there is more than enough wood in the Crossroute Forest to meet the needs of all parties and that, therefore, this should be a win-win situation. Minister, the Rainy River district and I are asking you to do your job and help broker a solution that creates jobs in Atikokan, Ignace and Thunder Bay, and saves the 1,000 jobs in Fort Frances. Minister, will you do that?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I thank the member for the question. She is right; we did meet with the delegation, both the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and myself, and I would describe the meeting as productive and conducive to trying to see what we can do to move the process forward. What I would say, too, is to offer my strength of support, specifically, to Roy Avis, the mayor of Fort Frances, who in my opinion is a true gentlemen and who I think is one of the best mayors we have right across northern Ontario.

I’ve had opportunities to work with Mayor Avis previously on other files. I very much respect the position that he feels that he’s in. I very much respect the position that the community of Fort Frances feels that they are in as a broader community. I understand their fear, and I understand their anxiety. As I’ve said in this House over the course of the last several days, I’m committed—and have been. We’ve never stopped trying to work to find a solution, not only for Fort Frances but for the broader community of northwestern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Minister, it’s reassuring to hear that we have your support, but what we really need is your action. As minister, you have a responsibility to the people of Fort Frances. The mayor of Fort Frances and First Nations chiefs from across the Rainy River district came here this week to meet with you and ask yo