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

February 28, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Feb-28 (PDF)

L086 - Mon 28 Feb 2011 / Lun 28 fév 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 28 February 2011 Lundi 28 février 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER’S CONDUCT

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

GASOLINE PRICES

G20 SUMMIT

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

EDUCATION FUNDING

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FOOD SAFETY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BILL THAKE

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

SYLVIA LEAL

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ERAMOSA KARST

RECYCLING

VARIETY VILLAGE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CEMETERIES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

TAXATION

WIND TURBINES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

CEMETERIES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HYDRO RATES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HYDRO RATES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to the House today Al McDonald, the mayor of North Bay and former member of this Legislature.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I would like to introduce Ron MacDonell, sitting in the gallery. Ron was reeve of Locheil township and served on council from 1973 to 2004 in Glengarry county. He was warden of the united counties of S, D and G in 1991, and he was also chair of ROMA in 1990. As well, we have with us his son Darcy MacDonell and his friend Katherine Davis. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would also like to welcome my sister Wendy to the House today—I see she’s here. Her son Ben is page captain in the House this week.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m delighted to see in the members’ gallery today some representatives from the North Bay Literacy Council, which is doing some amazing work. They’re here for the Laubach lobby day. We have Linda Fetterly, Johanna Mutch and a fantastic learner, Keith Allen. They’re here representing our North Bay Literacy Council, and I understand that Jack is here too. He’s not in the chamber yet, but he will be joining us as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like all members to join me in welcoming guests seated in the Speaker’s gallery today. This welcome is on behalf of myself and the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. I’d like to welcome students from Sterling Hall School to Queen’s Park today. Enjoy your visit to the Legislature.

MEMBER’S CONDUCT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday February 24, 2011, the member for Brant, Mr. Levac, raised a point of order respecting the distribution of what he considered to be objectionable material to members’ desks in this chamber. Subsequently, the member for Wellington–Halton Hills, Mr. Arnott, indicated that it was he who had distributed the material in question. The third party House leader, Mr. Kormos, and the government House leader, Ms. Smith, also contributed to the submissions on this matter.

Members will know that the only material that is to be distributed in this chamber is that which relates to parliamentary proceedings. The orders and notices paper and the committee meeting notices are two examples of such material. Some of you will have encountered the steely resolve of our intrepid Sergeant-at-Arms or Mr. Butt as they intercept pages delivering personal or non-parliamentary material on your behalf.

As a result, members on occasion have taken to personally placing things such as announcements, invitations or even apples on their colleagues’ desks in the chamber. Since most of this material is benign in nature and not, in and of itself, objectionable to any member, the Speaker has traditionally exercised a moderate level of tolerance, provided that House staff or resources are not used to distribute it. This practice, I would suggest, is well known to most members.

It disturbs me that any member would take advantage of the Speaker’s forbearance in this regard and risk compromising the neutrality of assembly staff by asking pages to deliver, or even delivering himself, material that is neither parliamentary nor benign but, in fact, quite blatantly political.

That the material in question was enclosed in a sealed envelope signals to me that the member either knew it was inappropriate for distribution in the House or that he was acting as the messenger and was unaware of its contents. Neither possibility gives me much reassurance. I will consider that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills has, by this ruling, been duly warned, and I will consider any repetition a deliberate disregard for the authority of this chair.

Further, I caution all members to refrain from distributing such partisan material in the future in respect to the long-standing traditions of this House; otherwise, as the member for Welland suggests, the Speaker will be left with no option but to apply a more rigorous standard.

I want to thank all the members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Before I pose the question, I want to offer, on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, my warm welcome to all the municipal leaders attending the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and Ontario Good Roads Association conference.

To the Minister of Energy: These municipal leaders have recently been elected. They have been given the faith of their local residents to carry out and make decisions. However, the Premier is down at ROMA today, hopefully giving an explanation to the municipal leaders as to why he doesn’t trust their judgment. For example, Minister, when it comes to industrial wind farms, what makes the Premier so smart? Why does he know more than locally elected officials?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ve already been down to the conference, and I know that my caucus colleagues have been down as well. We’re looking forward, as always, to having a record number of ministers attend—many more ministers than attended in the old days.

Let me tell you what I’m hearing from some of the delegates. They’re trying to figure out where the Leader of the Opposition stands, because over the weekend, the PC Party’s campaign secretary was speaking at the AGM for the member for Nepean, and she said explicitly that they do not know where they stand on these issues. She said, “If you’re knocking on doors after May 1, you’re going to have an idea of what we stand for.”

The Leader of the Opposition’s caucus and party don’t even know how he stands. How do you think municipal leaders feel? How do you think Ontario families feel? This leader has not indicated—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members from Renfrew, and Simcoe–Grey, and Halton.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Our plan is clear. Locally elected officials should have their say on whether these projects are welcomed in their ridings or not. The minister and the Premier do not trust locally elected officials. You think you know better than everyone else, Minister, and your policy is entirely bizarre. You have communities like Kingston, where the council has suggested they wanted projects, and you’ve stripped projects away from there, but in communities like my own, the township of West Lincoln has opposed your projects and you’re forcing them down their throats. Even the mayor of Kingston, Mark Gerretsen, the son of one of your ministers, says your decision was “purely political.”

Minister, what kind of chaos have you created where you’re forcing projects on unwilling communities and taking away from those where council supports it? Shouldn’t the Premier actually be apologizing today to municipal leaders for stripping away their local decision-making?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s be very, very clear—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Maybe he’ll show up someday.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Simcoe–Grey.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pardon me; Simcoe North. My apologies, member from Simcoe–Grey.

Please continue.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s be very, very clear: A renewable energy application process totally respects the municipalities and their positions. In fact, it’s absolutely mandatory that municipalities are consulted. When they’re not, the Ministry of Energy turns those applications—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think the honourable members would like to hear the answer to their leader’s question and I would just ask them to be respectful.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s talk about respect for municipalities. That Leader of the Opposition and the government he served in downloaded costs to municipalities for public health, downloaded costs to municipalities for land ambulances, downloaded costs for the Ontario drug plan, downloaded costs for roads and highways—let’s see if they’ll be talking about that this weekend at the conference—downloaded costs for court security, downloaded costs for Ontario Works, downloaded costs for ODSP and downloaded costs for social housing. Talk about disrespect for our municipalities.

We’re working hand in hand with municipalities right across this province, in the north, in the south, in the east and in the west.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister knows we respect the decisions of locally elected councils and would restore that authority. When it comes to your industrial wind farm projects, you have one rule, Minister, for your own riding in Scarborough and another rule for everywhere else in the province. Your approach has been the NIMSIAR approach: not if my seat is at risk. We reject that approach. There should be one rule across the province of Ontario, and local councils will have their say under a PC government.

Minister, you have made an expensive mess of our hydro system. One day you do a moratorium; the next day you plunge ahead with projects in communities that don’t want them. It’s clear that by backtracking here and plowing ahead there, the Premier’s motto is that he’s not happy until no one is happy.

Minister, will you do the right thing and tell the Premier to apologize to our locally elected officials that he stripped away their power under the Green Energy Act?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As this Leader of the Opposition continues to chirp about our efforts to turn around his ugly legacy in energy, this past weekend the federal Conservatives announced $52 million in new funding for clean energy projects. The Conservative Minister of Natural Resources said this: “Moving forward aggressively with investments in clean energy technologies will help us balance our need for energy with our need to protect the environment.” He went on to say, “Investing in clean energy technologies stimulates the growth of a domestic clean energy industry, creating high-quality jobs for” Ontarians.

Even the federal Tories get it. This is the last political party left in the world that wants to go back to the days of dirty coal and that does not understand or see where the rest of the world is going.

We’re a global leader. We’re creating jobs right across this province. It’s time for that party to catch up with the—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Energy. Here is where we stand: Make sure that we have local officials have their say in these decisions and that contracts are affordable to the Ontario families who get stuck with the bills at the end of the day.

Minister, 75 municipalities and counting have asked to have their local decision-making restored at that level, but when it comes to your approach you have one rule for Scarborough in your riding and one rule for everywhere else. You had your moratorium in ridings, and then last week you announced projects, all of which, when it came to industrial wind farms, were in Ontario PC ridings. Minister, obviously you must be looking at an election map because none of the ridings where you dropped these projects were Liberal-held ridings.

This is the problem: You’ve focused all decision-making in your office and in the Premier’s office. Why are you making decisions based on who people elect instead of what local councils have to say?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We are building a clean, reliable, modern energy system. We’re making investments right across this province. I challenge—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Lanark.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to come with us to Windsor, where 700 jobs are being created, look those workers in the eye and tell them his plan wants to take away their jobs. I challenge him come to Tillsonburg and tell the 900 workers who are getting jobs there that he wants to take away their jobs. Why doesn’t he come to Cambridge, Guelph, Hamilton, Burlington? Why doesn’t he come to Kingston? Why doesn’t he go up to Sault Ste. Marie, where they’re producing steel to build our wind turbines, and tell those thousands of clean energy workers that he wants to put them out of work?

Our clean energy policies are impacting positively in communities right across this province. He doesn’t get it. He wants to take those opportunities away. The people of—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, I’d ask you to look into the eyes of the 300,000 people who have lost jobs in the manufacturing sector largely because of your high taxes and skyrocketing energy bills. I ask you to look in the eyes of Ontario families—average, hard-working Ontario families—who are struggling each and every day to balance their family budget because of your HST tax grab, because of your skyrocketing hydro bills. Look into their eyes and read their lips. Do you know what they’re saying? It’s time for a change in the province of Ontario.

It is clear, Minister, that you have set one rule for PC-held ridings and another rule for Liberal-held ridings when it comes to your wind energy projects. This decision-making now is purely political in your office and in the Premier’s office, and Ontario families are stuck with the bill.

Will you do the right thing, support the PC position, have a moratorium on these projects till you clean up the—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I would be very delighted to share with the Leader of the Opposition the amount of time that I spent with his caucus members out across this province, announcing many of these important job-generating projects, like in Burlington, where his member from Burlington—I’ve got a photo of her here giving a great little wave to us—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not showing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You made reference to what you are holding in your hand. Please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I have a photo of the member from Burlington giving a wave of acknowledgement, but at that event she snuck out pretty quick afterwards and didn’t take questions from the media because the question the media wanted to ask her was, how can you support a Leader of the Opposition who wants to kill those thousands of jobs that are being created across this province in places like Burlington, in places like Cambridge, in places like Tillsonburg, in places like Fort Erie—for crying out loud—a neighbouring community to his riding, where hundreds of people from this member’s very riding are being employed because—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will please come to order as well.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The problem is, Minister, that you and your Premier have made an expensive mess out of our hydro system, and you don’t respect the fact that Ontario families are getting stuck with the bills.

Your policy of having one rule for Liberal-held ridings and one rule for everybody else shows you have a Premier who is ready to divide Ontario into rural versus urban, to divide those communities from offshore to land-based, to divide Ontario between Liberal and PC. Ontario families reject that approach of dividing the province. They want one clear rule across the province. Sign projects that are affordable to families who pay the bills, and restore local decision-making to democratically elected councils.

Will you do the right thing and support the Ontario PC position?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If this Leader of the Opposition and this PC Party actually respected—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If this PC leader actually respected Ontario families, he would not have voted against reducing electricity bills by 10% through our clean energy benefit, and he would not have voted against a tax cut of 93% for Ontario families. If this Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There’s lot of cross-floor discussion taking place. I think it’s always helpful that both sides of the House speak to each other, but doing so in a disruptive manner that gets in the way of question period is not helpful. I would encourage those members to have those discussions outside, please.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If this PC leader and PC Party actually respected Ontario families, they would not have plans to kill thousands of clean energy jobs that those families are counting on. If this PC Party actually respected Ontario families, they would not be opposing every effort we’ve made to move away from coal, clean up our air and build a healthier future for our kids and grandkids. I haven’t met an Ontario family yet that’s not concerned about the health or future health of their kids. This Leader of the Opposition continues to place political opportunism ahead of his responsibility to level with Ontario families. Tell them what your plan is—

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

GASOLINE PRICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Energy. In 2005, the all-party Standing Committee on General Government unanimously approved a motion to look into gasoline prices and what Ontario could do to protect consumers. Why did the McGuinty Liberals kill that report?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is an issue that’s been talked about for many, many years. There have been private members’ bills, I think, on all sides of the House looking for ways that, somehow or another, a province like Ontario can impact these important issues. There’s been federal combines legislation that has looked into the pricing of gasoline for decades.

The fact of the matter in this particular case as to what’s going on right now—I think Ontario families recognize, when they read the papers, that there is a lot of uncertainty right now in the Middle East, and that’s contributing to the challenges that we’re seeing at the pumps today. I think Ontario families understand that. I think Ontario families would also recognize efforts to try to distort that and blame it on other things that are not impacting the price of gas today. There are things that are happening internationally, things that are happening in the Middle East—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, there was a study that was supposed to be done. Five Liberal MPPs, including the current Minister of Energy and the Minister of Health, actually voted back then to take a hard look at protecting drivers from being gouged and regulating gasoline prices. Can the Minister of Energy explain to this House why the committee that he voted to establish was never even allowed to meet?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I understand the question from the leader of the third party. I think we all, as we go to the pumps, feel the same as other Ontarians when we see the price of gas fluctuate. Often there are questions raised, normally on the national level, about the fluctuation of these prices. There’s the anti-combines legislation. There have been task forces set up federally to look into these issues. I haven’t seen a lot of results from those task forces over the years.

At the end of the day, I know Ontario families get it. They understand that when there are issues going on in places like the Middle East that may be disruptive to the flow of petroleum around the world, it does affect gas prices. We’re one province in a very large world. Surely the member doesn’t think that we have control over the politics in the Middle East. She may want us to have control over that, but that’s just something that’s beyond our reach.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once again, the McGuinty Liberals just don’t seem to care about the challenges that people are facing here in this province. Gas prices are shooting through the roof. Here in Toronto, people are paying $1.20 per litre for gas. In Thunder Bay it’s $1.26 a litre. In Sudbury it’s $1.28 per litre. Now, that might not matter to this government, but for people who need to drive to work each and every day it puts even more tension on the family budget, which we know is extremely stretched. How can the McGuinty Liberals sit there and shrug as families take another hit to their budget?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the NDP are very, very good at defining challenges and very, very good at communicating problems that we all know exist. We’re very aware of the price at the pumps because we, like all Ontario families, need to fill up ourselves when we’re taking our kids—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the third party may want us to insert ourselves into the politics of the Middle East. I’m not sure there is a role for Ontario to play over there. But let me tell you what we are doing to help Ontario families as they deal with constrained family budgets.

Ontario’s seniors’ and property tax credit is providing a considerable amount of support, up to $1,025 for seniors and over $900 for low- and middle-income families, along with a series of other tax credits and tax cuts that are going to low- and middle-income families. We understand where low- and middle-income families are at today—

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

G20 SUMMIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. Later this morning, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Union of Public and General Employees are expected to release another damning report about the human rights abuses at last summer’s G20 meeting. The McGuinty Liberals, who passed a secret law that gave police more powers, played a major role in what happened last summer. Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals, then, establish a joint federal-provincial inquiry and resolve once and for all the serious questions that are still outstanding from that summer event?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would probably be aware by now, there are a number of inquiries that are taking place specifically dealing with this matter. One is the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Hon. James J. Bradley: One is—you should worry about Norm Sterling. You should quit putting the knife—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m just going to ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that he just made.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would be delighted to withdraw the comment—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just an unequivocal “I withdraw.”

Hon. James J. Bradley: I withdraw.

As the member would know, the Toronto Police Services Board is conducting a review under Judge Morden. The Office of the Independent Police Review Director is conducting a systemic review and taking complaints from the public. Retired Chief Justice McMurtry is reviewing the Public Works Protection Act, and the Ombudsman of Ontario has conducted a review and provided a report, the recommendations of which are being implemented by the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hundreds of innocent people were arrested, many just walking through their own neighbourhoods and doing their jobs; frankly, minding their own business. Despite reviews by the Ombudsman that this minister refers to and others, questions still remain about policing policy and training. Those questions are still outstanding. To do it properly, to get at the answers, a joint federal-provincial inquiry is absolutely necessary. Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals commit to such a public inquiry?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, as the member has some close connections with the federal leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Jack Layton, who seems to be on a very friendly basis with the Prime Minister and seems to be meeting frequently with the Prime Minister, perhaps she might suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party federally that he direct that question to the Prime Minister of Canada.

As the leader of the third party would realize, this was a federal event. It was convened by the federal government, was organized by the federal government. The federal government was the lead, and a committee of the Parliament of Canada suggested that if there is to be an inquiry, the federal government conduct this inquiry.

So my recommendation to the member—I’m always helpful to give advice in this regard—is that she bring this to the attention of her federal leader, who is very close to the Prime Minister and very persuasive with the Prime Minister.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All I can say is shame on this minister. It was Ontario residents, Toronto residents, who were devastated last summer by their regulation. It was this government that took away the fundamental rights of Ontarians.

Last summer’s G20 cost $1 billion, but that’s not all we lost. As a society, we lost some of our sanity, too. Reporters were thrown in jail. One senior had his prosthetic leg torn from his body on the grounds right here at Queen’s Park. And innocent people in or near their own homes were kettled for hours in the pouring rain.

It’s time we closed off this

chapter in the history of our province by ensuring that it never happens again, and the only way to get that assurance is to have the inquiry. Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals do the right thing by the people of their province and call a public inquiry into the G20 fiasco?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I say to the member again that she would recognize that the federal government chose to hold the summit of world leaders in the city of Toronto, in downtown Toronto, in fact. The federal government was the lead, the federal government gave all of the recommendations, the federal government was in charge of supervision.

I have indicated clearly that the Toronto Police Services Board is investigating this matter under an esteemed justice, Judge Morden. The Office of the Independent Police Review Director is conducting a systemic review, and that’s very extensive, receiving complaints from the public. Former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry is reviewing the Public Works Protection Act,

an act that came before your government, and you refused to review it at the time, in 1990, when you had the opportunity to make recommendations on its change at that time.

I note the member does not like—

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

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Attorney General. Today is the five-year anniversary of the occupation of Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia. It has been five years since a group of militant lawbreakers who splintered from the elected and hereditary Six Nations leaders began their occupation in Caledonia. The militants remain on-site, the community is badly divided, and the militants are occupying the abandoned homes of the former Douglas Creek Estates subdivision.

Minister, for some reason, the lights remain on in those abandoned homes in the subdivision. I ask you, why are Ontario families paying the hydro bills for homes that have been turned over to lawbreaking militants?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Here’s an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members from Durham, Simcoe–Grey, Simcoe North, I’d like to hear the answer, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Durham.

Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Here’s an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership, the leadership that’s being shown by the mayor of Caledonia and Six Nations; by the mayor of Brant, my colleague from that area, and Six Nations; and by the children in Caledonia and Six Nations. They quite understand that the roots of a long-term solution here are twofold. One begins at the community level: Find ways to bring community members together, not split them apart. The second part of it, of course, is the federal government needs to settle a land claim, and I ask my friend opposite to call the Prime Minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. It amazes me. The moment I sit down, the noise will start again.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I wonder if the leaders of the respective parties would appreciate that, member from Halton.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, the book on you is that you have some ambitions, and I would have expected to hear from you some acknowledgement that this has now gone on for some five years and an apology to the people of the Caledonia area and Six Nations for the extraordinary drift in leadership by the McGuinty government that has allowed this to continue on and on. You’ve disrupted the lives of people in the community. It has cost jobs and it has cost investments for those who live on Six Nations and those who live in the surrounding area. It continues to drift.

Surely you are sending the wrong kind of signal by having Ontario families pay the hydro bills into the homes that are occupied in the former subdivision known as Douglas Creek Estates. Law-abiding Ontario families cannot set a foot on this now provincially owned land. The lawbreakers remain on-site, and Ontario families are being forced by your government to pay the hydro bills.

Minister, will you stop the hydro—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The children in the two communities get it, and I don’t know why the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t. The children are exchanging art; they realize that the opportunities for them lie in building a stronger relationship. The children and the mayors of the communities get it; they’re working together.

Why is the Leader of the Opposition trying to support those who would so discord? Why is he looking for opportunities to take people apart rather than bring them together? Why doesn’t he work with the Ontario government to get the federal government to the table in a more active way on a 200-year-old land claim? Why doesn’t he look, read and accept the lessons of the Ipperwash inquiry which speak to the dangers of division and the necessity of bringing people together and working through things through peaceful discussions, however long they take? That’s the only route. I call for the leader to show—

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Education: Minister, today’s Toronto Star points out that rich schools are getting richer while students at poor schools don’t get much benefit from the $600 million fundraised by parents province-wide. In fact, a few well-to-do schools are bringing in more than $1 million a year through student fees, private revenues and fundraising. Why is it that in today’s public schools some children get an education worth a million bucks while others get pennies for their thoughts?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s very important that we are clear: In the province of Ontario, every student in every school receives the same number of dollars of support from this government. Since coming to government—and we did inherit a school system that had been decimated—we have invested 40% more, we have invested fully $6 billion more, to support the education of our students. Those investments are supporting students in a positive way that has had positive outcomes because test scores are up, class sizes are down and more students are graduating.

Is there more that we can do? Absolutely. We are looking at funds that are raised within school communities. We have draft guidelines around student fees, and very soon we will be presenting guidelines around fundraising in our—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, access to and quality of public education should not depend on the wealth of parents.

Six years ago, the McGuinty government promised to limit fundraising and ensure that essentials are provided by the system. That’s what he said. Last September, you said that “at no time should students in the province of Ontario be required to pay fees for any item, any

article that relates to their program.” Today, we read that parents are fundraising for computers, art programs, music programs and classroom supplies, and they are paying exam fees and student activity fees. When will the government stop playing games and stop parents from fundraising for essentials?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: As a matter of fact, the honourable member should know that we have posted, very publicly, our guidelines for student fees. The position of this government is, because we have made such significant investments in education, that no student should be required to pay a fee for any program necessity.

We are now going to be posting guidelines around fundraising. That has been very clearly the position, and we are going to follow through on that. I would invite the honourable member to review what our guidelines—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister of the Environment.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would also like to remind folks in this assembly, and for the public to understand, that the NDP have voted against every investment we have made in education to better support student learning. So it really strikes me as strange that in this assembly, they criticize student support, yet the NDP have voted against every one of those six billion dollars that we have invested in our schools. It really is very strange.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m just going to remind members that it is important that—I don’t know whether people were up too late and watched the Academy Awards and have drunk a lot of coffee today, but I just find it’s very disruptive.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Did you see the performance by the Minister of Energy today?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think I could probably deliver some raspberries to some people in here.

Interjection: Ontario raspberries?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Of course they’re going to be Ontario raspberries.

I just would ask all members on both sides of the House: Some of the comments on both sides of the House are getting—

Mr. Paul Miller: Stop the clock.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Excuse me? If the honourable member doesn’t like the fact that the clock is running, I’m sorry, but the chatter has been coming from both sides of the House.

New question.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, my riding of Ottawa Centre is home to many new immigrants, and my constituents firmly believe in the important contribution newcomers make in our community and to the economy.

When immigrants arrive in our province, they rely on settlement services run in the community to help them get settled and find a job. Recently, I was disappointed to hear that the federal government slashed $53 million in national funding to settlement agencies, and $44 million, or 85%, of that cut was targeted at Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister tell us how the McGuinty government is helping settlement agencies left in the lurch by the federal cuts?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: First, I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for the question and for his hard work on behalf of Ontario’s newcomers.

The federal government’s unilateral funding cuts to settlement agencies in our communities are absolutely devastating. I’m deeply disappointed that this unilateral federal decision will result in significant job losses, estimated at more than 1,000 province-wide, and a loss of vital services that are helping Ontario’s newcomers hard hit by the recent economic downturn.

The McGuinty government respects the important work of our front-line newcomer settlement agencies. That’s why last week I announced that we have created a one-time stabilization fund to assist eligible settlement agencies whose funding was completely, 100% slashed by Ottawa.

I will continue to call on the federal government to reverse their ill-informed, ill-advised funding cuts, and I urge all opposition parties to do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: There is no doubt that the agencies serving newcomers in Ottawa are impacted by these cuts. In fact, every single settlement agency in my community has had their funding cut by the federal government.

Minister, this demonstrates very clearly that we need to have a stable and sustainable agreement with the federal government on immigration. We need an honest partner in our federal government for reliable, adequate funding of Ontario’s newcomers, and the province should have greater governance over newcomer settlement and a stronger voice in planning.

As members recall, the Legislature unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to honour the $207 million still owing from the first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, which expires next month, and to immediately begin negotiations on a successor agreement. Minister, I understand that once the resolution passed, the federal government agreed, and negotiations are under way.

Will the minister tell us what progress Ontario has made in its negotiations with the federal government on a new—

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

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Ontario is fighting to help newcomers integrate more quickly and strengthen our economy. That’s why the McGuinty government is asking the federal government to treat Ontario’s newcomers fairly.

I find it rich coming from the official opposition that they’re telling us to pick up the phone and call our federal counterparts when they’ve done absolutely nothing to help our newcomers settle and they have been completely silent in reversing these cuts.

Our negotiations will only succeed if the federal government treats Ontario the same way that it treats Manitoba and British Columbia. We’re asking for a reversal of these ill-informed, ill-advised funding cuts. We’re asking for an arrangement that is similar to other provinces. This is a shared responsibility between the feds and the provincial authorities that requires co-operation from our federal partners.

Unfortunately, Ontario’s repeated requests and our negotiations for a fair agreement that benefits our newcomers have been met with inflexibility. Ontario will continue, however, to negotiate with Ottawa in the best interests of our newcomers and our economic prosperity.

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Toby Barrett: A question to the Minister of Energy. Five years ago, militants shut down the Niagara-to-Caledonia hydro tower project. Today, never used, white elephant power towers march into Caledonia, unfinished, worthless and wireless; five years of trestles from these power towers being used as blockades, festooned with warrior flags.

Minister, Ontario taxpayers paid for these powerless monuments to your inaction. What headway have you made since 2006 with respect to restarting this power tower project?

This is an electricity question; it’s not a native question.

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is a partnership question. What’s really important is that we move forward with all of the communities in the Haldimand tract area working in partnership.

I was just out about a week and a half or so ago to Six Nations, and I met with their chief and council. We had a wonderful meeting about moving forward together.

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is a canine question.

Hon. Brad Duguid: About three weeks ago, I met with the new mayor of Haldimand county. We had a very good meeting about moving forward together.

I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will tell you that if we can all move forward together, if we can refrain from playing politics with these issues, if we can ensure that we’re always encouraging partnerships, if we can work with leaders like the member from Brant on building a green energy future for that community, we can accomplish a great deal.

That’s what we’re doing: working in partnership, making sure all partners are at the table together. We’re going to accomplish great things by working together—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Minister, it’s been five years. The Niagara reinforcement project runs the length of the Niagara Peninsula to the Caledonia transfer station and beyond to Middleport—800 megawatts meant to serve 300,000 people. I can tell you this project won’t deliver one megawatt until you and your Premier can figure out how to get those wires up.

All the while, Big Becky forges on in Niagara, some $600 million over budget to supply the increased power—green power, clean power—to the same upgrades that they’re meant to deliver.

Minister, hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent to send clean hydroelectricity to those towers, but there are no wires. How much longer will you and your government permit this construction to be blockaded?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s enter into a debate about the importance of investing in transmission and distribution, because when that government was in power they refused to make these investments. Today, we’re investing double what they invested in transmission and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Since 2003, we have invested $7 billion in our transmission upgrades. Get in a car in Halifax and drive all the way to Vancouver—5,000 kilometres of transmission upgrades.

We’re committed to delivering a reliable system of energy. We’re committed to making the investments that that government did not make. But get this: They have opposed our efforts to make these investments every step of the way. If you don’t support the investments, you can’t try to take credit for the results. We’re making the tough decisions. We’re making the investments—

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

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Health. Bev Swerling is a constituent from my riding, and she’s at Queen’s Park today. Ms. Swerling has always lived a very active and a very healthy life, but now Ms. Swerling lives in excruciating pain and with very limited mobility because she is in desperate need of hip replacement surgery. The surgery was supposed to take place in a Toronto hospital within three months, but recently, the hospital told her she would be waiting at least six months.

Does the minister think it is fair that Ms. Swerling has to live with agonizing pain because their wait-time strategy is clearly failing?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me welcome Ms. Swerling to the Legislature today.

When we were elected in 2003—in the campaign leading up to that election, where we were all out knocking on doors, we heard two stories over and over again about our health care system. The first was about access to primary care. I’m very pleased that we have more than a million new Ontarians attached to primary care than when we took office. The second one was unacceptably long wait times. We have made enormous progress getting those wait times down. The government prior to ours did not even bother to measure wait times. Over the past seven and a half years, we have gone from not measuring to measuring, to publicly reporting, to making strategic investments—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable members—people want to hear the answer to the question.

Supplementary? The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: It is all fine and dandy to measure, but if what you’re measuring is failure, we’re no further ahead. It is no surprise that this strategy is a failure, because it does nothing to prevent the growing need for these kinds of procedures, it does nothing to drive innovation and it does nothing to drive efficiency. All it is is a numbers game.

The Globe and Mail recently reported on some of the problems with this government’s wait-time strategy, and we see today that it is people like Ms. Swerling who end up suffering. The minister says that she is proud that her government is measuring wait times, but how can she be proud when it continues to fail Ontarians so miserably?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the results we have achieved when it comes to wait times. Let me share these results with you: Hip replacements are down by 54%; we’ve taken 189 days off the wait for a hip replacement. Knee replacements are down by 53%, CT scans are down by 58%, cancer surgery is down by 20% and general surgery is down by 17%.

No matter what the people opposite want to say, our wait-time strategy has been a very, very strong success for this government. We are not done. We still have work to do; we know that. But now we know exactly what the wait times are in every hospital across this province for a number of procedures. We are determined to continue with the success in bringing down those wait times and we are absolutely committed to continuing to invest in health care. We are not committed to cutting health care—

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, while countries around the world are dealing with the issues of climate change, we know that the most profound actions to help our environment happen in our own backyard. We all have a role to play by walking to school, biking to work, or taking transit whenever possible.

Today, environmental organizations are launching a website to ask all of us in this House what we will do to protect the environment. Minister, I will ask for them: Will you come clean and actually step up to protect the environment?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank these groups for keeping the environment on the public radar. We have spent the last seven years making sure every Ontarian has safer water to drink, cleaner air to breathe and more green space to enjoy.

It’s important to note that many of the policies the groups want protected are the very ones that this government has passed. Our government passed the cosmetic pesticides ban, the toughest such ban in the world. Parents want their kids to play on their front lawns, free of chemicals. We are the only party truly committed to harnessing the renewable power of the sun, the wind, the water and the earth, getting out of dirty coal. We’ll ensure that our kids have clean air to breathe, safe water to drink and good jobs in the new economy.

It’s important for us to have all of the parties in this Legislature come clean and tell the people of Ontario what their platform is in the coming election. I can tell you that we are firmly committed to making sure that our children have safer water to drink, cleaner air to breathe and more green space to—

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: Minister, thank you for reaffirming the McGuinty government’s commitment to protecting the environment. I know parents in my riding will rest easier knowing that pesticides are no longer getting into our drinking water or being sprayed on lawns, and that we are getting rid of dirty coal, a cause of asthma attacks in kids.

The same website also points out that the Hudak PCs and the NDP don’t have a coherent plan on the environment. My constituents are concerned. Minister, can you tell my constituents what they could possibly expect the opposition to deliver in terms of the environment?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’ve always said that past actions are the best indicator of future ones. This website that just came out is very timely, because this week is the sixth anniversary of the greenbelt—1.8 million acres of protected land that the Leader of the Opposition voted against. He voted against the Clean Water Act, against 33 additional water inspectors, and a source-to-tap protection system to prevent another Walkerton tragedy. He even voted against the cosmetic pesticides ban, believing that spraying these chemicals indiscriminately was more important than our children’s health.

But I’m not surprised, because he’s one of the few people who voted against the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, all designed just to protect our children.

So I want to make it clear to the environmental groups and to every Ontarian that we are the only party that they can count on to protect the air they breathe, the water we drink and the green space that we all enjoy.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Miller’s Scottish Bakery of Georgetown has been in business for more than 20 years and they make the most delicious Scotch pies I’ve ever tasted. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s food inspection branch appears to want to put Miller’s bakery out of business. The ministry is telling Miller’s bakery to spend up to $50,000 on capital upgrades because they wholesale meat pies. It is a relatively small but profitable part of their business, and crucial to their bottom line.

The ministry is treating Miller’s as if they were a meat processing plant, but they are not a meat processing plant; they are a bakery. Does the minister know the difference?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I certainly want to thank the members from the opposite side of the House for the question. I can tell you that food safety is our number one priority. I’m going to just speak specifically to the abattoir issue, and then I’m going to expand even more in my supplementary.

We recognize that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do want to thank you for speaking to this. Specifically, with the small abattoirs, as I said, I’ll speak to that first; then, in the supplementary, I’ll speak to that.

We recognize the contribution that our rural, local abattoirs—how critical of a piece they are in the local food. We committed $1.5 million in order to assist, to bring—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Georgetown families are paying the price for the McGuinty government being so out of touch that they appear not to know the difference between a meat plant and a bakery.

Because of this ministry’s arbitrary decision, Miller’s bakery laid off all their staff—eight people—in that first week. It’s ironic that Miller’s bakery is allowed to sell their meat pies directly to their customers—which implicitly acknowledges that the ministry believes the food is safe—but they are unable to wholesale the very same pies without pushing their business into a loss position, costing jobs for Ontario families. This is overkill. The McGuinty nanny state has gone way too far. It’s time for a change in Ontario.

Will the minister commit to reviewing this matter, instructing her staff to find a reasonable solution which will allow this small business, Miller’s bakery, to remain open, profitable, employ their staff and serve their customers as they’ve done for the last 20 years?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I can tell you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I hope they give me the opportunity to answer this very important question.

On this side of the House, we invested $80 million in local food. I can tell you that food safety is our number one priority. It isn’t on that side of the House. They fired meat inspectors—we hired meat inspectors—as if food safety was not what the people of Ontario wanted. That’s why it’s our number one priority. It is not their priority. They did not make the investments in local food, they did not make the investments in rural economic development, and then they stand in the House and say that if they were given the opportunity again they would fire meat inspectors again.

They don’t care about the quality of food. They don’t care about the safety of their food. On this side of the House, we care. It’s an important, critical piece, and we stand—food safety is our number one priority, and we’re proud of our record and the investments we have made in rural Ontario. I can—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark will please come to order. The insistent heckling is hard on my ear.

New question.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. Leslie Anne Jenkins from London has a rare disfiguring disease. It makes eating a challenge, sleeping difficult and working absolutely impossible. Her doctor says it can be treated with a modestly priced drug, but her request for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit exceptional access program was denied, even though other therapies failed to help her. This minister promised to review this case over a month ago. When will she finally respond to a desperate woman’s pleas?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I met Ms. Jenkins at an event in my riding, and I can assure you that this is a case that we are working on to ensure that she gets access to this drug if at all possible.

As the member opposite knows, it is not politicians who make decisions any longer about who gets what drugs. We do have a system where experts can review specific cases and review drugs. What I can tell you is that I was very moved and touched by the conversation I had with Ms. Jenkins, and we are working to make sure that if there is a way to fund this drug, we will do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not like this is one of those really expensive million-dollar drugs. It’s a reasonably priced drug. The Ontario government has a responsibility to fulfill the health care needs of Ontarians.

For Ms. Jenkins the clock is ticking. When a sick woman from the minister’s own riding has to rely on the generosity of private citizens from Saskatchewan, it says something about the state of health care in London.

When will the minister make this drug available under compassionate grounds through the exceptional access program to help Ms. Jenkins, her suffering constituent?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: This is a woman who has a very rare condition. We are making sure that her doctor and this—I have to be careful. I cannot speak about cases specifically, but when someone needs access to a drug there are ways to use the system to—we have to rely on experts, and that is exactly what’s happening here. The committee to evaluate drugs looks at drugs. The executive officer makes determinations.

This is not a question for an elected person. This is a question for the experts. Heartbreaking as it is, I cannot and will not overrule the experts.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Yesterday, as millions of people across North America were watching the Oscars, they were reminded again about the economic power and strength that exists in our film industry.

This industry contributes millions directly to our economy; it creates and supports jobs around the world and right here in Ontario. Ontario, as you know, is at the forefront of film production. We are recognized throughout the world for our expertise, and we need to continue to attract to this market and encourage more global investments.

Minister, what plan does this government have in place to take Ontario’s film industry to the next level of opportunity?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. Our government understands the strength of the film industry. Last year, it generated over $2 billion to our economy. But the industry needs to go further, and our government has a plan to support the industry moving ahead.

One, we have invested over $145 million in the Ontario Media Development Corp., and we are going to continue such investment. Two, we are investing in Ontario’s emerging talent. This is why we are supporting world-class training through the Canadian Film Centre—$19 million in support since 2005.

There’s much more to do, but our government’s plan to get ahead of global competition is working. This is why we are seeing real results right here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Investments are critical, no doubt about it. But, Minister, shouldn’t our plan be broader? It should give Ontario a competitive edge on the global market. The world must be assured that investing in Ontario makes good business sense. This is one of Ontario’s fastest-growing industries. Jobs have been increased by 12% since 2003. That represents 23,000 new jobs. It would be smart to put measures in place that are going to support further growth. We have the locations; we have the experts. All we need is further support to take this industry to the next level, and that is why we need a broader plan, a plan that will make Ontario more competitive—a job plan.

What further support will the minister commit to so that we can give Ontario a stronger competitive edge on the global market stage?

Hon. Michael Chan: I again thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, investments alone are not enough. This is why our plan to get ahead of global competition includes key tax credits. These tax credits help the industry attract business, from the production services tax credit, to the film and television tax credit, to the computer animation and special effects tax credit.

We are helping the industry put its best foot forward. The total value of these tax credits in $290 million annually.

Our government believes in an Ontario that is open for business. Our investments, tax credits and support for the emerging talent are opening doors to more investments. Our plan is working. We are moving ahead of the competition.

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today during a question by the leader of the official opposition, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services made a comment—which you heard and I heard—I found to be offensive. The comment was: “This is a canine question.” We know what that is referring to.

There have been comments made on that side of the House that you have ruled against. The standard practice in this House is if a comment from one side of the House causes disruption on the other side of the House and causes a reaction, in the past you have always stood and asked that member to withdraw that comment. I do believe that today you should have done the same and asked the minister to withdraw that comment so those kinds of things do not go on in this House, these things being thrown from one side to the other that have no place in this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to thank the honourable member for his point of order. I did hear the comment and it certainly didn’t cause the disruption that in many cases other language that’s used in here has caused. I will say to the honourable member, in future if I hear it I certainly will call any member on that because, as we all know, you can’t say indirectly what you would even say directly within this chamber. I just ask all members to be cognizant of language that’s been used and any sort of codified language that can cause disruption.

I will give the honourable member, if he chooses, the opportunity to withdraw the comment that the other member took offence to.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Of course. I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr.

Steve Clark: I’m proud today to introduce a number of people from municipalities in Leeds–Grenville here for my member’s statement to honour Westport mayor, Bill Thake: from Brockville, Mayor David Henderson; from North Grenville, Mayor David Gordon and Deputy Mayor Ken Finnerty; from Edwardsburgh/Cardinal, Mayor Bill Sloan and his wife, Janice, Councillor Pat Sayeau, Councillor Joe Scott and his wife, Cherie, and Councillor Charlie Burrell and his wife, Gail; from Merrickville-Wolford, Mayor Doug Struthers; from Elizabethtown-Kitley, Mayor Jim Pickard, Councillor Rob Smith, Councillor Dan Downey and his wife, Vicki, Councillor Earl Brayton, Councillor Susan Prettejohn and roads superintendent Dale Kulp; from Augusta, Councillor Pauline Cyr, Councillor Doug Malanka and Councillor Bill Pakeman; from Athens, Mayor Herb Scott, Councillor Greg Kearney and roads superintendent Chris Fenlong; from Leeds and the Thousand Islands, Mayor Bruce Bryan, Deputy Mayor Heidi Conarroe, Councillor Velma Kelsey, Councillor Brigitte Lesage-Tye and Councillor Tom Lawler; from Rideau Lakes, Councillor Anders Carson, Councillor Bob Lavoie, Councillor Robert Taylor, and Betty Holman, wife of Mayor Ron Holman.

With us today is—he’s not from Leeds-Grenville, but I want to recognize Red Lake mayor Phil Vinet, former Edwardsburgh/Cardinal mayor Larry Dishaw, and Lawrence Levere representing the South Nation Conservation authority. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Leeds–Grenville.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Today must be eastern Ontario day because I’m very pleased to welcome today His Worship, the mayor of Kingston, Mark Gerretsen, who also happens to be my son. He’s in the audience here, together with my constituency assistant, Mauro Sepe.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I, too, want to take this opportunity today to welcome all of our guests here from Leeds–Grenville. Particularly, I want to take this opportunity to introduce the mayor of the village of Westport, Bill Thake, and his wife, Marlene. Thank you, Your Worship, for your 50 years of committed service to the people of Ontario. Congratulations.

As well, on behalf of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, we want to take this opportunity to welcome the students from Sterling Hall who are visiting Queen’s Park today. We hope the students enjoy their day here at the Legislature.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BILL THAKE

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m overwhelmed that so many municipal officials from Leeds–Grenville have visited the Legislative Assembly today. Thank you very much for coming.

It is a privilege to rise today and celebrate Bill Thake, the mayor of the village of Westport. Whoever said that there are no guarantees in life obviously never met Bill Thake, who has been a sure bet at the ballot box since Leslie Frost sat in the Premier’s chair here in Queen’s Park. In fact, his incredible legacy of public service has made him the longest-serving head of a municipality in Canada.

Mayor Thake was acclaimed in last October’s municipal election, ensuring that he will mark his golden anniversary in elected office. That’s right—such a remarkable level of trust he has built with the voters of Westport that he has had an uninterrupted 50-year run since his election as councillor in 1961. He then settled into the reeve’s chair in 1969 and held that office as head of council long enough to see the title change to mayor of Westport in 2004. His term last year as warden of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville was his fourth—another record.

When asked by a reporter about his longevity, he offered an answer that speaks volumes about his integrity. Thake said, “I learned that if you give your word to somebody, you were not to change your mind about it the next day....”

Earlier this month, the united counties of Leeds and Grenville presented the first-ever Bill Thake economic development award for leadership in recognition of volunteer achievements.

It is a fitting tribute for our beloved mayor. A boardroom in the county’s administration office also bears his name.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting Mayor Bill Thake for his unmatched record of political leadership. On behalf of the residents of the village of Westport and all of Leeds–Grenville, I want to offer my personal thanks to his wife, Marlene, and their family for sharing him with us. Thank you very much.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney: I rise today to congratulate the organizers, volunteers and participants who raised $50,000 for the Credit Valley Hospital Foundation during the Family Day weekend. Abdul Qayyum Mufti, of the Islamic Circle of North America, organized the Family Day Walkathon. Mufti reached out to such community groups as the Shaarei Beth El Synagogue of Oakville, the Halton Sikh Cultural Association, the Mississauga Baha’i Community, the Al-Falah Islamic Centre of Oakville, the Solel Congregation of Mississauga, the Al-Rehman Islamic Centre of Meadowvale and the Islamic Centre of Milton.

In addition to the precious $50,000 for the Credit Valley Hospital Foundation, organizers brought together both faith communities and families for a bracing walk in the cold winter air. Some 500 participants walked to raise funds for a maternal care unit, a neonatal intensive care unit and a pediatric cancer care unit. These will allow kids with cancer in Peel region to receive treatment close to their families.

Credit Valley Hospital serves its fast-growing community in new and refurbished facilities because our families meet western Mississauga’s local commitment when we need to build and keep pace with growth. Thanks also to our Mississauga Halton Local Health Integration Network for helping us make locally the timely health care decisions that Mississauga badly needs.

SYLVIA LEAL

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I rise today on behalf of Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative caucus to commemorate the life of a community champion, Sylvia Leal. Ms. Leal was the CEO of PLASP, the Peel lunch and after-school program, for 33 years until she passed away last month. Under her leadership, PLASP, a small child care centre, grew to an incredible 182 school-age locations, 20 early learning and child care centres, and 10 locations for children in the full-day learning program.

Sylvia Leal spent her days at PLASP implementing a vision for what child care should be: a warm, caring environment where children are respected, valued and understood. Because of her hard work and dedication, PLASP and their 690 employees are an award-winning child care organization. They’ve been named “Best Child Care” and “Best Before and After School Program.”

Ms. Leal’s passion for children extended far beyond her role at PLASP. She served on the Child Development Resource Connection Peel, Success by 6 Peel, Council of Champions, Fair Share for Peel Task Force and many other organizations throughout her career.

Ms. Leal was the recipient of Credit Valley Hospital’s Dr. Robert Bates Award for outstanding contributions to the physical, emotional social and well-being of children. She leaves behind a legacy of excellence in child care throughout Peel and Toronto. It is important that we remember Sylvia Leal for her long-time dedication to children, volunteerism and the community.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I’m pleased to take this opportunity on the last day of February to recognize Black History Month in Ontario and to offer my congratulations to Black History Ottawa on their 25th anniversary in our community. This year is even more special for such an anniversary, as it is the International Year for People of African Descent, declared by the United Nations two years ago.

Earlier this month, I was pleased to join with local Ottawa artists, activists, youth leaders and people throughout the community to launch Black History Month. It was a fantastic event with a great turnout of over 300 people and a real testament to the good work and well-earned community respect of Black History Ottawa. Black History Ottawa was created in 1986, when 10 different black community associations came together to organize Black History Month activities. These activities honour the numerous achievements and contributions of people of African descent in fields such as sciences, medicine, literature, the arts, sports and more.

Moreover, Black History Ottawa works with dozens of community associations and local services to help Ottawans of African descent with employment, family support and public education campaigns throughout the year.

I’d like to personally congratulate Godwin Ifedi, president of Black History Ottawa, who was presented with a United Way community builder award at the launch event.

I’d also like to recognize the other members of the board for their good work in our community, both during Black History Month and throughout the year: June Girvan, Jean-Marie Guerrier, Sarah Onyango and Ketcia Dorsainville.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John O’Toole: Since I last rose in this House to warn the government that potentially contaminated fill was being dumped on the Oak Ridges moraine, tens of thousands of trucks have continued to dump fill day in and day out, six days a week, for the last three months.

Because of this government’s promises and lack of action, residents no longer feel safe drinking the water from their tap. In fact, recently, Naomi Enns, who lives beside the dump site on Lakeridge Road in my riding of Durham, told the Toronto Star, “We don’t feel safe drinking our water.” She went on to say, “I don’t think we would ever forgive ourselves if we let our children drink our water and they became sick from it. That’s the bottom line.”

Safety is the bottom line here. Why won’t this government simply stop the dumping until it’s clarified that it is clean fill?

This government needs to snap out of it and realize what is going on here; the people of my riding certainly have. Over 200 gathered just a few weeks ago to show their concern and demand action from the government. They have organized meetings, chaired by David Langille, Ian McLaurin and Camilla Marshall of Lakeridge Citizens for Clean Water, a group dedicated to protecting the Oak Ridges moraine and our drinking water.

I call on this government to show the same courage as the citizens’ group and take action to protect and preserve our water.

On March 3, this Thursday, Uxbridge mayor Gerri Lynn O’Connor is hosting a discussion on this very topic. I call on the Minister of the Environment to issue a ministerial order to halt—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

ERAMOSA KARST

Mr. Paul Miller: The Eramosa karst network of sinkholes and tunnels houses one of the longest caves in Ontario. While the karst is protected, the 32 hectares of feeder lands are not. These historic caves and the surrounding wildlife are particularly in jeopardy.

Since being elected, I have called on the Liberal government to recognize the importance of these environmentally sensitive lands. In 2009, Hamilton city council passed a motion that the feeder lands should be protected. The member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, PC leader Tim Hudak, and I co-sponsored Bill 59, the Eramosa Karst Feeder Lands Protection Act, 2010, that would require the government to take immediate action to protect these lands from development.

After years of dragging their feet, could the Liberal government finally be hearing the calls of environmentalists, Friends of the Eramosa Karst, Tim Hudak, the people of Stoney Creek, Hamilton city council and me, and legislate protection from development of these lands?

When the minister from Hamilton Mountain speaks of a fundraiser held by the Friends of the Eramosa Karst on March 5, we anticipate and encourage her announcement to be good news for the feeder lands, finally guaranteeing that these precious lands will be protected now and forever.

RECYCLING

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: On February 9, the Minister of the Environment and I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of a Sims Recycling Solutions Canada facility in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South.

Sims is a world leader in electronics recycling. Their facility will not only create over 100 good green jobs in my community; it will also make my constituents proud to have a green profile.

This new, 287,000-square-foot facility is equipped to process 75,000 tonnes of electronics annually and offers the most advanced technology. Hazardous substances will be diverted from our landfills while a significant amount of recyclable material will be recovered. Residential consumers, businesses and governments will all benefit from these services.

I would like to congratulate Cindy Coutts, president of Sims Recycling Solutions Canada, for her important role as head of the largest e-waste recycling facility in my riding.

VARIETY VILLAGE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable contributions that Variety Village has made to the Scarborough Southwest community and to Ontario.

Variety Village and its Children’s Charity provide essential programs and services for people suffering from physical and cognitive disabilities. Its mission is to facilitate the achievement of life goals through sports, fitness, wellness, educational training and skills development.

Last year alone, Variety Village served over 37,000 individuals, 50% of whom had disabilities. Visitors and guests use an assortment of services at the facility, including the field house, weight room and even an aquatic centre. In addition, Variety Village offers an array of recreational programs, from tae kwon do to reading classes, in order to help invigorate the mind, body and soul.

The good work being done at Variety Village was made possible by the support of our government. Over the past seven years, the McGuinty government has provided over $9.5 million in provincial funding to Variety Village and its Children’s Charity.

The McGuinty government understands the vital services that Variety Village has brought to our community. That’s why, when Variety Village was in desperate need of aid, our government provided over $1 million in emergency funding to help keep the doors open.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the staff and volunteers, under the stewardship of their CEO, John Willson, for the great work they do for our community and for Ontario.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I rise today to recognize some fantastic green energy projects that are being implemented at schools in the Thames Valley District School Board in my hometown of London. The schools received funding made available by the Minister of Education for green energy projects in Ontario schools. With this funding, seven schools will be installing solar panels on their roofs in order to offset a portion of their energy consumption needs with a clean, renewable energy source.

Clarke Road Secondary School in my riding of London-Fanshawe, Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School, Westmount Public School, College Avenue Secondary School, Parkside Collegiate, East Oxford Public School and West Elgin Secondary will all be participating in these green energy initiatives, and I commend them for their efforts.

In addition to the solar panels, each school will install a monitor in their front lobby so that students can see in real time how much energy their solar panels are creating.

I commend the Thames Valley District School Board for their initiatives in making schools in the London area greener, and I would encourage all the schools in Ontario to consider what they can do to encourage conservation and to implement a green school strategy across the province of Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: I beg leave to present a report on infection prevention and control at long-term-care homes from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and I move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Peter Shurman: As Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it is my privilege to present the committee’s report on infection prevention and control at long-term-care homes.

In the past few years, there has been increased awareness about infection control, especially in hospitals. We need to ensure the 75,000 Ontarians living in long-term-care facilities—our parents and grandparents—are protected from preventable infection. I believe one of the best ways to ensure any government partner is doing its best is to require public reporting, so I want to highlight two of the committee’s recommendations.

The committee requested that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care respond as to whether it will require long-term-care homes to publicly report influenza immunization rates of residents and staff. The committee has also asked when the ministry will require long-term-care homes to publicly report patient safety indicators, comparable to the information required of hospitals. This would include information such as C. difficile cases.

I want to thank the Auditor General, the members of the committee, and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care representatives for their participation in our hearings, and with that I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Shurman has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: I am very, very pleased to be able to present a petition. In fact, I have thousands of them from my riding of Durham. I will read it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas industrial wind turbine developments have raised concerns among citizens over environmental impacts as well as health, safety and property values; and

“Whereas the Green Energy Act”—Bill 150—“allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approvals;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of the Environment revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments and that a moratorium on wind development be declared until an independent, epidemiological study is completed into the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

I’m pleased to thank the many constituents who have signed some of these petitions, and thank them for their input.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Azilda and Chelmsford, which are in my riding of Nickel Belt:

“Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients...; and

“Whereas,” since October 2009, “insured PET scans” are being performed “in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with the Sudbury Regional Hospital, its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

“We ... petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital, thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens” of northeastern Ontario.

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Simon to bring it to the Clerk.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas all Ontarians have the right to a safe home environment; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario works to reduce all barriers in place that prevent victims of domestic violence from fleeing abusive situations; and

“Whereas the Residential Tenancies Act does not take into consideration the special circumstances facing a tenant who is suffering from abuse; and

“Whereas those that live in fear of their personal safety and that of their children should not be financially penalized for the early termination of their residential leases;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That Bill 53, the Escaping Domestic Violence Act, 2010, be adopted so that victims of domestic violence be afforded a mechanism for the early termination of their lease to allow them to leave an abusive relationship and find a safe place for themselves and their children to call home.”

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks’ table.

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas supportive living residents in southwestern Ontario were subjected to picketing outside their homes during the labour strike in 2007; and

“Whereas residents and neighbours had to endure megaphones, picket lines, portable bathrooms and shining lights at all hours of the day and night on their streets; and

“Whereas individuals with intellectual disabilities and organizations who support them fought for years to break down barriers and live in inclusive communities;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Liberal government quickly

schedule committee hearings for Bill 83, the Protecting Vulnerable People Against Picketing Act, which passed second reading on October 28, 2010, so individuals with intellectual disabilities do not have to endure picketing outside of their homes during times of labour unrest.”

I obviously support this petition. I affix my name to it for Beau to take to the table.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Hamilton.

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: 97% of collective agreements are settled without a strike or lockout; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers’ laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those two provinces have never repealed those laws; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers’ legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

“Whereas the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community in the short and the long term as well as the well-being of its residents;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Madeline to bring it to the Clerk.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a number of petitions from throughout Ontario, especially the Sarnia/Oil Springs area. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas members of the Ontario Genealogical Society are concerned about protecting and preserving Ontario’s cemeteries in their original locations; and

“Whereas protecting and preserving Ontario’s cemeteries is a shared responsibility and the foundation of a civilized society; and

“Whereas the Legislature failed to enact Bill 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, which would have prohibited the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario; and

“Whereas the Cooley-Hatt Cemetery (circa 1786) is located in the Niagara Escarpment plan within Ontario’s greenbelt plan in Ancaster, city of Hamilton; and

“Whereas this is one of the earliest surviving pioneer cemeteries in Ontario, with approximately 99 burials, including at least one veteran of the War of 1812;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“The government of Ontario must take whatever action is necessary to prevent the desecration of any part of this sacred burial ground for real estate development.”

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks’ table.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a petition which reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the residents and businesses of southern Ontario, oppose any decision to terminate Highway 407 east in Oshawa or Clarington and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with the Highway 407 East extension project as planned and promised, in one continuous phase, from Brock Road in Pickering through to Highway 35/115, with a completion date of 2013.”

I affix my name in full support.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Kormos: This is certified by the Clerk and addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty immediately exempt electricity from the harmonized sales tax and home heating bills.”

I have affixed my signature. Thank you, Oliver.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of Jane Zednik and Heather Rutherford of Clarington Wind Concerns, as well as Joseph Hamilton. It reads as follows:

“Whereas industrial wind turbine developments have raised concerns among citizens over health, safety and property values;

“Whereas the Green Energy Act, Bill 150, allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approvals;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of the Environment revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments and that a moratorium on wind development be declared until an independent, epidemiological study is completed into the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

I’m pleased to sign and support it, and present it to page Nicolas.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the Right to Health Care Coalition.

“Whereas the government of Quebec exempts landed immigrants from the three-month wait for medical coverage for a number of conditions, notably pregnancy, domestic violence and serious infectious disease, we, the undersigned, call on the Ministry of Health to provide the same OHIP coverage to newly landed immigrants in Ontario.”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Emily to bring it to the Clerk.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a similar petition to the last one from a number of people in the Hamilton area.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Historical Society, founded in 1888, is a not-for-profit corporation, incorporated by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario April 1, 1899, with a mandate to identify, protect, preserve and promote Ontario’s history; and

“Whereas protecting and preserving Ontario’s cemeteries is a shared responsibility and the foundation of a civilized society; and

“Whereas the Legislature failed to enact Bill 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, which would have prohibited the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario; and

“Whereas the Cooley-Hatt Cemetery (circa 1786) is located in the Niagara Escarpment plan within Ontario’s greenbelt plan in Ancaster, city of Hamilton; and

“Whereas this is one of the earliest surviving pioneer cemeteries in Ontario, with approximately 99 burials, including at least one veteran of the War of 1812;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“The government of Ontario must take whatever action is necessary to prevent the desecration of any part of this sacred burial ground for real estate development.”

Again, as I agree with this, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks’ table.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ted Arnott: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“Whereas PC MPP Bob Bailey has introduced a significant tax credit for farmers who donate agricultural goods to food banks, to help provide tax relief to farmers and assist local food banks; and

“Whereas stagnating economic growth and increasing unemployment over the last two years have strained the ability of food banks to support Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens; and

“Whereas over 25 million pounds of fresh produce is disposed of or plowed back into Ontario’s fields each year while local food banks across Ontario face an uphill battle as they struggle to assist those most in need; and

“Whereas PC MPP Bob Bailey’s ‘A Bill to Fight Hunger with Local Food’ provides an inexpensive and common-sense solution to a critical problem for Ontario’s most vulnerable;

“Whereas if the McGuinty Liberals truly support a healthy Ontario and wish to fight poverty, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should immediately pass MPP Bob Bailey’s bill;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call MPP Bob Bailey’s private member’s bill, Bill 78, the Taxation Amendment Act (Food Bank Donation Tax Credit for Farmers), 2010, to committee immediately for consideration and then on to third reading and implementation without delay.”

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Paul Miller: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty immediately exempt electricity from the harmonized sales tax (HST).”

I agree with this and will sign my name to it.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a different petition, but also a protest, from my riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the Oak Ridges moraine; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and” indeed “a duty to protect the Oak Ridges moraine; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier government to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permit process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask that the Minister of the Environment initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process” currently under way “on the Oak Ridges moraine” at Lakeridge Road “until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to prevent contamination of the Oak Ridges moraine” and the associated aquifer.

I’m pleased to sign this in support of my constituents and give it to Amanda, one of the pages.

HYDRO RATES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Nickel Belt and Timmins–James Bay.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty immediately exempt electricity from the harmonized sales tax (HST).”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask Nicolas to bring it to the Clerk.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas there are over 7,000 people with disabilities waiting for the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services’ special services at home (SSAH) funding and almost 4,000 on wait-lists for Passport funding; and

“Whereas such programs are vital and essential to supporting Ontarians with developmental disabilities, and their families, to participate in community life;

“ARCH Disability Law Centre supported by Family Alliance Ontario, People First of Ontario, Community Living Ontario, Special Services at Home Provincial Coalition, Individualized Funding Coalition for Ontario and the undersigned individuals and organizations urge the Ontario government to take quick action to substantially improve developmental services.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“—Ensure that all qualified Passport and SSAH applicants immediately receive adequate funding;

“—Make the application and funding allocation processes transparent; and

“—Ensure that sufficient long-term funding is in place so that eligible Ontarians with disabilities can access the supports and services they need.”

I support this petition, am pleased to affix my name to it and give it to page Holly Rose.

TAXATION

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Ottawa.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Be it resolved that Dalton McGuinty immediately exempt home heating fuels and gas from the harmonized sales tax (HST).”

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Emily to bring it to the Clerk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission / Projet de loi 150, Loi prévoyant le règlement des conflits de travail à la Commission de transport de Toronto.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker.

I should acknowledge with some gratitude that the parliamentary assistant is monitoring this debate via, in this instance today, his surrogate, the member for Etobicoke North. That’s a long-standing tradition in this chamber, one that isn’t maintained, from time to time, by younger members of the Legislature. So I thank the parliamentary assistant, and in this instance his surrogate, for complying with a long-standing tradition and demonstrating their regard, at the very least, for some modest level of process.

I started the response to the minister’s lead on this last week; I didn’t have a whole lot of time. We went over a few things. You heard me say last week, and I’ll say it again because it warrants being said, that in a free and democratic society, one of the most fundamental of those freedoms is the right of a working woman or man to withdraw their labour. That’s not something that we should be dismissing in a trivial way.

I walk to work here at Queen’s Park in the morning. I come from the east, at least east of Queen’s Park, and as I reach the driveway entering into Queen’s Park, on the northeast corner of Queen’s Park Crescent East and Grosvenor Street, there’s a historical plaque; some of you may have seen it. If you haven’t had occasion to stop and pause and read it, I’d invite you to do so tonight. It commemorates the printers’ strike of 1872. Let me explain to you what that plaque says.

It says, “The Nine-Hour Movement of 1872 was a broad labour effort to achieve a shorter workday through concerted strike action. The printers of the Toronto Typographical Union went on strike for a nine-hour day in late March. On April 15, they paraded with union supporters to Queen’s Park.

Near here,” where that plaque is situated, “a crowd of 10,000 strong rallied in their support.” Now, here’s where some things just don’t change: “Employers”—that’s the bosses—“led by Liberal George Brown of the ‘Globe’”—the precursor to the Globe and Mail—“had strike leaders charged with criminal conspiracy.” So I must say this: The Liberal Party of Ontario has a long-standing tradition of being anti-labour, anti-union, anti-worker. Why, in 1872, George Brown, Liberal, had these strikers charged with conspiracy. “Seeking workers’ support, Prime Minister John A.

Macdonald passed the Trade Union Act which established the legality of labour organizations. Although certain restrictions remained on union activity, the strike won the TTU”—that’s the Toronto Typographical Union—“a nine-hour day and significantly altered relations between workers, employers and the government.”

One of the cornerstones in a civil society is the fundamental of free collective bargaining by workers with their employers, with their bosses. An integral part of free collective bargaining is the power to withdraw one’s labour. But that isn’t the case in all parts of the world. Our frequent guests to this chamber include delegations of politicians from Communist China. Some members applaud them; others prefer not to. But, you see, in Communist China there’s no right of a worker to strike. It’s considered counter-revolutionary. Stalin’s Soviet Union denied workers the right to strike.

It was considered counter-revolutionary. And now Dalton McGuinty, Liberal Premier of Ontario, has identified one group of workers—workers who work for the Toronto Transit Commission—and Dalton McGuinty has legislation before this chamber that appears to have, however embarrassing it is, the full support of his Liberal caucus, and will deny workers in Ontario the right to strike.

Let’s make one thing very clear: This is not essential-service legislation. I know that’s what the government spokespeople—that’s what the parroting has been. That’s what the Coles Notes that are handed out from the Premier’s office to the minions who serve that office here in their backbench duties—I know that’s what the notes say.

But understand the difference between essential-service legislation and what we have here: Essential-service legislation is what we have in the public sector in Ontario, most noticeably amongst, for instance, correctional officers, where, before there can be any strike action, there has to be a successful negotiation with the boss, with the employer, to talk about minimum levels of staffing to maintain core services. That’s what happens in the instance of the prospect of a strike by correctional officers.

Correctional officers, through their union—in this case it’s OPSEU here in the province of Ontario—are required by law to negotiate, and they have, with their employer—the Ministry of Correctional Services, Management Board, the whole nine yards—what will constitute a minimum level of staffing during the course of any other withdrawal of labour.

That’s not what the government proposes here. The government has created an outright prohibition. The government has repealed, the government has undermined, that fundamental right in a free and democratic society, and it’s the right to withdraw one’s labour.

I know that the bill in its

preamble tries to perform some alchemy, if not outright sleight of hand, some legerdemain, by talking about how work stoppages involving these parties—that is to say, the workers of the Toronto Transit Commission—give rise to serious environmental and economic concerns. I was particularly pleased at how cute the environmental concern was. I suppose it’s irrefutable: If the buses aren’t running and the subway isn’t running, there are more cars on the street. Okay. But we’re not talking about global warming here; we’re not talking about melting the icecap. But fair enough. I’ll cut the government that much slack.

It was cute to try to throw in that somehow this legislation is a part of the government’s green package—cute at the best.

Are there economic concerns? Of course there are. Lord love a duck, for the life of me I can’t understand why somehow people don’t think that there’s going to be an inconvenience when there’s a withdrawal of labour by a community of workers. Of course there is.

Let’s make one thing very clear: No worker ever takes to a picket line with joy. No worker ever exercises his or her right to withdraw their labour capriciously. If you want to talk about economic grief, talk to those workers who are compelled to take a place on picket lines and what it does to their families and their kids. When they’re not working, they’re not earning an income. I know that there’s some very modest strike pay. So let’s understand that first and foremost. No worker ever capriciously casts his or her ballot in favour of a strike, and no worker ever joyfully takes to the picket line.

I said this on Thursday as well. When Frank Stronach of Magna, Belinda’s old man, enjoys yet another multi-million dollar payday come the end of Magna’s corporate year, hell’s bells, he gets on the front page of Maclean’s magazine. There’s another glossy profile done of him in the National Post. He’s a hero. But when a worker in this province, when a working woman or man, dares to suggest that maybe a 10- or 15- or 20-cents-an-hour pay increase might be in order, they’re painted as slothful and indolent and somehow very un-Canadian and unpatriotic. Horse feathers. I’ll refrain from quoting any Oscar award winners from last night’s television broadcast, but bull spit.

Workers never had anything given to them. Hell’s bells, we can go back to 1872 and the nine-hour workday. We aren’t talking about a five-day workweek; we’re talking about a nine-hour workday. Heck, it wasn’t until my time in the 1950s, as I recall—my father was a factory worker; worked in a steel mill down in Welland. I was a kid when the five-day workweek was an issue for working people in this province—like my father, a factory worker.

We somehow seem to oh-so-conveniently forget, all too often and over and over again, that if it weren’t for the worker creating the wealth—let’s make something clear. Casinos don’t create wealth. They separate people from their wealth, but casinos don’t create it. Bay Street, quite frankly, doesn’t create wealth. It has its Ponzi schemes and it plays fast and loose with working people’s pension funds. But Bay Street people don’t create wealth. Workers create wealth with their labour.

If TTC workers, people who work in public transit, are important enough to the welfare of the community, to the day-to-day operations of the community, to warrant special attention from Mr. McGuinty and the Liberals when it comes to this obscene legislation, how come they’re not important enough to be treated fairly at the bargaining table?

Let’s make some other observations while we’re at it. It is a given that arbitrated settlements undermine collective bargaining. I’ve heard the malarkey coming from the government henchmen reading their Coles Notes and their spin briefs, somehow suggesting that a regime that Mr. McGuinty wants to impose on workers in Ontario that prohibits them from striking, denies them the right to strike, doesn’t prevent them from collective bargaining. Once again, horse feathers.

You know full well that management has no incentive, no motivation whatsoever—the bosses have no intention or desire to sit down at a table and bargain in good faith when they know that, at the end of the day, they’ll be able to make their pitch to an arbitrator. That observation has been made so many times.

I refer back to the submission by the Ontario Federation of Labour back in 1956 to Mr. Justice Ivan Rand—the Rand commission. Rand had become somewhat enamoured—I made reference to this a little bit on Thursday past—with the Australian regime of arbitration as compared to collective bargaining. Quite frankly, workers and their unions were frightened that he was swaying that way. So the case was put to Rand very forcefully by any number of authorities that that regime was not a healthy one. The OFL told Rand in 1966, “Arbitration is no substitute for free collective bargaining.

Where both sides know that arbitration is the terminal destination of bargaining, then the vitality and calibre of collective bargaining is greatly weakened.”

The “vitality and calibre of collective bargaining is greatly weakened.” This is a given; that is, a settlement or resolution of a dispute that is arrived at through the collaborative work of the disputing parties—the bosses and the workers—is a resolution that is healthier, more robust and more likely to be complied with voluntarily, and nurtures a healthier and more mature relationship between management and labour.

Maybe it’s time to look at this consideration as well, because herein lies, I believe, the real futility of this legislation. As I told you, it’s a hell of a way to make public policy: Because Rob Ford asked for it, he gets it. We’ve been through that. It made me recall—some of the folks here aren’t old enough to recall, but many are—the old RCA Victor ad. There was the little terrier looking at the speaker of an old-style Victrola, and the title of that painting was His Master’s Voice.

Perhaps unfairly—I’m not sure—I was immediately compelled to create in my mind the image of the Minister of Labour, like the little dog listening to his master’s voice, which in this case happens to be Rob Ford’s. Rob Ford may have been elected mayor of Toronto, but he sure as heck wasn’t elected to this Legislature, and it seems to me a pretty darned sloppy way of creating dramatic new public policy; in other words, extending the prohibition on strikes to a class of workers for whom the prerequisites don’t exist, and I’m going to get back to that in just a minute.

But during the course of fostering that image of the Minister of Labour sitting there like the little terrier listening to Rob Ford’s voice, I learned that the dog’s name in the painting is Nipper. So, here we are, a Minister of Labour who is but Nipper to Rob Ford. But I shouldn’t be too hard on the minister, because we know that this type of initiative doesn’t come from the minister or his office. Reasonably, he’s a newly anointed minister, and he’s a minister in that pre-election period when ministers are discouraged from freelancing and are encouraged to simply follow the line because things are precarious. This stuff comes out of the Premier’s office; make no mistake about it.

For the life of me, in view of the fact that he’s been a minister for around a month now, and we have seven or eight months till October 6, I’m disappointed that the minister would squander his good name for what will amount to a mere seven more months of limo rides to and from Mississauga. I don’t want to turn this into an ad hominem debate; far be it from me. But when I look at the minister’s bio, I see that his adult working life was in the Royal Bank sphere, where unions are a dirty word.

Again, that actress last night got away with what she did. If she said “union” in a Royal Bank of Canada board meeting, she would have been condemned. She would have had to do more than apologize. Her little slip of the tongue, her F-bomb, was minor compared to saying “union” at a meeting of the board of directors of the Royal Bank, or any other banking institution in this country, for that matter.

So I’m not sure; I can’t speak to the matter with certainty. I’m not sure that the minister was very strong in his advocacy for workers when it came to this piece of legislation. I try to understand; I try to be an understanding person. When I learned that his whole adult life was spent in managerial positions in the Royal Bank, and again, the banks are the biggest anti-union employers in this—hell, they don’t have workers’ comp; did you know that?

If you work for a bank, you don’t have workers’ comp coverage. The banks have been successful at being kept out of the workers’ comp regime. If you’re a bank employee and you get injured—quite frankly, those injuries tend to be some of the most egregious ones, the things like repetitive strain, the injuries that creep up on you as you get a little older and cripple you—don’t even think about workers’ comp coverage, because you don’t have it, working for a bank in the province of Ontario, in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario.

Let’s go back to where Mr. McGuinty and his gang were trying to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. In the

preamble to this legislation—again, it’s not essential-services legislation; we know that. That then throws it into the category—I think the government may have bought itself some grief in this regard—of legislation that prohibits firefighters, police officers and some health care workers from striking. These are, in fact, jobs, careers, professions—policing, firefighting—that have a direct impact on life, health and safety.

Interestingly, Marcus Gee, a columnist for the Globe and Mail—the same Globe and Mail of George Brown, the Liberal, who back in 1872 tried to have workers convicted of conspiracy for daring to strike for a nine-hour workday—questions very capably the wisdom of banning strikes. He also queries whether the government has bought itself some grief by trying to argue—the government thinks that just by putting it in the

preamble, it makes it a reality—that a TTC worker on strike is a threat to public health or public safety.

We recall the garbage strike, and we recall the Premier of the day looking to the medical officer of health to see when the medical office of health would tip its hand and indicate that public health and safety were at risk. That’s when the Premier of the day brought in back-to-work legislation, relying upon the medical officer of health, because the Premier of the day knew there had to be some prerequisite met, and that was danger to health and safety. I hear the argument that it’s unsafe when people don’t have the TTC to take them to work. No, I’m afraid you’re not talking about things quite like policing and firefighting.

However, I find it remarkable, because if the legislation passes, and there’s every indication it will, notwithstanding that New Democrats want no part of this bill or what it stands for, I think Mr. Ford is going to have the surprise of his life. He’ll swallow his bubblegum when he sees the arguments being made that if indeed TTC workers are the parallel of police and firefighters, then maybe that’s something the arbitrator should be considering when the arbitrator considers salary.

If TTC workers are critical to the health and safety of the community, and if they’re going to pay for that by having their right to strike repealed by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals—if you take a look at subsection 10(2) of the legislation, it indicates six criteria that an arbitrator shall consider, although it’s not an exhaustive list. One of the criteria is reference to the salaries and work conditions of comparable workers in both the public and private sectors. Fine. You want that comparable, Mr. Ford? Here’s Mr.

Ford, who says no, no, no, he understands; he’s not going to be coming to the province for more money. He’s got a $3-million consultant in the wings; he’s going to grease somebody’s hand. That’s not a gravy train; that’s a caviar train. Name some exotic sauce that a saucier would make. Hollandaise sauce: It’s a hollandaise train. By God, Mr. Ford the revolutionary has been co-opted so quickly. Now he’s into $3-million consultants. Mr. Ford is also back here at Queen’s Park with his hands out.

Let’s get back to the TTC. The minister, when he spoke to this bill the day it was introduced, cited this bit of data: Since 1974, there have been five occasions when the provincial Parliament has enacted legislation to end or prevent a TTC work stoppage, most recently in April 2008. That sends a clear signal—not that the province intervened, because one of the problems, and I was witness to it, was that the parties to these contract negotiations became increasingly aware that the province was going to intervene anyway. The effectiveness of the bargaining table was diminished; it was undermined. I saw it.

The TTC’s position was, “Oh, what the heck. We’ll get back-to-work legislation anyway. Why go to the table and hammer out an agreement?”

But you’ve also got something far more fundamental, because there are unionized workplaces in this province, both private and public sector, that have never had a strike in their history of 30, 40, 50, 60 years—never had a strike. And there are others with a much rockier history of labour relations where lockouts or strikes are almost the norm rather than the exception. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that that history speaks volumes about the lack of relationship between management and its workers in any given enterprise.

There’s a problem at the TTC. If you don’t know that, you’re living under a rock somewhere. Look, I read the Toronto Sun, too, and I’ve seen the sensationalistic exposés of one worker or another worker, amongst thousands of workers who work faithfully and patiently with the demanding public and sometimes—many times—less-than-pleasant bosses, where the agenda of the day seems to be the game of gotcha. It seems to me that there’s a problem at the TTC, and I’m not about to tell you what it is. I suspect that workers at the TTC, whether they’re ATU workers or others, could tell you what some of those problems are.

I’m suggesting that there are some management types who could probably tell you what some of those problems are.

This legislation doesn’t solve the problems. If anything, it makes them worse. If anything, this legislation will aggravate the problems because it’s an attempt to merely cover things up. You’re not getting to the core here. You’re not addressing what I believe, were you to drill down, is probably a serious problem when it comes to management and communications, when it comes to a lack of respect for workers in the TTC system, when it comes down to a constant game of gotcha.

I, for one, am just amazed—I told you about the little essay I read a couple of months ago by Professor Frankfurt, the professor emeritus at Princeton University in moral philosophy. The title of the book was On Bull Spit, and I’m paraphrasing the title of the essay, because it wasn’t really “bull spit,” but I can say “bull spit” and I can’t say—I probably could if I wanted to, but then the Speaker would say I’d have to withdraw it. Or I could withdraw it in advance, because Lord knows that there’s enough of it goes on here, isn’t there, Speaker? If you want to see bull spit, you’re at the right place.

One of the things that Professor Frankfurt remarked on—and I told you he made the distinction between lying and bull spitting. It helped me to understand that this government can engage in both with equal levels of skill. But he also then talked about opinions. He bemoaned the fact that we live in a Twitter society where everybody is expected to have an opinion, even on stuff that they know absolutely nothing about.

And when you listen to the right-wing radio talk shows during the round of collective bargaining with, let’s say, the TTC here in Toronto, you’re bombarded with people who have opinions about things that they know absolutely nothing about. And one of them, of course, is the myth about the high pay and the soft jobs of TTC workers, and I find that embarrassing. I find it embarrassing that our airways would even host such libel and slander and I find it embarrassing that people who are in a position to put a halt to that don’t say, “Please be careful,” because that’s simply not the case.

I find it embarrassing that these people don’t rise to the occasion.

As I say, it’s remarkable how, when Frank Stronach grabs the brass ring yet one more time and cashes in to the tune of millions of dollars, he’s some kind of folk hero, but when a working woman or man struggles to get a 10- or 15- or 20-cent an hour raise or maybe a little safer workplace or maybe a little more control over their pension fund, that worker then is vilified as being greedy and ungrateful. Ungrateful? If it weren’t for the TCC workers, there wouldn’t be a TTC; end of story. Hell would freeze over in our lifetimes before you’d see buses running themselves, or subways, for that matter, or streetcars.

As I say, we’ve got a problem when we don’t respect the workers who work in a particular working community. In this instance, we’re talking about the TTC. When those workers become the target of regrettable gotcha games and when those workers become fodder for right-wing radio talk shows and their highly opinionated listeners and callers or, for that matter, for the occasional right-wing editorialist—although, I must say, Marcus Gee was a breath of fresh air because he, notwithstanding writing for the Globe and Mail—I don’t suppose I should stigmatize him for that.

He had a very clear understanding of the risk that the government is taking on with this ill-thought-out, ill-conceived and ill-planned, knee-jerk legislation that’s a response to Rob Ford’s wishes.

If only it were that easy. I told you the other day that in the township of Wainfleet, the hard-working mayor and four councillors passed a resolution at their township council meeting calling upon this government to increase the food allowance for people on social assistance by $100 a month. The city of Port Colborne down in the riding of Welland did the same thing. Their city council passed the same resolution.

Heck, if that is how it’s done, gosh, there are two communities already that want social assistance rates increased by $100 a month to provide a food allowance that will—if you want to talk about a public safety and health issue, there’s one, as sure as God made apples. But no, the government doesn’t find itself compelled to respond to those requests. It does, in this instance.

Let’s talk about the people in the official opposition, the Conservatives, who support this legislation enthusiastically—or at least appear to. I understand. I didn’t expect anything else from them. My colleagues in the Conservative ranks have never been on the side of the trade unionists or the trade union or the worker. They haven’t, and they don’t pretend to be.

I was here; I remember. I chaired the committee that held the public hearings on Bill 40—Bob Mackenzie, the member from Hamilton, a great MPP, a great trade unionist, a great workers’ advocate, a great politician; he passed away a couple of m