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

November 2, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-02 (PDF)

L064 - Tue 2 Nov 2010 / Mar 2 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 November 2010 Mardi 2 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

INSURANCE RATES

PATIENT SAFETY

HYDRO RATES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HYDRO RATES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STEEL INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WINE INDUSTRY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ONTARIO FARMERS

PAPER INDUSTRY

DIABETES

COMMUNITY AND PRIMARY

HEALTH CARE

VOLUNTEERS

PATIENT SAFETY

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

BIRTHDAY OF MEMBER’S DAUGHTER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INACTIVE CEMETERIES

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CIMETIÈRES INACTIFS

ONTARIO WINE INDUSTRY

BICENTENNIAL IN 2011

RECOGNITION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 RECONNAISSANT

L’ANNÉE 2011 COMME

LE BICENTENAIRE DE L’INDUSTRIE

VITICOLE DE L’ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DIWALI

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CEMETERIES

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

KIDNEY DISEASE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CEMETERIES

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Islamic prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 1, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 122,

An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à accroître la responsabilisation financière des organismes du secteur parapublic.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees: I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 122, entitled

An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.

The question that we really need to ask is, what prompted the government to bring this bill forward? Well, it wasn’t an initiative of the government; it was really an initiative of the Auditor General of the province of Ontario. The auditor, as we know, released a special report in October. The report is entitled Consultant Use in Selected Health Organizations. What is interesting is the timing of this legislation.

It’s very clear to all of us in this House that this legislation before us today is strictly a forced admission of guilt on the part of the government: that it has failed in leadership and that it has failed the many organizations throughout this province charged with the responsibility of delivering public services.

The auditor’s report itself was in response to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I want to commend the members of that committee for appealing to the Auditor General to look into the conduct of this government and the various organizations charged with responsibility in the health care sector. That was the focus of the auditor’s report.

It’s interesting that this special report was preceded by the Auditor General’s October 2009 special report on Ontario’s eHealth records. We all know what the result of that report was. It was a condemnation of this government and particularly the Ministry of Health, those individuals who were responsible for allowing literally more than a billion dollars of public funds to flow through the hands of consultants and lobbyists for the purpose of supposedly establishing an eHealth records system for the province of Ontario.

But in the end, there is very little to show for it, to the point where we’re really now at ground zero in terms of attempting to develop an eHealth records system. No one denies the importance of having an effective eHealth records system to make our health care system more efficient, but it was the mismanagement and the outright abuse of public dollars that was condemned by the Auditor General in his 2009 report. So he took the next step.

What is it that the Auditor General found in this most recent report? I’d like to just point out some of the highlights. The auditor points out that “insufficient time was allowed for consultants to respond to tender requests, and we noted instances where the underlying documentation indicated that a competitive process had been followed but we believed that the process favoured a particular consultant.”

He goes on to say, specifically with respect to LHINs, the local health integration networks: “Procurements examined to mid-2009 indicated that processes and practices used by the LHINs we visited were inadequate to ensure that the use of consultants was planned for, acquired, and managed in accordance with the requirements of the directive then in effect....

“As many as two thirds of the consulting contracts we examined had follow-on agreements, and most were awarded without a separate competitive process or documented justification for the additional work. At the three LHINs we visited, we noted that consultants’ invoices did not provide sufficient information on work done or other billing details, including receipts for expenses, to support the amount paid.”

These are fundamental principles of business, and for the auditor to uncover this kind of mismanagement and lack of accountability is truly a condemnation of how business is being done in this province.

With regard to hospitals, again I quote from the auditor’s report: “Eight of the 16 hospitals we visited had engaged consultants to lobby the provincial government, and in some cases the federal government, using funding provided by the ministry for clinical and administrative activities.”

I suppose what is more offensive than anything else is that funds that were intended for clinical purposes were in fact used to pay consultants to lobby government for more money. He goes on to say: “While the more than $1.6 million spent by the eight hospitals was relatively small in comparison to these hospitals’ overall funding, we questioned the appropriateness of using government funds to pay lobbyists to help obtain more government funding.”

We couldn’t agree more with the Auditor General. Whether it is $1 million, whether it’s $500,000 or $1 billion, the reality is that there are people in our communities throughout this province who are on desperate waiting lists for procedures that can’t be afforded, supposedly. Monies are not flowing from the ministry to the LHINs to the CCACs, and yet there’s this abuse of public funds for the purpose of simply paying lobbyists and consultants.

The government’s response to all of this is this bill: predictably, not a solution but really more diversion from the real underlying issue, and that is, namely, a failure of this government to manage the affairs of this province and the resulting waste of public funds. That is the real issue: erosion of public services and, ultimately, an undermining of public confidence, not only in this government but in its various institutions and organizations charged with the responsibility of delivering public services.

So we now have two reports that call into question the competence of this government. We have seven years of evidence against which to assess the leadership of this administration, and when we get beyond the public announcements, when we get beyond the numerous announcements by various ministers throughout the 31 ministries of this government, we know one thing, and that is that this government has done one thing extremely well: making pronouncements, making announcements about dollars that are being spent, whether it’s in health care or education or infrastructure.

But at the end of the day, there is an underlying problem that is undermining the credibility of this government and its ability to manage the affairs of this province.

These auditor reports shed light on only a very narrow aspect of the government’s mismanagement. As I indicated, there are 31 ministries in this government, and the evidence is overwhelming that there is a lack of leadership and direction at all levels of this government.

I believe that this government has reached the tipping point. As I speak to people, whether it’s in the business community, whether it’s in the health care community or the social service sector, whether it’s in agriculture, whether it’s in the forestry or the tourism industry, whether it is in the development or building industry, to the person, people are saying that they have had enough of this government and its mismanagement. There are pretences and pronouncements, but there is no competence in terms of actually delivering on those commitments.

In fact, it’s now to the point where precious public dollars are being seen to be wasted and where our public services are being undermined, where seniors are now in a position where they are being overtaxed for the very essentials of life, whether that’s their electricity bills, their natural gas bills, their ability to put gasoline in their cars, or their ability to just simply make ends meet.

Whether it’s students who have serious questions about whether, in fact, they’re going to find a job when they graduate, or young families whose dream of actually owning a home one day is being eroded—affordable housing is not only a dream for people who are trying to make ends meet at the very basic level of subsistence, but affordable housing is out of the question.

Why? Simply, if you look at how this government conducts its business in terms of adding layers and layers of regulatory tape, the burden of time that’s imposed on the entire development process and approvals process in this province makes it impossible for any housing to be delivered at an affordable rate. My point—and I don’t want to get diverted from this bill—is simply that the incompetence of this government and its inability to provide leadership is evident in every one of the 31 ministries of this government, and the consequences are real. It’s that lack of leadership that has allowed the abuse of public funds.

My question: Rather than the ministry or cabinet introducing another piece of legislation, why do we not see the Premier of this province holding accountable the ministers and the deputy ministers of those ministries under whose watch all of this abuse has taken place? But that, you see, is not the objective of the government. It’s not to get at the heart of the lack of accountability; it’s really to provide yet one more diversion from the real issue, and that is a lack of accountability and a lack of transparency in terms of how this government does its business.

I find it interesting, as I read through this bill—I took the time to go through this bill and highlight all of the references that are made in this document to reports. What I find amazing is that the answer to accountability for this government is to now lay the burden of yet more red tape and paperwork on all of those organizations that should be spending their time delivering essential public services on the front line. Line after line after line in this bill reads: “Every local health integration network shall prepare reports.” The next paragraph: “The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care may issue directives to local health integration networks respecting the reports ...

“the information that shall be included in the reports ...

“to whom the reports shall be submitted ...

“the form, manner and timing of the reports”—reports, reports, reports, and on and on and on. What we have here is a piece of legislation that is the answer provided by this government supposedly for more accountability in the public sector. And then we wonder why we are unable to get the services on the front lines when we have a government that’s intent on simply creating more bureaucracy, more red tape and basically hamstringing the very people who are charged with the responsibility of delivering front-line services.

The creation of the local health integration networks themselves was really the first major step on the part of this government to create the lack of accountability and to hide transparency. Why do I say that?

Because we know that what is essentially happening now is that the local health integration network, with all of its bureaucrats, with all of the multi-millions of dollars that have gone into creating those offices and buying the furniture and hiring the employees—and, by the way, siphoning key front-line health care workers back into the bureaucracy of the LHINs by suggesting to them that their services are much more important to the local health integration network in providing them with consulting services, rather than allowing them to spend that additional time actually delivering health care services.

That local health integration network was created specifically for the purpose of creating a barrier between the Ministry of Health and the community. Why do I say that? I was present at a meeting with the Central LHIN administration—the president, the CEO—and there were members of the Liberal caucus. I was there. In fact, Speaker, you were there in your capacity as MPP from York region.

The single largest complaint that we had for the LHIN, at that point in time during that meeting, was that we, as MPPs, were unable to get a response from the Ministry of Health when we began to advocate for needs within our local community. We were being told as MPPs, “That is no longer the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. Go and talk to the LHIN.” When we approached the LHIN, the LHIN of course says, “Well, that is not within our purview. It’s a funding issue. We don’t have enough funding; that’s the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.”

When we challenged the community care access centre as to why they weren’t delivering the important front-line services that are clearly necessary, the community care access centre would tell us, “The LHIN is not providing us with the resources to provide these services.”

When we, as members of provincial Parliament, challenge the LHIN, the LHIN simply states, “We don’t have the resources because the Ministry of Health is not providing them for us.”

What has happened? This government has intentionally created a structure within the province of Ontario that does anything but provide for transparency, does anything but provide for accountability, and has done everything systematically over the course of the last seven years to in fact put a distance between the decision-makers in this province—the Premier, the ministers, the deputy ministers—and the front line.

This bill before us today will do nothing to improve accountability. We will not have accountability in this province until such time as the Premier of this province accepts responsibility and demands accountability from his ministers, and until his ministers demand accountability from their deputy ministers for what is happening down the line in their ministry and in the various organizations throughout this province that are charged and entrusted with the responsibility to deliver public services.

This bill today is an insult and a diversion from the lack of accountability of a government that has failed the people of Ontario. I believe, as I said earlier today, that the people of Ontario have seen enough, that they have reached the tipping point, and they’re now saying to the government, “We will not accept any more of your pronouncements or your promises. From this point on, we want to see results.” It’s a sad day when the government can actually stand and pretend that a document such as this is to be accepted as an effort on the part of the government to provide accountability.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Newmarket–Aurora, and he delivered what I consider to be an excellent speech here in the House today. He spoke about ministerial responsibility, and that is something that has been sadly lacking in the past several years in this House—ministers actually standing up and taking responsibility for their departments and responsibility for the laws that affect them and for the bureaucrats who work for them.

In fact, what the member from Newmarket–Aurora had to say in terms of the LHINs was exactly right. The local health integration networks were set up—in my belief, and I concur with him—in order that the minister would then be able to shed that responsibility or any kind of semblance of having the responsibility. It’s not just the minister who is here today; it is the three past ministers of this government who were here and did much the same thing.

As a result, we have here a bill that does virtually nothing, a bill that is full of flaws. And really the answer is, as the member from Newmarket–Aurora says, for the Premier and the ministers to take responsibility. The answer is for them to look at their departments, to look at the laws that affect those departments, to look at the hiring of consultants and to say that the buck stops here, because it isn’t just enough to come in with a watered-down bill and expect that great changes are going to take place.

Those changes will only take place when a government stands firm on its ground and says that they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. That’s what is going to be required here.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora is absolutely right in his analysis. I commend him for what he had to say today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to rise—once again, actually—to make some comments on the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. I believe that this bill, if passed, is really quite broad. For example, there would be a ban on lobbyists in the proposed legislation, and it would prohibit certain broader public sector organizations from using public funds to hire lobbyists. That includes Ontario’s 259 classified agencies.

Examples of that could be and are the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario, hydro entities and large broader public service entities like the hospitals, our school boards, CCACs and universities. Very large organizations throughout Ontario are, in many cases, named in this bill.

Procurement is something that people have been wondering about here in the Legislature, and the government would have the authority to make procurement directives that large broader public sector entities would have to follow. That, once again, includes hospitals and school boards etc.

Expense claims have often been the brunt of questions in this Legislature, so the government would have the authority to make expense claim directives to require rules to be set and followed by the same named broader public sector entities; once again, hospitals and school boards, for example.

There will be increased oversight, something that the opposition is requesting, and rightfully so. The proposed legislation would authorize the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to implement new accountability measures for hospitals and LHINs which would require the public posting of expense claims, something that I think everyone would think is proper at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to provide a few comments on the address from the member from Newmarket–Aurora, and I want to, I guess, echo what the member for Beaches–East York said. The member for Newmarket–Aurora made a wonderful speech, and I think he touched on a number of very effective points regarding Bill 122 and what isn’t in the bill.

I want to go back to his comments about the LHINs, because certainly I’ve had a lot of discussions about the local health integration networks since my election earlier this year. I asked a question in the House last week about accountability of the LHINs, and it’s been an amazing response since that question. It speaks to some of the points that the member for Newmarket–Aurora talked about.

These organizations have caused tremendous grief in my riding and in some neighbouring ridings. In fact, the point that I brought to the House last week was that a group has even given money back to the LHINs: $52,000. It was Hospice North Hastings. They sent me an email after I brought it up in the House and they thanked me for bringing forward this point.

People have posted on blogs, on newspaper sites, talking about the political cover that these LHINs have provided. And when the member for Newmarket–Aurora talks about ministerial responsibility, he’s absolutely right when it comes to these LHINs. They’re providing a tremendous amount of administration to extremely small organizations to justify their own existence. That’s not accountability.

We need the ministers across and the government across to not just throw up a fancy name in a bill but actually mean something when they put legislation forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Bob Delaney: It’s a pleasure to rise to comment on some of the remarks made by my good friend and colleague from Newmarket–Aurora. On this day, I cannot agree with him.

I can’t agree with him on any part of it, particularly on his comments relating to the local health integration networks. He suggests that it would be better to recreate a Toronto-centric bureaucracy, which was taken apart because that very bloated Conservative bureaucracy wanted every single decision in health care to be made out of the minister’s office or by the minister’s staff.

I can’t agree with him on moving decision-making on health out of our community, particularly in an area like our Mississauga-Halton LHIN, where we have been a picture of success in that regard. We have been able to respond more quickly, whether it be getting urgently needed equipment and hardware in our hospitals, whether it be such things as linear accelerators or whether it be the moving of funds in order to save jobs as our hospitals balance the budget. This structure, in our area, in the 905 belt—which is where that member comes from—works, and it has been effective.

However, this bill deals with lobbying. Let me say this: In seven years representing people in the western Mississauga neighbourhoods of Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville, not once has our hospital ever hired a lobbyist to come and see me. Not once has our community care access centre ever hired a lobbyist to come in and see me. Not once has our local health integration network ever hired a lobbyist to come in and see me, or our children’s treatment centre or our city.

The Mississauga-Halton LHIN works. It’s an example of best practices that need to be perpetuated, that need to be propagated across the other LHIN structures, not destroyed in an ideological rant predicated by the ramblings of Sarah Palin and the United States’s Tea Party.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the members from Beaches–East York, Chatham–Kent–Essex, Leeds–Grenville and Mississauga–Streetsville for their comments.

In closing, I just want to say this: My colleagues on the Liberal side could not be more wrong. They don’t get it. I do believe the people of Ontario do, and I believe they’ll be held accountable.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s a pleasure for me to rise here. I looked at the bill and studied it, and it was obvious why the bill was in front of this House. The bill was in front of this House because horrendous things have been happening in Ontario because there was no oversight by the minister and no oversight by the ministry into the hiring of consultants. It took the auditor’s report to detail exactly what was going on in Ontario.

Just a couple of egregious examples from his report: The one that is cited most often and certainly the one that the Liberal government needs to hear is that a $275,000-a-year hospital consultant claimed $97,000 in fees for other consultants and $50,000 in administrative support services fees, neither of which was in his contract. The consultant billed the hospital twice for over $7,000 relating to a salary bonus, foreign exchange fees and a Christmas luncheon.

The consultant then expensed the accommodation costs of $400 per night for three nights in Chicago, along with $500 in hotel phone charges, accommodations of $510 per night on a second four-night trip to Chicago, accommodations of $700 per night for five nights in Singapore and dinners in the greater Toronto area, one costing $300 for three people, including $140 for alcohol, and another costing $350 for three people, including $215 for alcohol.

That’s the first egregious example. This is something that the minister’s office, the ministry, did not catch, was not aware of, did not look at. This was a huge expense of public dollars, because after all, the ministry and the Ontario government are the chief funders for hospitals and, in turn, for consultants.

This was just wanton waste of taxpayers’ money. Is it any wonder that taxpayers are angry at what is going on in this ministry when they see hospital emergency rooms being shut down in Fort Erie and Port Colborne? Is it any wonder that they’re upset and angry when there continue to be waiting lists in some hospitals for emergency procedures? Is it any wonder that people sit in the emergency room waiting to be seen, and sometimes, if they’re not in a hugely serious condition and are triaged, they have to wait two and three and four hours? Then they turn around and they don’t blame the staff.

They don’t blame the nurses and the doctors and the hospital administrators, because very often they love their local hospitals and the people who work in them. But they do blame the waste of money on this ministry.

So the minister comes forward with a bill that’s supposed to do something. But I want to relate a couple of other things that the auditor uncovered. Here’s another good one: One sole-sourced consultant CEO earned a per diem rate of $1,100 for eight hours’ work. “The consultant billed for 250 days worked each year, meaning that every weekday was billed for the last three years, excluding statutory holidays.... In May 2008, he received approval from the hospital for a one-week trip to Hong Kong to attend a business-related conference as an invited guest speaker.

However, he added a personal one-week trip to Japan as part of the excursion. We noted that the hospital paid the consultant’s airfare claim of $7,800, which included the airfare for his personal trip to Japan, and also paid his fees billed for every work day during the month, which included the two-week trip to both Hong Kong and Japan.”

Or another one: One hospital sole-sourced a consultant for “$398 per hour—$2.6 million in total—and no fixed ceiling price or specific project deliverables were established.”

Or how about: “A hospital single-sourced a contract of over $170,000 to a consulting firm to provide Workplace Safety and Insurance Board claims management services from June 2007 to May 2009. There was no documentation supporting the single-sourcing of the contract, and at the time of our audit the hospital could not locate a signed copy of the contract. We noted that the consulting firm continued to provide services to the hospital after the contract expired. As a result, total payments to date have amounted to $235,000, or $65,000 over the original contract price of $170,000, without any supporting documentation or proper contract renewals.”

The auditor uncovered horror stories like this in every one of the 19 hospitals and LHINs that were investigated. Efforts in this House to expand what the auditor was able to uncover, to look at the remaining hospitals and LHINs—because all of them potentially may have the same problems—were rebuffed at every stage by the minister, by the Premier and by the members opposite.

It is not surprising that people see the rot in this system. They don’t see a ministry standing up for them or a government standing up for them. What they see is this bill. And what is in this bill? They are looking—ordinary people, ordinary constituents, ordinary citizens—to see their taxpayers’ money used wisely. They do not begrudge money spent on hospitals or on medicare or on health. They do not begrudge that money at all. When I speak to my constituents, they are very proud of their hospital, Toronto East General.

They are very proud of the services that are delivered there, the number of babies who continue to be born there and the entire effort that the men and women who work in that institution make to be a good part of our community and good citizens. They want more money to be spent there. They want excellent services. They want them when they need them. I have never heard anyone, not in my office, ever come and tell me that they want less money being spent on health, but they do come to my office and speak about waste.

They come and talk about money not being spent where it should be spent and that really having a negative impact on the people of our community.

It is speaking of the public dollars that I ask the government opposite to look and turn your attention to. If this was a private institution, if this was something that people paid for privately, I’m sure there wouldn’t be the same kind of uproar because, although private companies can and do spend their monies in ways that they see fit, they are only responsible, generally, in the end, to a board of directors and to an annual meeting of the shareholders. This is not the same thing. This is public dollars.

The government needs to get that through their head: Public dollars have been squandered and have been squandered hugely in this province over the last seven years. They have been squandered by various ministers who have not taken control or rein over how the money is spent. They have allowed for a culture of entitlement. They have allowed for people to take advantage of the system knowing that there were no safeguards in place and that there was no time or effort made by ministry staff and by the minister, or various ministers, to look into what was needed.

It was my party, I’m proud to say, that revealed the cost of the insider lobbyists. We asked for the review of the auditor, and it was passed in committee.

That audit showed people across this province really what was wrong. It was a small audit. It was not an overarching audit. It did not look at every LHIN; it did not look at every hospital. It simply picked a few out. The auditor is a busy person, I would imagine, and was under some considerable time pressure, discovering what he and his staff discovered, to try to find out everything that they could. But it doesn’t mean that this is all there was. There was certainly a lot more going on than this. There was certainly a lot of monies being wasted, and people see that. People see that, and they complain about that. They don’t like it.

If you happen to live in Fort Erie or Port Colborne, especially, and you see the emergency departments shut down, and you see people dying—we’ve already had one or two deaths—being transferred to a hospital that is 10 or 15 minutes away, then you can understand the angst and the anger that they have when they read a report like this.

They want to know, what is the government doing? Well, the government has come forward with a minor bill that contains a few provisions that we can support.

But I’ll tell you, it doesn’t answer the whole problem. In this province, we need the Ombudsman to have control and to look at the expenditures taking place at the LHINs, the hospitals and long-term-care facilities. We are the only province—I think the only province—that hasn’t given that authority to the Ombudsman.

It was my privilege last night, along with some other MPPs that I saw present, to go over to Bay Street to the Ombudsman’s office. There was a celebration to mark 35 years since the Ombudsman’s office was established by the Davis government. Six Ombudsmen have held the position, each with continuing and growing authority to stand up for the people of this province. One can only be proud of what the Ombudsman’s office has been able to do over the last number of years, and one can only be proud of the current Ombudsman and of his staff for what they have uncovered in a great many fields.

Their last report, or one of their last reports, was Between a Rock and a Hard Place. It talked about people having to give up their children to the care of children’s aid.

This is the kind of person, the kind of group, we need to look at our public institutions, to have some oversight. But this government has rebuffed all efforts to have the Ombudsman do what the Ombudsman and only the Ombudsman can do best. We think that if the government was serious about rooting out the rot, that would be one of the first places they would go. If they were serious about rooting out the rot, they would have let the auditor continue the investigation into the remaining hospitals and the remaining LHINs that hired these sole-sourced contracts and these consultants—and continue to do so to this very day.

Now the government has been caught, and ever so reluctantly, ever so reluctantly, they are granting freedom of information for hospitals. But in the body of the bill it’s very clear: They’re not willing to do it right away so that people can find out what’s happening. This will not even become the law in Ontario for freedom of information for 15 months. Lest anyone wonder about the time frame, anybody watching on television, 11 months pretty much to today is an election day.

This government does not want to be embarrassed by freedom of information about hospitals, about consultants and about anything else in the time leading up to the election. The law is going to come into effect for the new government, whoever that might be, four months after the next election. It will be four months before people are going to be able to find out anything and either praise this government, which is highly doubtful, or condemn them, which is the likely outcome. This bill holds all of that off for 15 months.

Mr. Paul Miller: Timing is everything.

Mr. Michael Prue: My colleague behind me from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek says, “Timing is everything.” I think it is not coincidental at all. It is the reality of what this government is attempting through this legislation: to pretend they are doing something, but in reality hiding their very sad and sorry record. And even when that happens, even when the public gets to find out, the retroactivity clause will only allow the public to go back as far as 2007. It will not allow them to go back any further.

It will only allow them to go back to the second mandate of the McGuinty government and not necessarily to the first. We remember that first mandate as well: the hospital waste, the ineptitude of various ministers, the eHealth scandal and everything else that happened.

One of the really sad and sorry and egregious things that happened in the body of this bill is that long-term care has been excluded. I’m very concerned about what’s happening with consultants and monies in hospitals and LHINs, but we need to be ever-vigilant and perhaps even more concerned with what is happening in our long-term-care facilities.

We all know or have loved ones—parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, relatives, friends, former neighbours—who live in long-term-care facilities, and we know, those of us who have visited them, that the workers in those facilities try their utmost to befriend, to work with, to help those who are in their senior years who are unable to care for themselves. I take no umbrage against any of the workers. I take no umbrage against anyone who works in those facilities and who tries their best.

But I do wonder why this government wants to hide from the public the freedom of information to find out what is happening in the facilities.

One need only open up a newspaper—and the Toronto Star has done a great deal on this recently—to see the sorry state of nursing homes, long-term-care facilities, homes for the aged and everything else. People sitting there in urine-soaked diapers, people sitting there who haven’t been toileted, people eating crummy food, people living a life that we would not wish upon them—and a life where we can do so much better.

Why does this government want to stop freedom-of-information requests on long-term-care facilities? Why are they excluded? Why is nobody talking about this on the government side? Of all the places that should be looked at, these surely are ones, because the people who live in those facilities often don’t have relatives or family that care for them. The only people who speak out on their behalf are the workers who work for and with them. They are the only friends, often, that they have.

They, too, are constrained and they, too, are fearful of speaking out on occasion, because they know if they speak out and if they tell people—if they tell politicians or the media or anyone else about the sorry state—they’re likely to find themselves unemployed. That, too, is the sad reality of what is out there.

If you really want to make sure that something is transparent, then it should be the transparency of our long-term-care facilities. I say that to the government. If this does end up in committee—I’m not sure if it will, but if it does go to committee—then I think one of the amendments that has to be made is to include long-term-care facilities, because these places where people live are going to continue to expand. The population of Ontario and the demographics are such that many, including many in this room, may find themselves, if they’re fortunate enough to live long enough, in one of those places.

We need to make sure that those individuals who have worked so hard for this province, who have contributed so much to the life of the people of Ontario, are protected in a way that they are not now protected and will not be protected if this bill is passed as it is.

I ask the members opposite: Cast yourselves in one of those places. Think about who is being affected. Wonder if they are spending money frivolously on consultants and high-priced junkets and everything else, money that could and should be used for better food, better medication, better support, better toileting and better surroundings for our old and infirm. That’s the question that needs to be asked and that’s the question the government needs to act on. I ask all of you on the government side, if you think this is a good bill, go to committee and make it better.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mario Sergio: I appreciate the comments from the member from Beaches–East York. I can understand that the opposition has a role to play, and sometimes they play their role better than other times. It’s easy to walk into the House, especially if you are in the opposition benches, and rant and rave, if you will. It is part of their job to criticize and it is fair to criticize the government when the government is wrong.

I do hope, as he said at the end of his debate, that indeed the bill will move on to a committee level where he, other members, members of the public and stakeholders can indeed come and make presentations and present suggestions that are really worthwhile to care about and improve the bill.

No bill is ever presented as foolproof, but let me say one particular thing. This is right at the beginning of the report itself. It’s not the opposition’s words, it’s not our words; it comes from the auditor himself, who states: “I am pleased to transmit my Special Report on Consultant Use in Selected Health Organizations, which the Standing Committee on Public Accounts requested pursuant to

section 17 of the Auditor General Act.”

It wasn’t the opposition, it was not the government, but the committee did request it and the government acted. It is here because of that. If it wasn’t because of the committee’s recommendations, we wouldn’t be dealing with the report here today. And if it wasn’t because of their request and the action of the Auditor General and the actions of the government to bring Bill 122, we wouldn’t be debating this in the House. I hope that this will continue and make the bill better.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m certainly glad the member from York West spoke instead of the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, but I’m here to respond to the member from Beaches–East York. I have the greatest respect, having known him for quite a few years, and his comments summarized the universal feeling within Ontario: the cynical nature of how this happened.

Here’s what happened. Madam Speaker, you probably know as well that the auditor was doing due diligence on the job and they knew—in fact, through the Premier’s office, they manage when this thing gets launched. When they knew it was coming—and they knew. The member from Newmarket–Aurora said it most succinctly this morning: They knew it was coming and they knew it was a bombshell. So what they did is, they drafted, hastily, a bill—poorly drafted, I might add—and they tried to take it off the front page by saying, cynically, “We’ve responded to the report. We’ve solved the problem, and it’s all over.”

When I hear the member from Beaches–East York, who has found out, as the member from Newmarket–Aurora has as well—it’s just another example for the people of Ontario to keep their eye on how they’re trying to avoid responsibility. Usually they blame Sir John A. Macdonald or somebody for what’s happened in the past, but this time they’ve been caught by the auditor; just like the eHealth scandal, they’ve been caught red-handed.

This bill, Bill 122, that we’re debating this morning, if you look carefully at the language, it even grows the position of cynicism in the people of Ontario. If they wanted to solve the problem—here’s one section. It says, “The Management Board of Cabinet may issue directives and guidelines....” What’s this “may” all about? It should say clearly: “They shall,” and specify a date to file a report. But, no, they are allowing—and there are other sections that are just as neutralized. This is a disappointment.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to commend my colleague from Beaches–East York for his well-thought-out submission.

I’d also like to bring forward to the public out there: Why did this happen? Why did this bill come forward? This bill came forward because there were complaints. This bill came forward because there was all kinds of money going out the door to consultants and other people that shouldn’t have been going out the door with public funds, and also lobbying with public funds and lobbying the government for their own money.

I hear the members over there stand up and take claim for this bill and how wonderful they are that they brought it out. The only reason they brought it out is because they got caught. I’ll tell you right now, this bill should have been out 25 years ago, and a lot stiffer than it is. I think there should be forensic audits of all ministries. I think that every board, every part of this government that has daily hands-on efforts should be audited every year. The public should know exactly where the dollars are going, and then let them be the judge of who is doing a good job and who isn’t.

But that hasn’t been the case. Hundreds of millions of dollars go out of this place every year and people out there don’t have any idea where it’s going.

I’ll tell you, just on the eHealth scandal itself, over 60% of the money on eHealth was spent on consultants in five years—66%. They got $100 million out of $388 million worth of hardware and software out of that program. If you multiply that times the 21 other major ministries, plus the other 200-and-something agencies and commissions that this government controls, it would be mind-boggling how much money goes out there. I could do a lot with that money.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I want to just read from the auditor’s report:

“More specifically, with respect to the ministry:

“Internal audit reported that for consulting services acquired during the 2008-09 fiscal year, many elements of the directive were being complied with, but there were still deficiencies that needed to be addressed.

“Our work indicated that the ministry was, for the most part, in compliance with the requirements of the revised directive that came into effect in July 2009....”

This, of course, came up in public accounts. That’s where the resolution to enable the auditor to go in and look at hospitals and LHINs came from. Of course, we brought in legislation in 2004 that enabled the auditor to do this type of investigation in the broader public sector. So we have been working to bring that openness here.

One of the major problems, I think, with bringing in consultants has to do with—a lot of those consultant contracts are now in information technology, and a lot of them have follow-through. A consultant gets in and then the contracts get extended because there’s a real learning process to change it. But compared to previous governments, this government has aggressively and successfully reduced its use of consultants. The government has reduced the use of consultants from $656 million in 2001-02 to $304 million in 2009-10. During our tenure, we’ve halved the use of consultants, and that’s very important.

We’ve also brought in something that’s important: IT Source. That came out of the public accounts committee to some extent. IT Source now has 160 full-time equivalents within government that know about information technology and can help our government make better decisions and hire consultants in a more open, transparent way. And we’ll—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the members from York West, Durham, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and Ottawa–Orléans for their comments.

To the member from York West, he is correct: The committee did vote for this. No one is denying that the committee voted for this. But it was upon the motion of the member from Nickel Belt. As I understand from the member from Nickel Belt, it was a motion that was hotly debated and did not appear likely to pass until some considerable pressure was brought to bear. I am proud of what she had to do, what she said and how she got that through committee, and I thank the Liberal members who supported it in the end.

To the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, he is correct in pointing out that the reason that people are angry about what is happening in the hospitals and the LHINs around the consultants—the high-priced flights, the trips to Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan and the lavish meals and alcohol—is that this is money being spent on public funds. That is why we have an obligation to go and look at this, because they are taxpayers’ dollars. Taxpayers do not begrudge money spent on health care facilities, doctors, nurses, home care workers, but they do begrudge money given to consultants for high-living lifestyles with very little to show for it at the end.

To my friend from Ottawa–Orléans, he talked about the reduction in the monies given to consultants. We all welcome that reduction. But could we not aim for zero? Could we not say that we have a bureaucracy that is second to none in the world? To be proud that $304 million is being spent, and we know much of it is being spent as detailed in the auditor’s report, is not something for which he should be proud in the first place.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings to announce that there has been more than six and a half hours of debate on second reading of Bill 122.

Interjection.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Unfortunately, Mr. O’Toole has no say on this. We have no further debate on this issue.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The debate is then deemed adjourned.

Orders of the day.

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 21, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le trafic des billets de spectacle.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Bill 172, that’s the diversion bill—the bill that came in at the time when the auditor’s report was introduced in the House. Of course, the government wanted to talk about something else, so they brought in Bill 172.

It was first introduced about 18 months ago, I think, and it sat on the shelf. Of course, people should understand, when talking about Bill 172, that this bill will not create one more seat at any venue and this bill will not save one thin dime for anyone buying a ticket to an event. I think that is the important part of keeping in mind what this bill is all about. It was brought in after a Bruce Springsteen concert where tickets were greatly inflated. I think that concert took place in New Jersey.

There was also a concert, I believe, in Calgary at about the same time, when there were problems with greatly inflated ticket prices. Of course, this government reacted to public opinion with a piece of legislation that had not been very well thought out.

There are any number of companies who sell or resell tickets. The ones that are controversial of course are sold above the face value of the ticket; others are sold at greatly reduced prices because the venues aren’t full and the supply is outstripping the demand. But those tickets that sell for greatly inflated prices break the law as it now stands in Ontario. You can’t sell tickets above the face value. It’s called scalping, and the laws in Ontario prevent scalping, or are supposed to prevent scalping, from taking place.

So if the government were serious about this, they would, of course, have some enforcement of the anti-scalping laws that exist in the province today. That may be an unpopular thing to do in the public. Quite often, the public who don’t have time to buy tickets or don’t know exactly what their availability is going to be tend to buy tickets at the last minute, and those are scalped tickets. It’s kind of a victimless crime. If someone wants to buy a ticket and they pay an inflated price for those tickets, they get what they want and the scalper gets what they want. It’s kind of a victimless crime.

Be that as it may, if this government was serious about preventing scalping, they could enforce the law as it now stands.

Of course, this government doesn’t have a very good record on enforcing the law as it now stands. On fully 50%, or very close to 50%, of the cigarettes that are sold in this province, federal and provincial taxes are not collected. They are illegal cigarettes, yet these cigarettes come from a very few sources, perhaps two sources, in the province and are distributed across the province. Yet this government can’t find the smoke shacks that they are sold from and don’t seem to be able to find the tractor-trailer trucks that are carrying these cigarettes, and therefore don’t enforce that law, in the same way that they don’t enforce the scalping laws in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Do you have to buy scalped tickets to get cigarettes?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: He’s not speaking on the bill; that’s my point.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Apparently the member from Essex isn’t able to comprehend the similarities between not enforcing the law when it deals with scalped tickets and of not enforcing the law when it deals with illegal cigarettes. What we’re talking about here is not enforcing the law of the land. This government has a terrible record when it comes to enforcing the law of the land. They don’t do it on illegal cigarettes and they don’t do it on scalped tickets either. When it comes to law and order, this government’s record is sadly, sadly lacking.

What does Bill 172 do? Bill 172 is a very thin bill; it’s a page and a half, and that includes the translation. It says that it’s “to provide that it is an offence for related primary and secondary sellers to make available for sale in Ontario tickets for admission to the same event.” What that does, of course—there’s only one company in Ontario that does that: Ticketmaster and TicketsNow.

Ticketmaster is a seller of tickets for an organization. Whether it be live plays or whether it be baseball games or hockey games, they will hire someone to sell and distribute their tickets for them. Ticketmaster is a company that does this and does it rather well. I think it’s the largest ticket distributor in North America. It also has a secondary company that will buy tickets that someone has purchased that they no longer need or they’ve purchased them on speculation, one or the other, and they will resell those tickets. That is done through TicketsNow, and there are any number of other companies that do this business as well; Stub Master is one, and there are half a dozen others.

What those secondary sellers do is to ensure that you get a viable ticket—in other words it is not a counterfeit ticket—and they ensure that this viable ticket will get you into the venue and will be accepted at the box office when you show up. That’s a very important thing in today’s environment because it’s so easy to counterfeit tickets and it’s so easy to distribute counterfeit tickets that as a buyer of those tickets, you want to ensure that you’re getting a viable ticket that will get you into the venue. That’s what TicketsNow does.

The rumour was—it was denied by Ticketmaster—that Ticketmaster diverts tickets to TicketsNow. In other words, before the tickets go on sale, TicketsNow gets a whole bunch of tickets from Ticketmaster and they are sold at a premium price.

Mr. John O’Toole: This is confusing.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It is somewhat confusing; apparently the government can’t figure it out. But it’s not all that confusing. Ticketmaster strenuously denies in their press releases, they deny in person, they’ve denied this to the government; they’ve had meetings with the Attorney General and they’ve denied that tickets are diverted to TicketsNow. This bill will not affect any other ticket seller in Ontario except for Ticketmaster and TicketsNow. So this bill is aimed at one private sector company, TicketsNow.

That seems a little onerous, even for this government, which has not been business-friendly, to pick on one company that denies they’re doing what the government accuses them of doing. The government has not been able to show any proof whatsoever that this is taking place in Ontario.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Urban myths.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It’s a bunch of urban myth, as the member from Thorold-Welland talks about. An urban myth, and yet they’ve brought legislation into this House to try and deny this private sector company from carrying on its legal business in this province. Even for this government, I think they have perhaps struck a new low when picking on businesses and creating a playing field that is anything but level. It’s a sad day in Ontario when individual companies are targeted by legislation.

I think in the first part of my truncated speech I mentioned that I would be surprised if this bill ever saw the light of day again, but it’s back, and I don’t understand why the government keeps bringing this bill forward. I think that perhaps there’s a debate in the Liberal Party. I think there are those who would see this bill as being what it is: something that should not come forward. There’s another sector over there which sees this bill as something that should come forward.

I think the Premier is probably on the side of the naysayers, that this bill should not come forward. But I think it’s fair to say that the province is aware that the Premier is travelling to China on a trade mission. He’s out of the way for two weeks, and right away this bill comes before the House. I wonder if something isn’t amiss in the hierarchy—

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We’re running amok.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Running amok, is that what the official House leader of the government said? The government is running amok. Of course, without the guidance and the leadership of the Premier, that could very well be the case.

Thank you for that, House Leader. It’s always nice to have clarity.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The time being close to 10:15, this House will adjourn until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Mike Colle: Today is Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario awareness day. We’ve got IBAO delegates from Fort Frances all the way to Fenelon Falls here today. I’d like to introduce the CEO, Randy Carroll; Bryan Yetman, who is the president; and Peter Burns, who is the incoming president. They’re going to be here at Queen’s Park today, and at 5 p.m. in the dining room IBAO is going to hold a reception. Everybody is welcome to come and meet your local brokers.

Hon. John Wilkinson: It’s my pleasure to introduce Rick Orr from Stratford, who’s visiting today with the IBAO. Welcome, Rick.

Mr. David Zimmer: It’s my great pleasure to introduce the parents and brother of a page from Willowdale. The page’s name is Anika Szabo. Her father, Frank Szabo, is here; her mother, Zsuzsa Alberti, is here; and her younger brother Markus is here. I know Markus wants to be a page someday, too. Welcome to the Legislature. Your daughter is doing a fine job.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a great pleasure. I know that there have been other introductions of the insurance brokers, but I’d just like to welcome Brenda Duffy from my riding of Leeds–Grenville, here with the insurance brokers group.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Ajax–Pickering and page Olivia Kelly, to welcome family friend and former legislative page Matthew Kostuch, as well as Jessica Kostuch, Kristen Kostuch and Christine Kostuch, to the members’ gallery today. Welcome back to Matthew particularly.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I think I see, sitting over there in the west gallery, Patricia Krawec from Thunder Bay, with the insurance brokers association as well. I think that’s her. How are you doing; wave if it is. Yes, thank you. I welcome her to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I think I see Steve Wagler there from New Hamburg, who is here with the insurance brokers as well. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy denied that he’s planning to expand the $53-million hidden tax the McGuinty Liberals currently make Ontario families pay for hydro. He said, “We will not be applying those fees to the gas industry nor will we be applying those fees to the electricity industry.” But the minister has a track record of backtracking on what he has said about the long-term energy plan and forecast analyses, having them ready for hydro bills for Ontario families by mid-October.

So I have to ask the minister: Are the McGuinty Liberals planning a fee, tax, premium, levy, toll, bill, duty, compulsory contribution or, specifically—and I quote—a “special purpose charge” to hydro or natural gas?

Hon. Brad Duguid: No—

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m trying to respond, Mr. Speaker, over the hubbub over there. I haven’t even started yet, and they’re already heckling.

As I said yesterday, no, we’re not planning on doing that. And I’ll tell you what else we’re not planning to do: We’re not planning to take us back to where you want to take us when it comes to energy. We’re not planning to put the use of coal up 127% like they did when they were in power. Indeed, instead, we’re going to be out of coal by 2014, making sure that we have cleaner air and healthier outcomes for our kids and grandkids.

I’ll tell you what else we’re not going to do. We’re not going to kill those 50,000 jobs we’re creating in clean energy, jobs that their leader wants to kill. The people of this province need those jobs. That party should come clean—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: That’s an interesting response and certainly contrary to past actions. In March, the Ontario PC caucus exposed the regulation to create a special purpose charge, also known as a hidden hydro tax. A month later, the C.D. Howe Institute published a report on the hidden tax on hydro and natural gas, which said, “On its face, the levy is a tax.” This summer, the Ontario Energy Board released a decision that showed the McGuinty Liberals plan to expand the hidden tax to natural gas next year and were ready to fight for the taxation power.

All these documents call it a tax and say it is coming next year. Suddenly, the minister says that it isn’t. What’s changed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What probably should have changed is her supplementary, because she obviously didn’t hear my first answer. The answer is no. The answer was no yesterday, it was no last week and it’s no today. You can ask me another supplementary, and the answer is still going to be no.

But I can tell you what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to kill the 600 jobs that we’re creating in Windsor that your leader wants to kill. We’re not going to kill the 800 jobs we’re creating in Guelph through our Clean Energy Act that your leader wants to kill. We’re not going to kill the 1,200 jobs we’re creating in Kingston that their party wants to kill, through their lack of support for clean energy in this province. We’re not going to kill the 200 jobs in Oakville that we’re creating through our clean energy initiatives but that they want to kill. We’re not going to kill the 1,000 jobs in Welland.

We’re creating jobs in this province. We’re building a clean energy economy. It’s over their opposition that we’re doing it, but we’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I certainly heard the minister’s response, and I’d like to know why the sudden change of heart, because in its April 22 report, the C.D. Howe Institute points out that the McGuinty Liberals ordered the Ontario Energy Board to collect this tax. It not only said that the OEB levy is likely unconstitutional, but said, “In the event of a successful constitutional challenge ... the province would be under a legal obligation to return the revenues.”

Ontario families have already paid the $53-million hidden hydro tax this year, before the minister suddenly let on that he has had a major change of heart here. When were the minister and the Premier planning to tell Ontario families that they’re refunding what they’ve already paid for this illegal tax?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the answer is no, and it will continue to be no. But I think maybe what the party opposite needs to start talking to Ontarians about is what their leader is suggesting they want to do. They’re talking about this optional time-of-use scheme, which they’ve been talking about now for a few weeks. We’ve looked into that, and I tell you what that scheme is going to do: It’s going to drive up consumer energy rates. They’re trying to put in place a duplicate system of billing that’s going to do nothing but increase administration for local distribution companies.

Guess where those administration costs come from. They come from the very ratepayers. They get up day in and day out and talk about the fact that they don’t support increases when it comes to energy rates, yet their policies would do just that.

You can’t have it both ways. You’re either going to support our efforts to build a strong, clean, reliable and affordable system of energy or you’re not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TAXATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again to the Minister of Energy and his sudden change of heart: The minister’s revelation yesterday that the hidden taxes won’t apply to hydro and natural gas is news to energy companies and consumers who are fighting against the taxes at the Ontario Energy Board.

How and when did the Minister of Energy notify them that the McGuinty Liberals are now scrapping the special purpose charges?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the answer stays no. It was no three questions ago, it’s no now, it will be no after her next supplementary, and it will be no after her following question.

We’re working very, very hard to ensure that we improve the system of energy that we inherited from them. That system of energy did not have enough supply to meet demand, so we’ve had to create 8,000 new megawatts of power to ensure that Ontario families would have an energy system they can count on. We’ve had to improve our transmission and distribution system. We’ve built over 3,000 kilometres of transmission and distribution. We’ve upgraded that to ensure our system is more reliable.

We’re working very, very hard to clean up our energy production and to get out of coal by 2014.

It would be nice to have the support of the members opposite, but they want to go back to where we were seven years ago. They want to go back—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The minister shifted gears again. He’s saying that the charges won’t apply to gas and hydro, but the Ontario Energy Board says they will. So does the Consumers Council of Canada, which led a constitutional challenge of this $53-million charge that’s being placed on Ontario consumers. They argue that the hidden hydro tax “meets the classic definition of an indirect tax.... This is general revenue for general use.”

The board agreed with them and said, “There is a serious question to be tried” of whether the hidden taxes are constitutional.

As late as August, the energy minister was still fighting tooth and nail for Premier McGuinty’s hidden tax. Please tell us, Minister: What changed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: A lot has changed in the last seven years; I can tell you that.

That party, when they were in office, was steadfastly against any initiative that involved conservation. Since the McGuinty government came to office, we, with the people of Ontario, have saved 1,700 megawatts of power over the last seven years. That’s a phenomenal increase in terms of conservation initiatives.

We look forward to bringing forward our long-term energy plan, which is going to provide greater stability and certainty when it comes to energy in this province. Unlike those guys, we’re no longer planning hour to hour to keep the lights on. What we’re doing is we’re planning 20 years in advance. We’re planning well into the next generation to ensure that we pass on an energy system that’s strong, reliable and clean to that next generation—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The case heard by the Ontario Energy Board just weeks ago wasn’t just about hydro receiving the $53-million tax. Consumers Council of Canada warned again that “Ontario will likely impose similar levies on customers of the province’s two biggest gas utilities, raising an additional $100 million or more in total.”

Natural gas companies and consumers are worried enough about the new hidden taxes that they took

part in the OEB hearings, where the Attorney General fought for the power to keep collecting the taxes.

Now the McGuinty Liberals are backtracking once again. Is it because of the efforts of the PC caucus or because Premier McGuinty broke the law to collect these hidden taxes?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I predicted, I guess for the sixth time, the answer is no, we’re not doing that.

But what I will say is this: We will not do what they did. We will not disinvest from the energy system. We will continue to invest in our energy infrastructure. We’re not going to leave the next generation in the lurch like you left our generation.

After their years in office, they had the use of coal going up 27%, polluting our air, impacting the health of ourselves and our kids. By 2014, we’ll be one of the first jurisdictions in the world—indeed, something that all Ontarians will take some pride in—to be completely out of coal.

We will continue to invest in building a strong system of energy. We’ll continue to ensure that Ontario families have a power system that they can count on. That stands in stark contrast to what they did seven years ago, and it still stands in stark contrast to where they want to go in the years ahead.

We’re going to stand by Ontario families to ensure they have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, in response to questions about donations to the Ontario Liberal Party, CEOs of public utilities said that they gave because that is how they got access to this government. Does the minister think that families paying sky-high electricity rates want to see their money spent on political fundraisers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party failed to disclose yesterday in her questioning in this House that she in fact had accepted contributions from fully regulated energy companies. The leader of the third party accepted a $1,000 contribution to her leadership campaign.

I had to be very careful, sir; I didn’t want to use language that would offend this House to describe the leader, but I did find a very interesting quote from Shakespeare, Mr. Speaker, where he says, “Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I would like to hear the honourable member’s supplementary.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once again, we see a growing gap between what the government says and what the government does. People paying sky-high hydro rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. That was a grand total of 13 seconds from when I asked the members to come to order till I sat down and had to stand again.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People paying sky-high hydro bills expect that the money that they pay to the utility company, that they own, covers the cost of electricity—it’s pretty simple—not the costs of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Will this government finally do the right thing and simply ban donations from public utilities today?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, Mr. Speaker, out of respect to you, I’d like to quote from Molière before I respond to that. He said, “One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others.” What made me think of that? That party accepted thousands of dollars from Enwave, whose shareholders are public entities: the city of Toronto and OMERS.

Mr. Speaker, you may want to caution the member opposite that she could seriously injury herself falling off of her high horse.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s apparent that the real problem is that the finance minister and Acting Premier doesn’t know the difference between a public company and a private company. That’s obviously the problem that this government has. They’ve lost touch.

Public utilities are saying that this is simply—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Public utilities are saying this is simply the way Ontario works. Canadian Press reports, “The utility viewed the Liberal fundraisers as necessary networking events.” How can the minister claim that he’s running an open and accountable government, which is what this government claims all the time, when public utilities say they need to attend Liberal fundraisers just to do their jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested that leaders like the leader of the third party ought to go put your creed into deed.

Let’s reveal a little bit more of what our friends in the party opposite did. They accepted $1,200 from Five Nations Energy and failed to disclose that yesterday or to disclose it as a public utility. That’s a non-profit utility owned by Attawapiskat, Fort Albany and Kashechewan First Nations. The tone of the question suggests that the member opposite hasn’t done any of this when, in fact, we have more examples to talk about. They’ve been doing it; they’ve been doing it for years. You know what? It’s just another example of how little credibility they have on issues of this nature.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. The minister says his government is open and accountable. It’s a refrain we hear all the time. But at least four publicly owned hydro companies have recently hired lobbyists. Horizon Utilities Corp., a municipally owned corporation in the cities of Hamilton and St. Catharines, has paid Liberal insiders Andrew Steele and David MacNaughton to lobby the province. Why should Ontario families and ratepayers, who are already facing skyrocketing hydro bills, pay Liberal insiders to lobby for publicly owned corporations?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What people do remember—and we’ll talk more about that member’s own record in the supplementaries. But I think what the people of Ontario will remember are some of the things this party has done to ensure openness and transparency. We protected northern representation, keeping them with 11 ridings. We have provided real-time disclosure to make democracy more transparent, with real disclosure political donations so the NDP could no longer hide $7,400 donations from Suncor. We banned taxpayer-funded partisan ads.

We did the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act that made sure the Auditor General signs off on the books before an election. This party has a record of openness and transparency. It’s only after a little bit of scrutiny we find out—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Toronto Hydro has a lobbyist, and until recently, Thunder Bay Hydro did, too. Lana Landry from Thunder Bay writes this: “In this past four months my hydro bill has increased by more than $100. My husband and I work hard.... Lately, it really feels like we will never get ahead in saving money.”

Why are Ms. Landry and her family paying for lobbyists when hydro CEOs should be able to pick up the phone and call the energy minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The honourable member opposite forgets to inform the people of Ontario that she was part of Hamilton city council when they hired Strategy Corp. to lobby for them. It didn’t stop there. The member for city council also hired a lobbyist named John Matheson to help her arrange meetings and make phone calls. The member for Toronto–Danforth failed to inform Ontarians that he was a registered lobbyist with Greenpeace and the Ontario Nurses’ Association. In fact, federal filings show that the member for Toronto–Danforth continued to be a lobbyist for nearly two months after he was elected an MPP.

There are always challenges in providing openness and accountability. No government has done more for openness and accountability than the McGuinty government. No government has done more to ensure taxpayers that they get good value for their money in all of the decisions we—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No government has done more to ensure that public money goes into the pockets of their friends. That’s what’s happening in Ontario these days. Public money that’s meant for hospitals, that’s meant for universities, that’s meant for colleges, that’s meant for public utilities is being diverted to consultants, to lobbyists and to Liberal Party coffers, all with the McGuinty government’s approval. This is what’s happening in this province, and it’s simply wrong.

Why should Ontario families believe that this government will make life more affordable, will make hydro rates more affordable, when it only seems to be concerned with rewarding their friends, insiders and their own Liberal, partisan war chest?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party lost all of her credibility after a line of questions yesterday and when we revealed the fact that what she was accusing this party of they’ve been doing for many years, in fact.

We have moved on a number of fronts—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Hamilton East, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Trinity–Spadina.

Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have taken a number of steps to improve accountability, most recently the legislation that my colleague the Minister of Health introduced. Our hope is that the third party will support that legislation.

I would just remind you and the House that according to Charles Caleb Colton, “No sinners are so intolerant as those that have just turned saints.” They’ve got a track record, and we’ll continue to expose it for what it is: fallacy and phoniness all around.

TAXATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, following question period, the Minister of Energy was asked by media about the special purposes charge, also known as your hidden tax on hydro and natural gas. He told the media, “We will not be applying those fees to the gas industry,” and no longer applying those to the electricity industry.

Are the hidden taxes on hydro and natural gas gone for good, or only for this, the election year?

Hon. Brad Duguid: For the seventh time, no, we’re not raising any fees when it comes to our efforts to continue to invest in conservation. But that doesn’t mean that we’re going to take their advice and not continue to work hard on conservation with Ontarians. We have a lot of work to do with Ontarians when it comes to working very hard to ensure that we’re conserving as much as we possibly can in this province. We’re going to continue with that work and we’re going to continue to ensure that Ontario is a global example when it comes to conservation.

We’ve saved over 1,700 megawatts of power. That’s billions of dollars when it comes to what we would have had to build in terms of plants. It’s very significant, and that saves, ultimately, ratepayers’ dollars in the long run.

We’re doing energy and we’re doing it smart. We’re going to continue to invest in conservation, unlike that party, who totally opposes conservation—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If the Minister of Energy wants Ontario families to take what he said about these hidden taxes seriously, he would scrap

schedule D of the Green Energy Act, the part of the act that gives you this special secret taxing authority. You have yet to introduce legislation that would accomplish that, and you’ve backtracked so often you can’t even keep your own current policy straight.

When can Ontario families and industry expect legislation that will repeal this

section of the Green Energy Act that gives you those secret taxing powers?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We know that the party opposite opposes the Green Energy Act and the 50,000 jobs that come with it. We know that because they stand in this place and oppose those investments day in and day out, while their members join us in cutting the ribbons when those jobs across this province are being announced.

Will the member opposite join me in Sarnia–Lambton, where 800 jobs have been created? Will he go eyeball to eyeball with me and those 800 families that are getting work out of this Green Energy Act, and tell them that he and his—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the member from Renfrew, you just asked—

Mr. John Yakabuski: But he challenged the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You’re challenging the Speaker. The member knows the rules. If he’s not satisfied with an answer that he receives from a minister, he can call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s okay, Mr. Speaker. I’m taller on skates, I say to the member opposite.

Will the member go to Kingsville with me and meet those families in Kingsville, where they’re getting 300 jobs, and tell those families that he and his leader oppose their jobs? Will the member go up to Timmins–James Bay, where 800 jobs are being created in the north? Will he join me in the north and tell those northerners that their—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question?

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Deputy Premier: Every time Ontarians open another bill they get the shock of their lives. On Monday it’s the hydro bill, and then on Tuesday it’s the insurance bill. At a time when hard-pressed Ontarians can barely keep their heads above water, why won’t this government listen to the insurance brokers, to the consumers’ groups and to anti-poverty groups and ban the use of credit scores in the home insurance industry?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have in fact banned the use of it in those areas over which we have complete jurisdiction, most recently in auto insurance. We recognize the challenges associated with tied selling and have taken steps to correct that.

We will continue to work with the industry and stakeholders, as we did in the most recent process, to bring forward a balanced set of reforms that will ensure Ontarians have good protection; that we don’t protect those who abuse the system; and finally, ensure that rates grow at a very modest rate over time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Ontarians are hurting, and the last thing they need is to open their bills and find insurance premiums that jumped 50% or even 100% just because they were a little late on a credit card payment. The province has banned the use of credit scores on auto insurance and I just can’t understand, if it isn’t valid for auto insurance, why the government insists that it’s valid when it comes to home insurance.

Other provinces have already moved on this. There’s a solid front of brokers and consumers’ groups demanding the end to this profoundly unfair practice. Will this government ban the use of credit scores in determining home insurance premiums or, once again, is it going to cave in to powerful insurance lobbies and abandon Ontario homeowners?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the member’s question draws into consideration the integrity of the NDP position on this. He suggested that insurance rates have gone up 50%; nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2003, they’ve gone up 5%. That’s not according to me, that’s according to the regulator, and that’s over seven years.

It’s passing fancy to see the member opposite, who wants to put insurance brokers out of business because he supports public auto insurance—it is passing fancy to see him doing that.

I say to the brokers from across Ontario, we’ll work with you and with your industry to ensure that our insurance products are comprehensive, they’re good products, the price increases are modest and they serve all Ontarians well, including the industry itself.

PATIENT SAFETY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The first week of November is marked by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute as Canadian Patient Safety Week. Since 2005, this has become a national annual campaign as part of the institute’s mandate to build and advance a safer health system for Canadians. I have heard that implementing electronic medical records is one of the ways that we can make our health care system safer for patients, so I would ask the Minister of Health: Are we making progress on this front, and how will electronic medical records help patient safety?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the remarkable member from Oak Ridges–Markham for this question. The member opposite is absolutely right: Implementing electronic medical records helps us make Ontario’s health system safer.

Earlier this morning I stopped by Taddle Creek Family Health Team, just down the street, to announce that we have achieved a significant milestone when it comes to electronic medical records. More than five million Ontarians now have their care managed electronically. That’s an increase of more than 80% in just one year.

There is no doubt that building an electronic health system does improve patient safety. One way patient safety is enhanced is that e-records can help doctors prevent medication errors when writing and renewing prescriptions. Another way is that doctors have access to the entire patient history and can prompt tests when—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to hear of the progress we’re making on e-records, and I understand that these records will help make the patient experience safer.

Minister, there are many aspects to patient safety. It is my understanding that your ministry is compiling information on outbreaks in hospitals that also put too many people at risk. Just a few years ago, there were outbreaks of Clostridium difficile, or C. difficile, in hospitals across Ontario. In fact, my father was made very ill with this infection. There were even tragic deaths as a result of this outbreak.

I know that C. diff rates are one of the areas that we now report on. Can the minister please tell this House what is being done to promote patient safety in our hospitals, especially related to issues like C. diff rates?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ontario’s hospitals have helped to make the province a leader in reporting patient safety indicator results and have created an unprecedented level of transparency.

Let me give you a couple of examples. C. difficile rates, as mentioned by the member, have steadily declined in this province since public reporting began, to the point where, in September 2010, the provincial rate was 0.23 cases per thousand patient days. That’s compared to 0.39 in August 2008. That’s almost half, and it’s the lowest rate since public reporting began. And it’s very promising to see that in this year’s annual report, Ontario hospitals have improved their rate of hand hygiene compliance over last year.

I’m very proud of the progress that we’re making, and I’m proud to recognize Patient Safety Week in Ontario.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The shift to time-of-use billing makes hydro most expensive from 7 to 11 a.m. Are you so out of touch that you don’t understand you’re hitting Ontario families when they have no choice but to use hydro when it is at its most expensive? Why is Premier McGuinty against Ontario families having a choice between time-of-use and flat-rate billing, as our leader Tim Hudak has suggested?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m delighted to respond to that. The reason why we oppose your leader’s silly scheme is that it’s going to drive costs up for consumers. It’s something we simply don’t want to do. It’s going to make local distribution companies have to set up duplicate billing systems. That doesn’t make sense. What it’s also going to do is drive down the incentives to encourage consumers to shift off of peak use. What that’s going to do is increase costs to the entire system.

Once again, the Tories come out with something that’s simplistic, that’s sloganistic, but at the same time just doesn’t make sense and is going to drive costs up for consumers. They did it to consumers seven years ago when they cost us billions of dollars through their messing around with deregulation. They just want to do it again, and Ontarians are too smart to give them a chance. They did it to us once before, and we’re not going to let them—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Let me tell you what Ontario families are opposed to. They are opposed to you micromanaging every single decision. They are opposed to the Premier Dad, father-knows-best attitude, and they are so opposed to Ontario families being forced to pay more and more with every single asinine idea that you come up with in cabinet.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I withdraw. What I meant to say was “random thought.” It’s just sometimes they match.

Premier McGuinty has said time-of-use pricing would save Ontario families, but people tell me they are paying more. The new time-of-use billing has hit families again at the end of the day when they come home from school and work. What do the McGuinty Liberals have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I strongly suggest that the Tory party get their act together when it comes to what they want to do with time of use. They’re putting forward an initiative that would jack up rates for consumers, something that we adamantly oppose. We do not want to go there. We do not want to do what they want to do, and that’s to make consumers pay for a duplicate billing system. We simply don’t want to do that.

There was a time when they thought differently. I have a report here called “Energy for the Future.” This is a report that comes from February 2006 and it was written by their energy critic, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. This is what it said: We have to invest in conservation to offset demand. We have to invest in demand management—to shift peaks and consumption to off hours.

That’s exactly what we’re doing. Now, they’ve got their caucus standing up in opposition to that. We’re working hard with Ontarians to do all we can to try to shift usage—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Mr. Robert Nagle from Hamilton Mountain wants to know why, after two years, he’s still waiting for employment standards to get him the $14,000 that his employer owes him. When you are unemployed, two weeks is too long to wait for money owed to you, but two years is simply a travesty. When will the minister finally fix the ridiculous and unacceptable delays at employment standards?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the opportunity to discuss how we’ve changed the Employment Standards Act and allowed for a much quicker response when it comes to claims. That being said, I have to commend our employment standards officers. They are closing a record number of claims these days. They are closing 40% more claims than they were doing just two years ago.

But that being said, we’ve changed the Employment Standards Act to where we can now expedite claims by having those claimants either contact their employer through email, phone or mail, and they can, through that contact, be able to get their money in their hands a lot quicker.

I will say to the member that, under this specific case, the individual should contact the ministry again, look at the new process and how we’re expediting claims.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Nagle tells us that his MPP advised that when and if he ever gets his money, it will only be $10,000 because that’s the maximum employment standards can award.

Why hasn’t the McGuinty government changed this legislation to protect workers and ensure they get every cent that is owed to them? Under the current system, the employer is rewarded for delaying, denying and not paying workers what they are owed.

When will the Minister of Labour start protecting workers and change the ridiculous law?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Our record speaks for itself. This party has been on the side of vulnerable workers. This party has been assisting and protecting workers with changes to legislation, and part of those changes has been through the Employment Standards Act.

We’re making it much easier for any employee who feels they’ve been mistreated or feels their rights have been violated when it comes to employment standards, so that they can make their claims a lot more easily.

We have added an additional $10 million to our employment standards officers to help claimants through the process, and we’ve done this in a number of ways. We understand there are vulnerable workers out there and they need more assistance. We provide services in 23 different languages. We want to eliminate those barriers and make it as easy as possible for those hard-working men and women to get the money they are owed—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: This question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. As a member of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, I had the opportunity to visit the James Bay area. I paid close attention, as I know all members of the select committee did, when earlier this year, Chief Solomon of the Mushkegowuk council that represents First Nations communities near the James Bay coast declared a state of emergency because of youth suicides. We continue to hear through the media about First Nations youth in crisis in other parts of the north, specifically at Fort Hope.

I know from personal experience that our government is working hard to build stronger relationships with our aboriginal peoples and communities. This is a serious issue and it requires both immediate, intermediate and long-term solutions.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I know the federal government has responsibility for a large number of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: An important question, and let me just say at the outset, I’d like to thank the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, my colleague Kevin Flynn and colleagues all around the Legislature for the great work they did on the mental health report, the all-party legislative committee report.

The issue with respect to youth suicide in many northern communities—indeed, also southern communities—of First Nations is a very serious one. I did speak to Chief Solomon from Kashechewan about five months ago, and I know my colleagues the Minister of Children and Youth Services, the Minister of Health and others are working on a longer-term solution.

We said, “What can we do in the short term?” What we did was we worked with the Minister of Health Promotion. We’ve got four youth wellness workers in three different communities to start engaging young people in positive sports and related activities—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: It is important that our government is responding to the concerns brought forward by the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and that we are listening to Fort Hope’s concerns, and I feel that partnering with a private and not-for-profit organization is an important part of helping First Nations communities.

In the 2010 speech from the throne, the government recognized “that in a time of more limited resources, we all need to work together to move our province forward.” It is important to recognize that private and not-for-profit organizations play a key role in government priorities such as poverty reduction. Can the minister tell us how the Ontario government used this advice to partner with other organizations to help address some of the challenges faced by aboriginal youth?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is right.

We had four youth wellness workers in three different communities along the James Bay coast. Last week, with my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, we joined Canadian Tire Jumpstart. They’re investing in activity kits for seven communities along the coast and they’re also funding a community coach in an additional community. The goal is really to make sure that the young people in a community can see a brighter tomorrow than they saw yesterday.

In addition, with my colleague who is now the Minister of Energy, the previous minister in this post, Right to Play has worked with community donors such as the Tanenbaum foundation to fund a worker in Moosonee and Moose Factory. In addition to that, we are working with the Belinda Stronach Foundation.

We’ve provided money on behalf of the people of Ontario to provide five communities in the province of Ontario with one laptop per child—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, RBC and the Insurance Bureau of Canada have both raised the alarm bell about growing fraud in the auto insurance sector. Their reports show fraud on the rise in Ontario, costing $1.3 billion annually. They say that unnecessary medical assessments are increasingly eating up premium dollars.

In FSCO’s five-year auto insurance review, recommendation 21 was: “Consider having treatment plans completed only after a referral is made by the health professional primarily responsible for the claimant’s rehabilitation (in most cases a family physician).” Minister, why did you fail to implement a recommendation that could have had a real impact on this type of fraud?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we brought forward a range of changes to prevent specifically that kind of fraud, and that member’s party didn’t support it. But that shouldn’t be a surprise, because insurance rates went up 43% in the last two years of their administration.

We worked with the insurance industry. We worked with brokers. We worked with a range of others.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind too, as well—they like to cackle over there, but they voted against lowering auto insurance rates by voting against Bill 5 in 2003. They voted against and didn’t support the range of changes we brought about to ensure greater competitiveness and to help wipe out the very abuse that the member opposite speaks of.

These are always difficult balances to find. We found the appropriate balance with the support of many in the industry and with the support of consumers, and we will continue to keep a lid on skyrocketing car insurance premiums.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: The minister gives a very partisan answer to a legitimate question.

The Globe and Mail reports that target-and-bullet schemes profit by involving questionable medical clinics and supposed victims billing insurers hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single car accident to cover assessments and treatments that in some cases don’t even take place.

Minister, American states put a concentrated effort into deterring fraud. As a result, Canadian investigators say they have tracked insurance fraudsters from other jurisdictions to Canada.

As the minister responsible, you need to get serious about fraud. Will you at least consider taking steps to protect consumers from unscrupulous toll operators who take kickbacks from fraudsters?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We did, and they didn’t support that. In fact, here’s what one of their caucus members, Mr. Klees, had to say: “We have to get government out of that industry to the degree we can and allow the insurance companies to set their rates and to set policies.”

We think it’s about more than that. We think it is about ensuring a balance. No government has done more to take fraud out of the system than this government. No government has a better track record in keeping insurance premiums down. In fact, in the first four years of our administration, they went down 16%. Over the life of the administration they went up only 5%, well below the rate of inflation.

These are difficult balances to reach. I’m glad that, working with the consumers and with the industry, we found the proper balance to help ensure that the 43% increase in premiums they saw under that government, under the Conservative government, will never happen again.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. As winter comes to northwestern Ontario, families are being squeezed with sky-high hydro bills. Eliana Wittwer from Dryden writes this: “I just want to be very clear and state my point, that HST should definitely be taken off the hydro bill. It has made life so much more difficult, to make ends meet and to keep up with paying the bills.”

I think the minister needs to explain to Ms. Wittwer and others like her why this government voted yesterday against the NDP motion to do exactly that and take the HST off the hydro bills.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have provided personal tax cuts in the amount of $12 billion over four years, because we have the most generous harmonized sales tax tax credit in the country and because we are helping consumers with a special property and energy tax credit, which that member and her party voted against.

We are facing the challenges in our electricity system full on to ensure that we never have the problems we had before. By investing in transmission, by creating jobs, by investing in generation—all of these initiatives will help ensure a more reliable and cost-effective energy system.

The tax package we gave to all Ontarians, which that member voted against, was the most generous in Ontario history. We’ll continue to practise good public policy in the interest of all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Jim Irish, a Kenora senior on a fixed income, writes: “The vote on Monday regarding the removal of HST on home hydro is crucial to the quality of daily life for many seniors in northwestern Ontario....”

Mr. Irish needs a break on his hydro bill. Why have the McGuinty Liberals rejected our proposal to give seniors like him a break by taking the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, I hope she’s writing back to all the correspondents she’s quoting and telling them that she wants to raise the provincial sales tax by 1%, because that’s what she and her party told this government.

The leader again—conveniently—only tells a part of the story. The leader doesn’t want all the facts out there because it will undermine her credibility. She doesn’t want to tell people that they had a huge $12-billion personal tax cut. She doesn’t want to tell those people that if we let the system go the way it was going under previous governments, we would have had deep, deep problems well into the future.

These are difficult choices, but they’re the right choices. We have chosen to cut personal taxes. We have given generous sales tax credits and have created energy credits for all Ontarians. That’s what good public policy is. That’s what credible public policy is.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Kuldip Kular: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In my riding of Bramalea–Gore–Malton, there has been a lot of talk regarding municipal funding and financial commitments by our government. In fact, the leader of the official opposition recently visited my community of Brampton and suggested that provincial funding has been slowed in my community and, in fact, in communities all across Ontario. He mentioned a lot of financial pressures and suggested that these were attributed to our government and its relationship with the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please outline for the House and the constituents in Bramalea–Gore–Malton exactly what this government is doing to help alleviate the burden of local taxpayers?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for the question. It is truly unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that we’re underfunding municipalities. When we came to power, we understood the pressures that municipalities were faced with, pressures imposed upon them by the previous Progressive Conservative government. The Harris government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister, downloaded the cost of many services like public health, land ambulance, ODSP and social housing onto the backs of the municipal taxpayer and didn’t provide any extra cash.

When we formed government, we put an end to the Conservative record against municipalities. We are now in the process of uploading the costs of several services because we understand the burden placed on municipalities by that government when they were in power.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Kuldip Kular: While it’s unfortunate the leader of the official opposition would make such comments on our relationship with municipalities, I’m happy to hear that our government continues its commitment to upload the cost of services which were downloaded by the previous government.

My question is again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I couldn’t help but notice that your answer did not make any mention of financial commitments. The minister did make mention of our government’s plan to upload the costs borne from a variety of circumstances but did not touch on what it will mean to my community. Constituents in my riding want to know what they will be saving and how their pocketbooks will be affected.

To the minister: Could he please tell this House what these uploads will mean for my community financially?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: That, again, is a very fair and legitimate question. This year the taxpayers in Peel region will see an estimated savings of more than $27 million through these uploads. By 2018, we will have finished the uploading process and municipalities across Ontario will end up seeing a $1.5-billion-a-year benefit.

We all remember that when the official opposition was the government, PC stood for public cuts, public chaos, public confrontation. That’s them. That is what they’re all about. On this side of the House, the McGuinty government is about uploading services, uploading costs, uploading burden, because we understand what municipalities’ pressures are. We understand that we have to work together. It’s not about fighting. It’s about collaboration. It’s about getting along—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Milton hospital was built to service a community of 30,000 people. Today we have a population of 90,000 and we’re expected to reach 180,000 within 10 years.

In 2007, Milton began a process to expand its hospital. For three years, the people of Milton have waited, with no answers and no movement from your ministry. Over the same time, this government’s health minister has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants, enough to cover the cost of Milton hospital’s expansion.

Minister, please explain to my consultants—

Laughter.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: —to my constituents; you can also explain to your consultants—why your priority has been hiring consultants, as opposed to front-line needs of the Milton hospital.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very proud of the investments that we have made in improving and rebuilding the infrastructure of our hospitals. Yes, the project in Milton is one of the ones that we are looking at, as you well know.

But let’s just look: 18 new hospitals built or under way since 2003. These are new hospitals: William Osler, Royal Ottawa Health Care, West Parry Sound Health Centre, Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Mattawa General Hospital, Runnymede Healthcare Centre, Bloorview Kids Rehab, the regional hospital in Sudbury, the Pembroke Regional Hospital, Sioux Lookout Meno Ya Win Health Centre. These are all hospitals that are complete.

Under construction: Niagara Health System, North Bay Regional Health Centre, the Sault Area Hospital, the Woodstock General Hospital, Bridgepoint Health, Sarnia Bluewater Health, Cornwall—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, you apologized for the eHealth 2.0 fiasco. You did it sincerely, and you did it with emotion. Yet that answer tells me—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the member he should be speaking through the Chair.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: While you spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past three years on consultants, you were delaying the essential expansion of the Milton hospital. We’re not talking about other hospitals or LHINs; we’re talking about money that was spent by your ministry. I think the message is very clear: My constituents mean a lot less than your Liberal consultants.

Minister, for the people of Milton, please explain why you believe it’s okay to spend their hard-earned tax dollars on consultants instead of the much-needed hospital.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The members on the government side will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are also expanding more cancer centres in Ontario than ever before in the province’s history. We’ve got 15 cancer projects: Eight are complete, and six are under construction.

Complete: the Ottawa Hospital Queensway Carleton site, the Hamilton Health Sciences Juravinski Cancer Centre, the Grand River Hospital, the Credit Valley Hospital Carlo Fidani Peel Regional Cancer Centre, Lakeridge Health R. S. McLaughlin Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Sudbury Regional Hospital, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and Southlake Regional Health Centre.

Under construction: the Ottawa Hospital at the Ottawa General Hospital site, the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie—I have to take a breath, there are so many—Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, the Kingston General Hospital Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Credit Valley Hospital and Niagara Health System.

We have 117 projects under way. We are very proud of the capital. When you—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question?

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. On November 6, US Steel will be in a legal position to lock out members of Local 1005, United Steelworkers, who are employed at the Hilton Works plant in Hamilton. US Steel has continually thumbed its nose at both the federal and provincial governments since, aided by this government’s money, it took ownership from Stelco in 2007.

When will this government take action to protect the steelworkers of Hamilton?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d remind the member opposite that the money he referred to, in fact, went into the pensions of those workers. He can torque up his language all he wants; that is the simple reality.

We have worked in a number of situations, including when this problem first emerged. We will continue to work with all the parties interested in the interests of protecting jobs and, by the way, pensions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: These jobs, critical to Hamilton’s economy, support secondary industries and even some sole suppliers of steel-related products to these mills. They may all close. If this lockout, like the Lake Erie plant’s, lasts many months, we can anticipate foreclosures, bankruptcies and more pressure on Hamilton’s social safety net.

We don’t want the sympathy this government has stated—“We care about the workers”—or stories that they’ll retrain them.

They make $25 to $30 an hour. What jobs of equal—I repeat, equal—financial and economic value is this government planning for the steelworkers of the city of Hamilton?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This is an incredibly difficult time for those workers, their families and the community of Hamilton.

I do need to inform the House, first of all, that Ministry of Labour mediators are available at all times. The Ministry of Economic Development remains in contact with the company.

I should also remind the member opposite, as he torques up his rhetoric, that US Steel plants in Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota have also been idled. That adds to the layoffs and closures at other plants.

This is a serious matter that ought to be taken seriously. We’ve invested $150 million to protect the pensions of those workers. All the services in the government of Ontario will be available to those workers and to that community, as they have been up until now, to help deal with these very difficult circumstances.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. We’re all aware of the challenges the forestry sector continues to face, including rising operating costs and the high Canadian dollar, but our government has taken unprecedented steps to support Ontario’s forestry industry. Through the forest sector initiatives program, we’ve made available $500 million in combined grants and loan guarantees to stimulate manufacturing, equipment renewal and energy conservation. These commitments are getting results.

Recently, the minister informed us that a $25-million investment we’re making in Terrace Bay Pulp will assist in the restart of the mill and return to work roughly 300 employees.

This past Friday—more progress—we announced that St. Marys Paper is reopening in Sault Ste. Marie. Minister, could you please tell us how we made possible the reopening of St. Marys Paper?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just before the minister starts, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, I don’t appreciate, and the members don’t appreciate, the interjections across the floor that are obviously directed at each other. Please take those discussions outside the chamber.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: This is indeed a very, very good-news story—another good-news story in the forestry sector with the reopening of St. Marys Paper. Certainly I want to commend the extraordinarily hard work by the member for Sault Ste. Marie. To have this mill reopen is great news.

Very specifically, our government has provided St. Marys Paper with an $8.8-million repayable loan, a loan that will mean that the operations at the mill will be resuming production very soon and that 170 workers are going back to work. We know this loan is going to help this mill move in a very different direction and help St. Marys take advantage of new opportunities in green energy and bio-economy opportunities. It is just simply a great good-news story.

More work: the Terrace Bay Pulp mill, 340 jobs; St. Marys Paper, 170 jobs. Great work by the member from Sault Ste. Marie.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to take this opportunity—earlier in introductions, I neglected, in introducing page Olivia Kelly’s friends, to introduce her mother, and I apologize. Welcome, Wendy Kelly, to Queen’s Park today.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jim Brownell: It’s my honour this afternoon to introduce some guests in the gallery to my right.

We have Rick Hatt, who is a descendant of Major Richard Hatt, a veteran of the Battle of Lundy’s Lane and whose remains lie buried in the Cooley-Hatt Cemetery, now threatened with relocation; Rick Hatt’s wife, Catherine Hatt; Marjorie Stuart, cemetery volunteer and editor of Cemetery News with the Ontario Historical Society; Diane Clendenan, cemetery volunteer with the Ontario Genealogical Society; Steve Clendenan, vice-president, finance, the Ontario Genealogical Society; and Rob Leverty, executive director of the Ontario Historical Society.

Probably joining them will be Bob Crawford, secretary of the Ontario Genealogical Society. I welcome you this afternoon.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to introduce le consul de la République du Congo, M. Jean-Michel Itoua, qui est le père de la page Priscile. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I too want to take this opportunity to welcome my good friend the consul general from Congo here today. It’s a real honour to have you here, and I’m sure it’s a proud moment for you to be here to watch your daughter, Priscile, serve as a page in this Legislature. Welcome, consul general.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Later today many Ontario wineries will be participating in a tasting to select the Ontario Legislative Assembly wine for 2011. It’s an important decision because that year is a significant milestone for the Ontario wine industry. It marks 200 years since Johann Schiller, the father of the Ontario wine industry, opened the first commercial winery in Ontario in what was known as Cooksville.

Since that time, Ontario’s wines have received recognition for their quality around the world, particularly for the VQA and ice wines. The Ontario wine industry has grown in economic importance into one that directly employs over 6,000 people and generates over $500 million in retail sales each year.

Ontario’s wine industry contributes significantly to our tourism and agricultural industries. With over 17 million grapevines, Ontario is the country’s leading grape producer, accounting for about 80% of all Canadian production.

Later today, I will be introducing a bill to mark this milestone by officially recognizing 2011 as the bicentennial of the Ontario wine industry. I hope that everyone will take advantage of this opportunity to celebrate and promote Ontario wines.

I want to congratulate all of our wineries and grape growers for being part of this milestone and for their hard work to make this industry such a great success. I wish them all the best in the upcoming bicentennial year.

I encourage all Ontarians to celebrate this accomplishment by trying new Ontario wines and visiting some of our beautiful wineries.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Last Friday, October 29, I attended a ceremony to commemorate a new solar panel project on the late Jacques Beauchesne’s farm in St. Isidore in the Nation municipality of my riding. I would like to thank Minister Madeleine Meilleur for attending this event.

The St. Isidore solar panel project is a 10-megawatt project composed of 152,000 solar panels. The design, engineering and construction phases of this project