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

October 8, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 8 October 2009 Jeudi 8 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S RECORD

MINISTER'S RECORD

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

MINISTER'S RECORD

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

MINISTER'S RECORD

PATIENT TRANSFERS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOG INDUSTRY

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

RESOURCE CONNECTION PEEL

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

JEAN COCHRANE

BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

DIWALI

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOOD GOVERNANCE WEEK

PETITIONS

PENSION PLANS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

FERTILITY TREATMENT

TAXATION

SERVICES DIAGNOSTIQUES

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

TAXATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

FINANCIAL LITERACY

FOREST INDUSTRY

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

FINANCIAL LITERACY

FOREST INDUSTRY

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for personal thought and inner reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 7, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 203,

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 203, Loi visant à permettre une meilleure coopération avec les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada en ce qui concerne les services policiers transfrontaliers et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur les services policiers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: By default? Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. We had a very interesting debate on this bill yesterday, and there was some good interchange. It was very informative, as members from all three parties spoke about Bill 203. I think we all learned something from the presentations by the member from Durham, the member from Brant and the member from Toronto—Danforth.

Sometimes in this House, we forget that in a very quick hour or two you can get a great deal of information about an area that may not be your area of expertise. It is at times refreshing to listen to some very productive debate. I think yesterday afternoon had a very productive tone to it, and I was glad to be here. I can't say that all the time, but yesterday afternoon was extremely informative.

Bill 203, I'll explain to those who haven't been here before and people watching, is,

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act. It's legislation that is being replicated in other provinces. Certainly Quebec, the largest province right next door to us, has introduced similar legislation.

It's going to essentially facilitate the work of our police services, which right now face a lot of obstacles that are sometimes very bureaucratic. It was mentioned yesterday by the member from Brant that criminals and organized crime certainly never recognize any kind of boundaries, especially interprovincial boundaries, yet our police forces do, and sometimes they're really hamstrung by all the bureaucracy that restricts our police forces.

I guess the best illustration of how complicated or how obtuse this can get is a very peculiar situation near Hawkesbury that the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell talked about in his riding. Hawkesbury is just at the Quebec-Ontario border. One time when I was there, he showed me this house whose living room and kitchen are in Ontario and the bedroom is in Quebec. It would be quite impossible for a police officer from either province to engage in any kind of arrest of a fugitive in that house.

In other words, if the fugitive saw police officers coming from Ontario, he would go from the Ontario kitchen into the Quebec bedroom and couldn't be touched and, vice versa, if Quebec police officers came into the Quebec bedroom, they could not pursue that criminal into the Ontario kitchen.

In fact, that's where the famous headstone is laid of one of our great explorers, Mackenzie, who came out of Quebec and mapped that area. I know they had a special ceremony putting in the headstone at the Quebec-Ontario border. Mackenzie went out west and discovered the Mackenzie River and the Mackenzie River valley. It was incredible. I'm just looking at the pages here. If you ever want to study a great Canadian, he was a great Scotsman and helped keep British Columbia within Canada. Sad to say, he died penniless in Montreal after essentially being one of Canada's greatest explorers.

Anyway, that's where he started his explorations and mapping. He was a phenomenal mapper. He mapped the Quebec-Ontario border.

In terms of the background of this bill, right now, police face obstacles when they are unable to retain their authority across provincial borders, and the bill proposes to address that. The bill proposes to make it easier for police to investigate crimes that occur across other Canadian jurisdictions, providing greater accountability and oversight for police officers from other jurisdictions also—so it gives formalized oversight when officers come into different provinces—and it creates a streamlined and efficient system for police to continue investigations outside their home province.

The legislation also provides for the minister to designate officers to grant police powers to other provinces' police officers when circumstances require that they conduct police business in Ontario. Again, the ministry officials have worked with their counterparts in Quebec, and last month they signed an agreement with them in this respect. As I said, Quebec is introducing similar legislation. Police in Ontario already work across jurisdictional lines in the fight against crime. This legislation seeks to allow police to work across borders in a more streamlined fashion.

The work this bill would allow would be for a term of three years. As you know, some police investigations take a great deal of time and are very complex. So if a police officer from Ontario has to undertake a continued investigation in Quebec, this will allow the Ontario police officer, with the approval of authorities in Quebec, to work in Quebec on a case for up to three years, and that could be extended. But again, it would be formalized with the police service on the Quebec side and vice versa.

Just to let you know, extra-provincial police officers currently operating in Ontario—extra-provincial meaning police officers from other provinces operating in Ontario—must be appointed as special constables by a municipal police services board with the approval of the minister. Special constables are not automatically granted the same powers held by Ontario police officers.

The process that exists right now is not really effective, nor does it address oversight, discipline and indemnification for civil liability. In other words, if something happens that the police officer, in the line of duty, ends up in a lawsuit, they're not protected. According to our police forces across Ontario and across the country, the present situation as it exists really does not work to the benefit of carrying out efficient police services. They've asked for this legislation. They've been asking for it, I think, for—the member from Brant is certainly correct—the last 10 years at least, that I can recall.

The Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, here is intended to create a streamlined and simple process for an extra-provincial police officer to obtain police officer status and obtain powers in our province. Ontario and Quebec have been working together for a number of years to develop reciprocal cross-border policing legislation, and I'm sure the same thing will apply for Manitoba later on and, you know, our neighbouring provinces.

Police stakeholders such as the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Provincial Police Association support this initiative because it provides a mechanism for their members to deal with the increasing incidence of interprovincial crime and enhances coordinating investigations. So it's about coordination, and it's about streamlining. It's about being more effective in the pursuit of, again, criminal activity, which readily crosses boundaries.

The interesting thing there is that you could find a case where perhaps the person is apprehended in Alberta or in Manitoba by the police in that province, and that individual may have had all kinds of charges laid against him in another province—let's say in Ontario. In many cases, that police officer is never even made aware of the outstanding warrants that person has in another province.

So many fugitives, or people who have been alleged to have committed crimes, will go to another province and carry on their activities, because they know there isn't enough co-operation between provinces, that there are jurisdictional walls that are very difficult for police officers right now to overcome.

That is not conducive to good law and order, because of the knowledge of the criminal element in society; they know that if they commit multiple frauds in one province, it might be very difficult for the police to apprehend them when they go to the neighbouring province. This is not conducive to controlling criminal activity, and these are the types of things that are not directly within the purview of this bill, but are some of the obstacles that police associations and the association of police chiefs want to get rid of.

So Bill 203, this bill that's before us, would provide a mechanism whereby Ontario can grant police officer status. They would get official status, and they can perform their duties right here in Ontario. There would be oversight, so they wouldn't be just freelancing. There would be a direct connection with the services here.

It's also a law that is in effect, in fact, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Notice here that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are not included in this, and I hope that they would be too. You can imagine the difficulty the police forces have in the Maritimes, where you've got agreements between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, yet Newfoundland and PEI don't give this support to police services and police officers who have to go from province to province. Certainly you know how easy it is to get from New Brunswick to PEI, or Nova Scotia to PEI, yet they can't really have that kind of protection.

"An appointee"—which is a police officer—"is required to notify the local police force or Ontario Provincial Police detachment before he or she performs any police duties." The local police officers, police force or police services would know that this officer is engaged in his or her work in an Ontario jurisdiction. It would be known to them, which is important.

"An appointing official may terminate an appointment if the appointee fails to comply with the act, the Police Services Act...." Therefore, there are restrictions and there are oversights on this police officer from another jurisdiction. The police officer is certainly under supervision. But the appointee has all the rights and protections of a police officer in Ontario for the duration of the contract. That is very important to the police officer in this extra-provincial jurisdiction—that they have their rights and protections.

There's also a complaint process if a police officer is engaging in activities that go beyond their scope. They're also subject to discipline where he or she is employed. An Ontario police officer who is appointed in another province or territory is required to co-operate with any investigation, inquest or hearing in that province or territory. As you know, that is very germane, given the recent British Columbia inquiry into the tasering incident at the Vancouver airport, where, as you know, they don't have a provincial police force, they have a federal force; the RCMP does the work of our OPP .

At that inquiry, ironically enough, the federal government is arguing that the inquiry has no jurisdiction over the RCMP officers who are being questioned and who are the subject of the inquiry of the tasering that resulted in the unfortunate death of a Polish immigrant. The federal government, and I think the defence counsel for the RCMP, is saying that the provincial inquiry has no jurisdiction over the RCMP officers and their actions, which is quite difficult for us here in Ontario to understand.

In fact, some members of the legal community and some members of the BC Legislature are saying that maybe it's time for British Columbia to look at having a provincial police force, because in essence, it's a question of whether or not the RCMP is answerable to the provincial Legislature and the laws of the province of British Columbia.

This is a very contentious issue in British Columbia right now, because they don't have a provincial police force. And that's why in this legislation here, there is a very interesting proviso in it that, "An Ontario police officer appointed in another province or a territory is required to co-operate with any investigation, inquest or hearing in that province."

"The complaints and discipline provisions of the Police Services Act continue to apply to an Ontario police officer who is appointed as a police officer in another province or a territory." The same rules apply to their conduct as would apply if he or she was doing work in an Ontario jurisdiction. There are oversights. There are very strict protocols in place by this legislation. It is legislation that, again, facilitates modern-day policing and essentially gets rid of the bureaucratic hurdles that exist right now.

We have enough problems with jurisdictional disputes between police officers in Ontario and the United States, for instance. I know that the member from Chatham—Kent has been trying for years to get action on Americans who race through his riding every day at high speeds.

If I recall correctly, police officers in Chatham—Kent can ticket them but can't collect the fine, so Americans coming across the border—not all Americans; Chatham—Kent, you know, is a wide-open jurisdiction with the 401 going through it, and they feel they can break the laws of Ontario because the tickets that are issued to them by the Ontario Provincial Police are not going to be collected. The odd thing is that I know the opposite occurs when we go to the United States. They make sure they collect money from you right on the spot. I think you have to give your credit card.

It's almost impossible for a Canadian to avoid any tickets that come from the United States.

This bill does not deal with the international enforcement of police activities across foreign borders, but it facilitates the work and enforcement of our police forces within Canada. I think it's a bill that is helpful. It has been called for by our police services. It certainly makes their work a little less bureaucratic and, I think, more effective. I think it will help protect Ontarians and also send a signal to marginalized nefarious people across the country that they can't hide behind the bureaucracy of interprovincial boundaries to avoid incarceration, just because of the bureaucracy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to add some comments to the speech by the member from Eglinton—Lawrence. I suspect he wasn't really planning on giving a speech; I think we were expecting the third party to be doing their lead on this bill this morning.

I think the bill, in theory, looks like it makes a lot of sense. It's about allowing police forces to follow their cases across provincial and territorial borders. As was pointed out, there are many complex investigations, and criminals don't necessarily respect provincial or territorial borders, so it seems to me to make some sense. I expect that we will be supporting the bill, and I may get an opportunity to add some more comments on this bill in a few minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I actually have a question that I want to raise. One of the difficult issues in policing is that of holding police services responsible. We often hear the complaint that police should not be investigating police. This act, at least on the face of it, would seem to provide for the eventuality that police officers from another jurisdiction could come to Ontario and possibly conduct investigations of police services or police officers in Ontario.

So I want to ask the government if they are prepared to state at this time if it is one of the intentions of this legislation that it would facilitate situations where police officers come from Quebec, from Manitoba, from British Columbia—presumably they may not be as well-known here as they are in the province they originate from—and those officers might, from time to time, be charged with investigating police officers in Ontario or, indeed, possibly individual police services in Ontario.

I think this is an important issue to get at, so I'm asking if that is, in fact, one of the intentions of the government in putting forward this legislation. I'd be very pleased if we could hear from the government on this issue; otherwise, this will be one of the issues, of course, that would have to be raised at committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: First, let me assure the member from Kenora—Rainy River that I'll get to him in a second, but I'd like to compliment the member from Eglinton—Lawrence for his overview of the bill. He covered off most of the key points as to why we've gotten here.

Getting back to the member from Kenora—Rainy River, inside of the legislation, what we're attempting to do—there isn't an attempt to specifically talk about oversight. The idea of the bill was originally created in 2003 by the law enforcement organization that came to us back in 2003 and had previously looked at the cross-border issue. Specifically, it was to try to get in front of or at least keep up with the criminal element that's going across the border.

The analysis of the bill required us to deal with what you're talking about. Police officers who are given police constable status in Ontario will be subject to the very same rules and regulations that apply in Ontario, meaning that oversight, liabilities and all of the rules and regulations that exist in Ontario would be applied, which means SIU investigations as well. So if any activities involving a police officer result in the injury of any civilian or any person in Ontario, they would be evaluated and investigated. The SIU would still be part and parcel of the investigation.

Any rule and regulation that exists within Ontario is applied to those constables entering, with the understanding of the area which he's coming from. In terms of a reciprocal agreement, for example, Quebec and Ontario have signed off on a similar agreement. That means that anyone leaving Ontario to perform duties in Quebec would be subject to the same rules and regulations.

I hope that starts to answer that, but we will go to committee and we will go further in depth on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I have to say that I fully support the issue that was brought to our attention by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Let me tell you, bordering the province of Quebec, we do experience negative effects because of the fact that we don't have the right to pursue or complete our investigations. First of all, it's costing the Ontario Provincial Police a lot of additional money when they have to pursue their investigation and they are not able to go to the Quebec side.

But at this point, I would like to congratulate the Premier. Really, he's the first one who sat down with all the Premiers of this beautiful country and discussed those border issues. This is a very, very important one. They refer to Chute-à-Blondeau, where you pursue an investigation, you get to the house and you speak to the people—you're in Ontario, but the person just has to go to his bedroom and we cannot do anything because the house is built right on the border and half the house is in Quebec and the other half is on the Ontario side.

Also, this bill would have a positive effect for not only Ontario and Quebec but also the other provinces surrounding Ontario. So it is a bill that all parties should support for the benefit of all our police forces in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Eglinton—Lawrence has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Mike Colle: The member from Kenora—Rainy River raised a good question there, and I think the parliamentary assistant from Brant mentioned that those issues will be looked at and there will be committee hearings for more input. I thank the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka for his input and also the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who again, I think, most pragmatically illustrates the complexities of interprovincial policing, especially if you live on the Quebec border.

I can remember one of the funniest things that was ever reported in the Ottawa newspapers back in the 1970s was that there was a driver who was apprehended in Ontario for speeding, and the individual was found to have a Quebec plate in the front and an Ontario plate in the back of the car. It was quite hilarious. I can't remember all the details, but it was a convoluted way of trying to avoid the speeding charge because of the licensing of the vehicle.

It seemed that the owner and operator of the vehicle would argue on both sides of the Ottawa-Gatineau border that he was licensed in the other province and could avoid the speeding charge. You can imagine that happening on a regular basis with police officers who are seeing people engaged in nefarious activities going back and forth across the borders of Quebec and Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have the unexpected opportunity to speak to Bill 203 this morning, which is

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act. As the member from Eglinton—Lawrence pointed out in his speech, criminals don't necessarily respect provincial borders or territorial borders, so this bill is about assisting police officers in their work.

Many of the cases that police officers are investigating are quite complex and go on for many years. It might be a fraud investigation, it might be drug cases, it could be white-collar crime—and we're reading more and more in the news these days about Ponzi schemes going on. This bill would allow, for example, an Ontario Provincial Police officer to be appointed in one of the other provinces or one of the other territories for up to three years so that they could follow their case where the case leads them. I think that makes sense, so I would expect that we will be supporting this legislation.

The bill establishes a system for temporarily appointing police officers from other Canadian provinces and territories, except the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers—and I suspect that's because they're federal, so a higher level of jurisdiction, although that creates some big gaps across the country—as police officers in Ontario. It also recognizes the possibility that Ontario police officers may be temporarily appointed as police officers in other Canadian provinces and territories under similar legislation. That's essentially what it does. The police associations support this and I think it just makes sense.

Parts II and III of the bill deal with the appointments.

Part II of the bill sets out the standard procedure for appointing a police officer from another Canadian jurisdiction: "Under this part, a request may be made by a commanding officer or other head of a police force in another Canadian jurisdiction ... that a police officer under his or her command be appointed as an Ontario police officer." The process for doing that is, "Before deciding to make the appointment, the appointing official is required to consult with any Ontario police force that will be primarily affected by the appointment and may consult with any other police force that will or might be affected.

The appointment can be for a maximum of three years and an extra-provincial police officer may be reappointed in Ontario" for an additional three years. So you could have an actual six-year period where that police officer is appointed as an extra-provincial police officer.

"Part III of the bill sets out the procedure for appointing an extra-provincial police officer.... If the extra-provincial police officer's proposed operation or investigation in Ontario would be compromised by the delay of applying under the standard procedure, the request for appointment may be made to the commander of an Ontario police force or of an Ontario Provincial Police detachment ... who may appoint an extra-provincial police officer as an Ontario police officer for a maximum of 72 hours." This is where we're getting into a case where it's quite urgent, and if you went through the standard procedure there might be delay which would affect the investigation of the police officer.

I would just relate this to some of the current goings-on in the province right now, where we've seen situations where there's been urgency placed on endeavours of the government, and it's really backfired and created a lot of waste. We just need to look at the case of eHealth, the Ontario electronic health records, where the Premier personally appointed Alan Hudson, the chair of eHealth, who personally appointed Sarah Kramer, the CEO of eHealth, who—

Mr. Mike Colle: What's that got to do with the bill?

Mr. Norm Miller: It's dealing with the

section to do with haste and urgency and the special requirements in this bill. I'm pointing out how, in the current actions of the government, when they've tried to have a sense of urgency, it's really backfired. In the case of eHealth, let's say, the Premier appointed Alan Hudson, who personally appointed Sarah Kramer. As we saw from the Auditor General's report yesterday, there was a real sense of urgency impressed on them, and they basically got into all kinds of consultant deals.

We've seen a billion dollars wasted with very little to show for it because of that sense of urgency that came directly from the top, from the Premier to the chair of eHealth and to the CEO of eHealth. Then the board didn't feel like they needed to do their job, and, as a result, we had consultants hiring consultants and unbelievable waste, as documented yesterday in the—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. I just would remind the honourable member to try and keep your comments within the context of this legislation, please.

Mr. Norm Miller: As I say, I was relating that to the

section in this bill, the urgency section, where a police officer can go do this faster process and be appointed for only 72 hours, and pointing out the pitfalls if you rush and don't follow the normal procedures.

Also there is a

section here,

part V of the bill, that deals with oversight. Again, we've seen a lot of lack of oversight. There was the problem again at eHealth, at OLG and now at Cancer Care Ontario, we hear, so obviously oversight is really important. There's another

section of the bill dealing with indemnification and then general provisions as well.

I would certainly like to note that in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, we have Ontario Provincial Police who, I think, cover all the districts of Parry Sound—Muskoka, and they are doing a fine job. They're a very professional police force. Of course, this year is the 100th anniversary of the Ontario Provincial Police in the province, and I had an opportunity to attend a few different functions celebrating those 100 years. I note that when I was up at the International Plowing Match in Earlton, there was a display in the parade there put on by the Ontario Provincial Police celebrating their 100 years of service to the province of Ontario.

But getting back to the specifics of this bill, it's dealing with cross-jurisdiction policing, appointing extra-provincial police officers. One of the questions I would have is, why does it not deal with the United States? Obviously that's a very significant border for our country and for our province, and I would suggest that in terms of crime, in terms of guns coming into the province—for example, illegal handguns come from the States more than any other place.

It would seem to me there's a lot of crime that crosses that border as well, so I wonder, to the government, why this bill doesn't also deal with some sort of arrangement with the United States and the states that border the province of Ontario so that our police officers could also follow the crime across the American border. Maybe someone in the government can respond to that when they get an opportunity.

I know the member from Eglinton—Lawrence has had various handgun-related private member's bills. I would simply argue that in my personal opinion, those are more about politics. In Ontario and Canada we have very strict handgun rules. You have to go to courses. In my opinion, a huge majority of the people who are licensed to operate a handgun are probably the safest people around. They have to have a permit to take them to the place where they're allowed to shoot them, usually at a range or a club, and they're very responsible people.

The problem we have is all these illegal handguns that are coming in from the United States. So I wonder why this bill doesn't also deal with the situation of cross-border arrangements for police officers into the United States.

With that, I think the bill is fairly straightforward. I think it will be important that it goes to committee because there are other aspects—in this short time I have had to speak to it—that need to have the input of professsionals and those stakeholders who might be affected by it. Give them a chance to look at the bill. So I think it will be important that it goes to committee, but I think that our party will be supporting this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened with interest to my colleague from the Conservative Party, and I think a couple of points he made deserve some elaboration so I want to just reference them again.

When the minister announced this legislation, he said it was going to result in seamless policing. As I read the bill, that statement is quite a lot of hyperbole. This is not going to result in seamless policing. For example, I note that Quebec does not have legislation at this time permitting what is described here. I would think that one of our biggest cross-border policing issues would be with the province of Quebec. I think particularly of the issues of smuggling cigarettes, car theft—because we have a number of car theft rings—and other issues along those lines.

I would also think that one of our biggest issues, as my colleague from the Conservative Party acknowledged, would be the issue of cross-border policing with respect to the United States. We have a number of issues with the American states. One of the biggest issues is, of course, the smuggling of handguns across the border. One of the other issues is the whole drug trade across the border.

When the minister responsible for the government describes this bill as seamless policing, I don't see any provisions in this bill that would address those issues. So I wonder if my Conservative colleague would agree with me that there has been a bit of hyperbole on the part of the government in trying to describe this bill as resulting in seamless policing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: Forgive our enthusiasm for trying to improve the system.

Quite frankly, what we need to talk about specifically, to the request, was on the two issues that were debated yesterday. My responses were, I thought, genuine and an attempt to try to explain why certain sections were there or weren't there.

The RCMP is the national level. They already have jurisdiction in Ontario, and contrary to what some people might want to try to pinpoint, they do co-operate with the types of crime that we're talking about and they have started to share information that at one time was not shared. The "seamless" comment we're trying to talk about is to improve the circumstances by which the criminal does not get the edge.

The discussion is not based on whether or not any regulatory stream is designed to infringe on anyone's civil liberties; it's to help us fight the bad guy. The bad guy relies on us not to make it as seamless as possible to cross the border. The very issue that the member from Kenora—Rainy River brought up was in terms of where people use the trafficking circumstances inside our own nation.

And now we're talking about the other reason why it's difficult, which is that there is ongoing dialogue and discussion about contraband and travel of car parts and cars, international and national in scope. Those discussions are going on with officials in the United States. This bill is to deal with our nation's flow between provinces. Contrary to what the characterization is, there is an ongoing discussion, as a matter of fact a signed agreement with Quebec, in order for us to get to this point, and they will be introducing legislation very soon to complement the type of bill that Bill 203 is talking about.

So, yes, maybe the enthusiastic words of "seamless" can be challenged or questioned, but the enthusiasm is buoyed with the reality of making it a lot easier for our police officers to get the bad guy. That's the purpose of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise and make a few comments on my colleague's comments earlier.

This bill is nothing but a disguise bill; you know that. Police officers from across this country have worked in each other's provinces for decades. I know a number of police officers, particularly with the Ontario Provincial Police, who work right across the country today. They're working on different cases.

I have listened to the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police; I've listened to the Police Association of Ontario. Never has this become a topic or a major concern that they have.

I consider this to be a disguise to take attention away from all the different corruption and mismanagement of the economy by the McGuinty Liberals. That's what this is really all about.

We've watched an $18.5-billion deficit come before our eyes. We see a billion dollars wasted at eHealth. It goes over and over and over. And you know what? They want to talk about law and order, suddenly. They care about law and order at a time when we just gave away a billion dollars. Finally, someone on that side of the House actually resigned over it, and many more heads should roll as a result of that.

If anything, we should be starting to look at police investigations into what's happening with this government. When you start wasting a billion dollars, taxpayers' dollars, something is seriously at stake. It's going to be a long time before people will forget this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: Unlike the previous speaker, I'm going to comment on what the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka talked about.

He talked about the smuggling of guns. I've had a private member's bill which calls for the confiscation of the licence of a person who is caught smuggling or in possession of an illegal handgun, an unregistered handgun, in their vehicle. That bill of mine is supported by Police Chief Blair of Toronto, the Toronto Police Association, the Ontario Provincial Police Association and Chief Fantino because, as the police will tell you, it's virtually impossible to convict anyone who has a gun in their vehicle of illegal gun possession.

Many Americans—not many, but a number of Americans—in trucks and cars come across the border with guns underneath their seats, guns in their trunks—illegal handguns, I'm talking about, unregistered, sometimes with the numbers marked off—and the police can't do anything about it.

That's why the police forces have asked for legislation which says that if you're caught with an illegal handgun in your car, you should lose your licence for seven days and should have that car impounded. What are you doing with an illegal handgun—or six or seven illegal handguns in some cases, police have told me— in your car? And they get off every time. They get off because the people smuggling in the guns say, "Well, I leased the car. I borrowed the car. I didn't know Canadian laws."

So the Tories can talk about being tough on crime, but they're never tough on illegal handguns. Why do they not stand up and say it's wrong to have illegal handguns in this province? Why do they not stand up with the police to stop these illegal handguns? They're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you to the member from Kenora—Rainy River, who certainly brought up some very valid questions about whether Quebec is part of the process in signing a similar agreement.

He also brought up good issues. He mentioned cigarettes. We have a situation in Ontario where 50% of cigarettes sold in the province are illegal cigarettes. That's the worst in Canada. I know I met with the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association recently. We have small convenience stores going out of business because this government is not enforcing the rules and is allowing 50% of the cigarettes to be sold illegally.

He talked about car theft—I know we have a big problem with cars being shipped internationally in containers and not being inspected—and the drug trade across the US border. We should have an agreement with the States as well.

Thank you to the member from Brant, who talked about the RCMP, and the member from Simcoe North, who feels this bill is really a diversionary bill to get away from the big problems of the billion dollars wasted at eHealth and an $18.5-billion deficit the government is now facing. Certainly I would agree that this government has lost all credibility when it comes to managing the economy when you look at the recent public accounts, where the deficit just went from $14 billion to $18.5 billion.

To the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, I'm sorry, but I think your private member's bill is all about optics. It's fluff. An illegal handgun is an illegal handgun. There are federal rules that deal with it. Give me a break. That's unbelievable. Your bill is fluff, and that is the truth of it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Howard Hampton: First of all, let me ask for unanimous consent to stand down the lead for the NDP caucus. I do wish to contribute to the debate, but Mr. Kormos, who was to do our lead, as I understand it, is at the chiropractor this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I just remind the honourable member that it's stood down indefinitely. Thank you.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I do want to make a few comments about this legislation. First of all, I want to make the comment that this is certainly not earth-shattering legislation. This legislation is already in place as law in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and as I understand it, Nova Scotia. Legislation was first put in place in 2004 by Manitoba, Nova Scotia in 2006, Saskatchewan in 2006 and New Brunswick in 2008.

When you talk to those provinces, they're very clear. They say, "Look, we have no difficulty in having officers, say, from Winnipeg go to British Columbia, to Vancouver, and have them recognized—that can be done—but there's always the issue of, can it be done in a timely way?" That's really what this legislation is about.

It's about ensuring that if you're in a drug investigation, if you're in a car-theft investigation and a car has been stolen, let us say, in Winnipeg, and you think the car-theft ring is operating in Vancouver, and that's the destination of the car, an officer from Winnipeg can be recognized as, and act as, a police officer in British Columbia in a timely fashion. That's what this legislation does.

To that extent, New Democrats support this legislation. We think there should be a timely mechanism whereby a police officer investigating an alleged crime that may have happened in Toronto should be able to go to Winnipeg, if that's where the investigation leads him or her, and should be able to go there in a timely fashion and act with all of the capacity, but also all of the responsibilities, of a police officer in that province for the purposes of furthering their investigation. We support that. To that extent, we think that this will move in a positive direction.

When we talked with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they were very clear. That's really what the legislation accomplishes.

I mentioned a minute ago the hyperbole of the minister when he announced the bill. He said that this was going to lead to seamless policing. I just want to discuss that in the context of a number of things that I think a majority of Ontarians would consider our major criminal activity problems. As I said earlier, one of our major problems in Ontario is the importation of illegal handguns from the United States.

Witness only a few years ago the number of people shot on the streets of Toronto, and I think the results of the police investigation were that the majority of the firearms were handguns that had come from the United States in a completely illegal process: guns that were not registered in Canada; guns that had arrived over the border illegally. I think people at home would want to know: Is this legislation going to do anything either in terms of process or substance to deal with that issue?

The fact of the matter is, this legislation will do absolutely nothing to address that, because this legislation doesn't address issues which might arise with American states or the government of the United States. So when the minister—and I know that this minister is often given to hyperbole—says that this is going to result in seamless policing: It's not going to result in seamless policing at all with respect to the very large problem of illegal handguns entering Ontario from the United States. It's not going to do a thing about that.

Let's talk about the issue of the drug trade. I live in a border community. I live in a community where, on average, a million Americans cross the border every spring, summer and fall, most of them for the purpose of going fishing or hunting or engaging in a wilderness canoe trip, that sort of thing, but some of them come with other motives, other ideas in mind. I know many of the people who work at Canadian border services in my hometown and yes, they have confiscated handguns. They have called the police to make arrests with respect to the drug trade.

They have even, in some cases, found evidence of abduction, people who were abducted in a city in the United States. They attempt to bring them across the border. They've done excellent work in terms of the apprehension of those sorts of things. But the drug trade is a big problem, and I think people would agree with that if you look at the some of the information that's out there about the size and the value of drug shipments that are sometimes apprehended. I think people would want to ask: Is this legislation going to do anything about that cross-border drug trade?

Most of the cross-border drug trade is back and forth out of the United States. Is it going to result in seamless policing with respect to that issue? The answer—and I think the government would be wise to admit this up front—is that it's not going to do anything about that, because this legislation doesn't pertain to US states or US federal policing officials. It has nothing to do with that, so it's not going to result in seamless policing there.

The next issue which I think people need to think about is this: We have a big problem with the smuggling and sale of illegal cigarettes in Ontario. Some of those illegal cigarettes come from the United States, and there have been various television and other documentaries which illustrate how that happens. I think we also need to acknowledge that a great number of those illegal cigarettes come from Quebec. As it stands now, will this legislation have any immediate effect on that? With respect to the smuggling of cigarettes from the United States, no. Again, this legislation doesn't deal with matters pertaining to US states or the US federal government insofar as "seamless policing" applies.

Will it have anything to do with the issue in terms of the smuggling of illegal cigarettes from Quebec? What we're told is, the government says, "Well, Quebec is working on similar legislation." But as I understand it, unless and until Quebec does have similar legislation, this is not going to provide for seamless policing on that issue at this time either. We need to have similar legislation from Quebec before this will really be effective or potentially be effective on that issue.

Even there, it's not going to be particularly effective unless and until the government of the day in Ontario decides that the smuggling, the trans-border shipment, the sale of illegal cigarettes is an important public issue. So far, I don't think we've seen any indication of that.

At best, this legislation might result in more effective policing on that issue vis-à-vis the province of Quebec—it might. We don't know yet, because we aren't certain what Quebec's going to do. The government says that Quebec intends to bring forward legislation like this. We have not seen it at this time, and until we see it, I think we're dealing with hopes and wishes.

Having said that, it's the intention of New Democrats to support this legislation, but we think the government needs to be very clear on what it's going to do and what it's not going to do. To say that it's going to result in seamless policing is way beyond the pale and is a bit of hyperbole, I would say, in the extreme. I think this government needs to level with the people of Ontario.

I think that was the real import of what the Auditor General had to say yesterday: The government has got to be open and transparent and drop the hyperbole, because the hyperbole, as the Auditor General pointed out yesterday, is not matched by reality. In fact, there's a $1-billion gap on that particular issue with this government at this time.

We will be supporting the legislation, but we want the legislation to go to committee because we think there needs to be some discussion at committee. We hope we can bring forward people who have particular expertise in this area so that at the end of the process, people in Ontario will know what it is they're getting and what it is they're not getting. I would say as well that when dealing with these issues, we need to pay particular attention to the dots and the dashes, the commas and the exclamation marks, because whenever you have policing issues, you have police oversight issues.

Whenever you have policing issues, you have issues of rights and issues of capacity, but you also have issues of responsibility, limitation and, as I say, oversight. We think these are questions that need to be examined in greater detail in committee so that the people of Ontario will have a better idea of exactly what they're getting.

I just say again, the government's efforts to sell this as seamless policing is hyperbole compared to what we heard from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They said, "Look, this bill, this legislation is really all about allowing police services to do something in a timely way rather than having to wait five months, six months or seven months for police services to get through what sometimes is a cumbersome process." That's the real import of the bill and that, New Democrats can support.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Kenora—Rainy River entertains us with some extremely impressive—and I know he has the reputation of the lawyer's understanding of the argument. In his understanding of the argument, he tries to say that the characterization of the bill is to correct all the ills and the problems of policing in Ontario. Does the bill take care of jaywalking? No, it doesn't, and that's not what this bill's going to do. But what I would respectfully suggest to the member is that if he reads Hansard, to take a look at my speech and understand that I did give some response to the concerns that were being raised by the members regarding the United States and regarding Quebec.

The one piece that I will advise him on is that with this legislation, Quebec officers will still be able to come into Ontario and do that work, which is an important aspect in, as I said, the fluid movement of crime prevention and crime work that our police officers need to do. I can give him my assurances that the discussion and the signed agreement between Quebec and Ontario was with the intent of having legislation. So, yes, you are right to ask at this moment, "Let's see that legislation," and yes, we are going to committee.

Our intention is to take it to the committee and to bring those experts there to answer some of the more lawyerly questions that do come up in that debate; to ensure that that's done.

I don't agree with the characterization of this being fluff. We have had endorsements. You didn't make that—others have, and unfortunately they're missing the point. The point is that we have endorsement from law agencies across Ontario that believe that this is another good, solid step. And yes, your characterization of this particular piece is as one of the pieces of the puzzle that needs improvement, because the bad guys are using it. Not only do they not respect borders, they actually count on our present way of doing things to delay things for them to get the job done. We plug this hole, we—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise and make a few comments on the member from Kenora—Rainy River. I agree with him. I think what's important here right now is that if the government is so adamant that this is such important policing legislation, that we do take it to committee and listen to all the experts who are demanding that this legislation be passed.

As I mentioned earlier, as critic for community safety, I talk to a fair number of policing partners throughout the course of a year. It just hasn't been on their radar as far as any of their comments to me. I haven't had a letter from any of the police associations, from the OACP or any of the police service boards. It just hasn't been out there. But if it's important that we deal with this, fine. We'll listen to those comments and in all likelihood we will support this legislation.

But I just didn't think it was something that, at a time when we're running huge deficits here in the province of Ontario, when we see all these scandals happening, the summer of scandal—I didn't think it was the type of legislation that was predominantly that important to bring forward at this time.

However, we will deal with it, we'll listen to it and in all likelihood we will support it. But in the end, let's have some committee hearings and see what the general public has to say. We'll get all these policing partners in to support the legislation and give us the reasons why it's so important to pass today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Questions and comments? The honourable member for—I want to get it right here—Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Mr. Pat Hoy: Chatham—Kent—Essex, Mr. Speaker. You were close, there.

I'm pleased to rise and make some comments on Bill 203. I should say, although I am the member for Chatham—Kent—Essex, I have a private member's bill to change it to Chatham—Kent—Leamington, which would be much more appropriate to the folks back home in the designation of that riding that I'm proud to represent.

It seems, after being here for a couple of sessions now, that we have general agreement on Bill 203 amongst the three parties. There is a desire amongst all three parties to have this bill go to committee and have those folks who have a keen interest and knowledge of this bill come forward and make their views known. The parliamentary assistant has made that undertaking, that this bill would go to committee, so we can do exactly that.

I had the opportunity to attend a seminar put on by the police; this happened to be the Ontario Provincial Police and not the municipal force that we have. They talk about "the bad guys." That's a term, a catch-all phrase that they use about criminal activities that go on. One thing they emphasized during that seminar on how to protect your home, your auto, for example, and your personal belongings, a person's purse or something of that nature: They said that the criminal element has all day to think about what they're going to do next.

They're not working; they're involved in criminal activities, so they have all day to plan what they might do in the future. If it isn't tomorrow, they plan again tomorrow for what they may do on the third day, and if it isn't that day, they plan what they might do on the fourth day. It's not too far-fetched to understand that they've figured this out, that if they can get to the border, under the current system that we have, they could escape apprehension by our various police forces. We need to give them the tools to capture those bad guys.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you.

I apologize for not getting your riding name right. Further questions and comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Kenora—Rainy River, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I do have to respond to some of the comments. The comment that if you commit a criminal offence all you have to do is get to the border with Quebec or get to the border with Manitoba and you're scot-free just doesn't hold water. A criminal offence committed in Ontario—once you get to the Manitoba border or the Quebec border, you're not scot-free. Criminal law is the law of Canada. This has nothing to do with, "Oh man, today, if you murder somebody in Toronto, as long as you get to Montreal, you're scot-free." That's nonsense, complete nonsense, and I wish government members would stop making those kinds of speeches.

This legislation does not change the criminal law, and it doesn't make any amendments to the criminal law. This simply facilitates things for police services that are conducting an investigation, for example, an investigation of, let's say, electronic gambling, since electronic issues seem to be the flavour of the day. This would simply allow police who maybe want to begin an investigation in Toronto and continue the investigation in Winnipeg, because that's where they think it originates—police officers from Toronto would be allowed to go to Manitoba and do their work in a more timely fashion.

That's what it would do. But it's not going to change the criminal law, as some members of the government would have us believe, and it's certainly not true that, as it stands now, you could commit a criminal offence in Toronto and as long as you get to Montreal, you're scot-free.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being just about 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I would like to introduce page Chantelle Colangelo's parents and her grandmother: Fiona Colangelo, her mom; her sister, Alayna Colangelo; and her nana, Fiona Swain, in the members' gallery. Thank you for joining us.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would like to introduce some friends of mine and relatives of one of our wonderful pages here today: Paola Pianegonda, Tullion Pianegonda and Mary Lachapelle. Glad to see you here.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I'd like to introduce the family of David Hemphrey, one of our pages, here today: his mother, Claire Peters, and his brother, Will Hemphrey. Welcome.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I would like to welcome my friends from my riding of Richmond Hill: Mr. Rupi Jeji and Mr. Carmine Perrelli.

Hon. George Smitherman: I hope members of the House will join with me in welcoming guests of page Mauricie Summers. We want to welcome her mom, Anita Whyte and her brother, Everett Summers. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: It's my pleasure to introduce Amy Cronin; she is the mother of Alyssa Cronin.

I would be remiss if I didn't recognize my daughter Jasmine Mitchell who's in the House today as well.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Visiting our Legislative Assembly from England and Barbados is author Andre Thomas. I hope he's going to have a wonderful day and enjoy his stay in Toronto visiting us in the Leg here today.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's my pleasure to introduce and welcome Charles Mooney in the opposition gallery today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce to members of the Legislature Bob McKessock, who was a member from the Legislature from 1975 to 1987. He's in your gallery, Speaker, along with his wife, Mary; children Jeff, Steve, Lisa and Lorie and their respective spouses; grandchildren Mark, Luke and Dylon—13 of them altogether.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome back to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the member from Guelph and page Kaitlin Wagner, we'd like to welcome her mother, Johanna Wagner and her father, Glen Wagner to Queen's Park today.

I'd like to welcome Grant Hopcroft, director of intergovernmental and community liaison at the city of London, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery this morning. Welcome, Grant.

We have with us in the Speaker's gallery Toronto's new Consul General of Germany, Mrs. Sabine Sparwasser. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guest to the Legislature today. Madame Consul General.

I want to just take this opportunity to thank pages Beth Stulen and Helen Lee for the wonderful Converse shoe that graces my desk now—inside joke. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would also ask all members to join me in saying thank you to this group of pages. Today is their last day of serving us in the Legislature. We wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier on what kind of leader he has become after six years in office. Premier, we saw, for five months, you stonewall all of our questions about the scandal at eHealth. Two weeks ago, you waited until a Friday afternoon to release a public account that revealed a record provincial deficit of $18.5 billion. Yesterday, behind the storm of the Auditor General's report into your $1-billion eHealth boondoggle, you tried to hide details of a growing scandal at Cancer Care Ontario. What kind of leader tries to hide one scandal in the shadow of another scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Not that long ago, my honourable colleague was complaining that we weren't making information available and now he's complaining that we're making too much information available.

We will continue to do what we think serves the interests of the people of Ontario. We'll continue to work hard to be responsible, accountable and transparent and we will continue to provide information that serves the purposes not only of the opposition but, as I say, the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: What the Premier seems to want to do is continue to do what's in the interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario and well-connected Liberal friends. It's clear from your dump of some 10,000 pages of records yesterday, including Cancer Care Ontario, that more sweetheart deals were handed out to the Premier's friends at the Liberal-friendly Courtyard Group. What isn't clear from the internal audit is just how much money was going to which friends in particular.

After all this dodging and delaying, after all this handing out of sweetheart deals to Liberal friends, at a time when people are waiting to get a loved one into a long-term-care home or get their kid to the doctor, this Premier is more concerned about untendered contracts and sweetheart deals to his Liberal friends. This is not the Dalton McGuinty he claims that he is. Why is this Premier more interested in protecting his own hide than helping—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of things on this score: Number one, we are determined to create even more transparency. That's why we've committed to making Cancer Care Ontario the subject of freedom-of-information legislation.

They went the other way. They took OPG and Hydro One out from under FOI. We brought it back in.

Secondly, again, objectively speaking, there has been some real progress made in Ontario when it comes to wait times for cancer treatments. Whether you're talking about surgeries, radiation or chemotherapy, we continue to make real progress on behalf of Ontario families.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you have had two scandals at the Lottery and Gaming Corp. You've had a scandal of expenses at the WSIB. You had a $1-billion boondoggle at eHealth Ontario and now an emerging scandal at Cancer Care Ontario—a Premier beset, on all sides, with scandals that see money diverted to Liberal-friendly consultants. Yesterday, in response to this $1-billion boondoggle, the Premier said, "We will do better. We must do better." Liberal-friendly firms are doing better while families are waiting to get their children in to see doctors in the province of Ontario.

Premier, quite frankly, spare me those crocodile tears. If you are truly sincere, here is your chance to do it. If you want to get to the bottom of the rot at Cancer Care Ontario, will you send in the Auditor General to do a report today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of things in response: My honourable colleague should know that the reason that there was an audit that went ahead at Cancer Care Ontario is because the folks there asked for that audit. They asked for that and they made that information public. They've asked for the auditor to return again in the not-too-distant future to guarantee their continuing progress.

I also want to recall to the attention of my colleague the finding of the auditor yesterday when he said that, "[W]e were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting work, but we saw no evidence of this during our work." I think it's important to accept the report in its entirety.

MINISTER'S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: One of the conclusions of the Auditor General was that the Premier was directly responsible for what happened at eHealth Ontario because of his untendered contract with Sarah Kramer that got that ball rolling. The Auditor General's report indicated that favouritism was played in the handing out of untendered contracts that then benefited Liberal-friendly firms.

I want to talk a bit about favouritism as well. We know that 70% of spending on electronic health records happened in fact under Minister Smitherman's watch. I ask the Premier: What percentage of untendered contracts that forced David Caplan to resign actually occurred when George Smitherman was the minister responsible?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This takes us into the area of gamesmanship on the part of the opposition. We're going to try to stay focused on what we think Ontarians want us to do. They want us to own up to the fact that there have been some real challenges over eHealth. They want us to own up to the fact that in part those challenges arose because we put in place insufficient oversight. I acknowledge that, and I accept that. They also want us to take steps to ensure that this does not happen again. We're doing all that. By way of a specific admission of responsibility, the Minister of Health tendered his resignation; I accepted that.

Now we're into political gamesmanship. The opposition wants to do more than that, not because it serves the greater public interest, but because it serves their short-term political interests. I won't play those games.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Do you want to talk about games, Mr. Premier? You should have forced that minister to resign five months ago, when the facts came forward about Liberal-friendly firms benefiting from these contracts. Instead we saw a Premier that stonewalled, and only when you were backed into a corner by the Auditor General's report did you finally act—a Premier more concerned about protecting his own hide than delivering quality health care services to taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

The auditor speaks to details about bid-rigging, price-fixing and favouritism in handing out sole-source and untendered contracts at inflated cost to taxpayers. One of the regular winners in this bonanza was Minister Smitherman's former chief of staff Karli Farrow and the Liberal-friendly Courtyard Group.

Why is the Premier protecting the minister most responsible for this $1 billion boondoggle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The honourable leader of the official opposition keeps making my case for me. This is a matter of gamesmanship for him and for his party. He said that we should have the auditor go in; we did that. We waited for the auditor to come out with his report because we thought that was both courteous and the appropriate thing to do. The auditor has made some very specific findings, one of those being that there was no political connection with—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Renfrew. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Notwithstanding the auditor's specific finding that he saw no evidence of party politics, my honourable colleague is not prepared to accept that. He wants to continue to maintain the fiction and to play the game. We won't be involved in that. We will not be party to that. We will continue to do what we think is in the interests of the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: What the auditor's report clearly shows is that it was Minister Smitherman who created the culture of entitlement at the Ministry of Health and that David Caplan did nothing to try to fix it. On Minister Smitherman's watch, Cancer Care Ontario handed out to his former chief of staff contracts worth $18.7 million. Over the past five years, Liberal-friendly Courtyard received—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Energy will withdraw the comment he just made.

Hon. George Smitherman: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Over the past five years, Premier, Liberal-friendly Courtyard Group received $39.5 million, most of which came from ministries you gave Minister Smitherman to manage. You said David Caplan took the fall because he was the one at the bat, but Minister Smitherman hit it out of the park when it came to untendered contracts.

Premier, when will you ask for that second resignation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The fundamental difference here, I think you will have come to understand, is that I accept the auditor's report and I accept its findings; my honourable colleague does not.

What we will do is move ahead with every single one of the recommendations put forward by the auditor. Beyond that, we've already taken steps to ensure that the kinds of sole-source contracts which were permitted under the Conservative government and NDP government will no longer be permitted. We've also taken other steps to increase accountability and transparency. I think that's what we're supposed to do, and those are the kinds of things that we'll continue doing

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The health care scandal beat goes on in this province: 94% of out-of-pocket consultant expenses reimbursed without any proof; untendered consulting contracts; the value of consulting contracts tripling, from $6 million to $8 million; and no performance evaluation for 75% of consulting contracts. It's all in yesterday's auditor's report on the reckless waste of precious health care dollars. But I'm not talking about the Auditor General's report on eHealth; I'm talking about the audit of Cancer Care Ontario.

Why did the Cancer Care Ontario board call in the auditors, and what were they worried about?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to congratulate the leadership of Cancer Care Ontario for calling in the auditor and for producing all of the documentation necessary for the audit to be conducted in a thorough manner.

Ontarians will understand that Cancer Care Ontario has existed in one iteration or another for over 50 years and they have, ultimately, responsibility for our 14 regional cancer centres. They take responsibility for delivering important treatments, whether it's radiation, chemotherapy, surgeries and the like. They thought it was important to bring in the auditor to take a look at their practices. They discovered that there are some shortcomings. They've undertaken to address those, and furthermore, they're calling upon the auditor to return in the not-too-distant future to guarantee their continuing progress. I think they behaved in a responsible manner.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This mysterious audit started in June. The Ministry of Finance staffers were there for most of the summer. FOI requests were made on the matter, and they were stonewalled right up until yesterday. Cancer Care Ontario is a provincial agency that receives 676 million public dollars. Ontarians have every right to know when and where their taxpayers' dollars are being squandered. Why didn't the Ministry of Finance alert the public of this audit?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, let me say what the head of Cancer Care Ontario has put out in a release yesterday. I want to quote; he says "As president and CEO" of Cancer Care "Ontario, I accept the findings and recommendations and I take full responsibility for the areas identified in the report requiring improvement.... We take the findings and the need to improve very seriously." He goes on to say, "Cancer Care Ontario management has already taken concrete steps to address the audit's recommendations to improve our processes and practices."

I think, clearly, the leadership at Cancer Care Ontario is to be commended for inviting the auditor to come in and for adopting and accepting wholeheartedly his advice and recommendations.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve clarity and transparency on this matter. It's their money, and if it's being squandered, they have the right to know at the very earliest of opportunities. The Ministry of Health received the Cancer Care Ontario audit on October 5. It was released publicly yesterday, the same day that the Auditor General released his scathing report on eHealth and its debacle. Is that a mere coincidence? Or is it another example of the shell-shocked McGuinty government's ham-fisted attempt at damage control at yet another rogue agency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure how you put "ham-fisted" and the "full disclosure audit" in the same sentence.

It's a matter of being transparent, it's a matter of ensuring that Ontarians understand what's happening over at Cancer Care Ontario, and they need to understand that this came about because the leadership there invited the auditor to come in and take a look. They need to understand that the leadership there has now said, "We will accept every recommendation. Furthermore, we want you to come back in the not-too-distant future and tell us how we are doing." That's what they need to understand. They need to see the big picture.

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is again to the Premier. People expect their government to know about and to stop the wasting of millions of precious health care dollars. But in the case of Cancer Care Ontario, it seems that the McGuinty government was again caught asleep at the switch, because it wasn't the health minister, of course, who called in the auditor, it was Cancer Care's board, and only after the scandalous waste at eHealth had already come to light. Shouldn't one of the former health ministers have known about the trouble at Cancer Care before the auditors were called in?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what we ultimately try to do when it comes to these agencies is put in place the kind of leadership that will act in a responsible way all the time. With Cancer Care Ontario, clearly they have done that. They have invited the auditor in. They have welcomed his recommendations. They have said that they will move ahead on those—they've already made some considerable progress. As I've said, they want him to come back and make sure that they're on the right track. I think those are exactly the kinds of things that we look for in the management of our agencies.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government has been on autopilot for six years, and the Premier seems to live by the old proverb, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." Well, it's high time that this Premier accepts responsibility.

The Premier even met with Ms. Kramer before she took the eHealth job. We know very well from the auditor's report that it was this Premier who directly foisted Sarah Kramer on eHealth—the same Sarah Kramer who left a trail of questionable decisions behind at Cancer Care Ontario. Will the Premier now admit that it was his meddling and it was his direct involvement that created this huge scandal at eHealth?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That is completely without foundation, and my honourable colleague knows that. What she is effectively saying is that, at my one and only meeting with Ms. Kramer, I directed her to break the rules. She knows that's not true, and I think she would want to reconsider making that kind of an allegation.

It is no secret either that I'm impatient when it comes to getting smart meters up in Ontario homes. I'm impatient when it comes to getting our coal-fired plants shut down. I'm impatient when it comes to getting our test scores up and our graduation rates up. I'm impatient when it comes to getting our court wait times down. But on each and every occasion, I expect everybody to follow the rules and to do what is in keeping with the legitimate expectations of the people of Ontario, and my colleague knows that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What we've seen is a lot of talk but very little action from this Premier. The buck stops with the Premier of this province. He's either in charge or he is not. The Minister of Health, absolutely, is gone. A billion dollars that should have been spent on people's health has been flushed down the toilet in this province. Will the Premier now own up to his own failings or will he continue to make excuses?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know it makes for a good sound bite to say that a billion's gone, but that's not true. Here are some of the things that they've done at eHealth so far: Since 2005, more than four million Ontarians are already participating in the electronic medical records program; more than one million children now have an electronic health record; and since 2008, 80,000 Ontarians are in a pilot project for ePrescribing, which will help save lives.

We have built a strong foundation. There is more work to be done—clearly that is the case. But what we will not do, as we have been invited to do by the opposition, is set aside that work; then it will be a complete waste. There's a good foundation, we'll continue to build on that, and we will put in place an electronic health record that will meet the needs of doctors and Ontario families.

MINISTER'S RECORD

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy. The Auditor General confirmed that in 2003, the Management Board called him in for a briefing about the Smart Systems for Health Agency and how to manage sole-source and untendered contracts. That was six years ago. It took getting caught in a massive spending scandal before you and the Premier changed a thing. Was the briefing for you to learn about how to fix the problems or so that you could stay one step ahead in how you handed out untendered contracts?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm going to give the honourable member an opportunity. I'm going to give him 10 seconds to rephrase that question. Stop the clock for a second, please. The question needs to refer to the member's current portfolio, and he knows that. I'm going to give him a few seconds to rephrase that question so that it relates to his current portfolio.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Because there are untendered contracts in the energy field, we're trying to set a pattern here, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: I didn't hear a question. But I will say to the honourable member that as a member of the government, I take very seriously the responsibilities that ensue from being in such important positions. I've sought at every moment of my public service to bring everything that I had to it. As Minister of Health, I was vigorous in seeking to enhance access for patients in the province of Ontario.

In response to yesterday's report, as a minister, I have even greater responsibilities and duties to operate with greater foresight, to reach deeper, to ask harder questions of all of those people in my ministry who have important responsibilities and in all of those agencies that report to me that have important responsibilities.

I give you, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House and the people of the province of Ontario my assurance that I will do my utmost to fulfill these high obligations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Again for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy: You were the minister responsible for OLG during the worst days of the OLG scandal. You were the Minister of Health during the worst days of the eHealth scandal. Even after leaving the Ministry of Health, you still maintained an active involvement in the eHealth file. Now, as Minister of Energy, you have a role in the Windsor Energy Centre scandal. Will the minister of scandals tell us how he's going to top this?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. George Smitherman: I do confess that for four and three quarter years I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health in the province of Ontario, and during that time, I know that I contributed to 900,000 people gaining access to family physicians and community care that they didn't have before. I know I was part of a government that dramatically expanded access to cancer drugs for people in the province of Ontario. I know that alongside my Premier, I participated in an expansion of regional cancer centres in places all across the province of Ontario, from St. Catharines to Sault Ste. Marie.

And I know that in the course of the time that I had the privilege of serving in that role, we advanced every single day on the most important and essential point: clinical access to services for patients, which is the fundamental obligation of—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: You make it so easy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the member from Halton.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the member from Renfrew.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the Minister of Tourism. Enough.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Throw him out.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, I don't want to start throwing anybody out, but if we're going to persist with some of the language and the heckling that is going on, we're going to get to that point. But that is not my intent. I think these are important questions that are being answered. I want to hear the answers and the questions.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Yesterday, the Auditor General's report noted that Ontario is now the last province in Canada when it comes to building an electronic health records system. We are last. Thanks to his report, we can see how your government has allowed a billion dollars to be spent, and yet we're still very far away from an electronic health records system. The Premier has agreed that it was because of his government's mismanagement and lack of oversight.

My question is as follows: Does the Premier understand what is at stake here, or will he allow more years to pass without ensuring that Ontarians have the electronic health system they need?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. I think we clearly have more work to do to restore Ontarians' confidence in their electronic health records system.

But I would draw my colleague's attention to a couple of comments offered by the auditor. For one thing, he says, "The value of this investment, at least to date, has not been realized." He then goes on to say on page 19, "One aspect of the strategic plan that we particularly welcomed was the robust and detailed description of activities to be conducted from 2009 through 2012. To its credit, the plan sets out a number of concrete targets and deliverables on each of the key EHR components. It thus represents a major step forward in crystallizing the government's eHealth priorities and plans."

We have, in large measure, been successful in laying the foundation. It's now important that we put in place the superstructure so that we have, in fact, a fully operational electronic health record system. We're much of the way there. There's more work to be done, and we will keep going.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Six years later, $1 billion later, and a foundation is not enough. We don't have electronic health records, but we know they reduce prescription errors by 84% and they reduce inappropriate drug combinations. If we had one, we would save $350 million in useless drugs alone, and for every 1,000 admissions, 75 people wouldn't suffer adverse drug events. If we had an electronic health record, we would decrease duplication of tests, increase coordination of care, reduce wait times and shorten patient wait-lists.

We don't have one, so 15% of our lab tests are done unnecessarily, and a full third of emergency room visits take 1.2 hours longer because we don't have electronic health records.

Electronic health records are life-saving tools. Does the Premier realize what the slowdown in electronic health records has done to patients' health, to Ontarians' health?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague makes an excellent case for us to continue to move forward. But I do want to draw her attention again to some of the successes that we have enjoyed. She made reference to some of the prescription errors and costs and pain associated with those kinds of things. That's why we have in place now, involving 80,000 Ontarians, a pilot project for ePrescribing, which will help save lives—not only money but, more importantly, lives.

Since 2005, we've had more than four million Ontarians already participating in electronic medical records, and more than one million children have an electronic health record now. Again, that's the foundation. There is more to do, and I fully agree with my colleague's enthusiasm and support for our continuing progress.

TAXATION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, people in my community and around the province have been hearing from the opposition that the HST is going to be applied to recreational fees. In my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, people understand the value of sports and physical activity to promote their health and that of their children. However, in these tough economic times, many people are finding it difficult to pay even the basic fee for these valuable programs.

Will you clarify: Will the HST be charged on recreational programs such as hockey and soccer?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question and give a response as Minister of Revenue and as a hockey dad. What I can share with the members of the House is that children's recreational memberships, such as hockey and soccer fees, which are offered by non-profit organizations and municipalities, will generally be exempt from the HST because they're exempt from the GST. Hockey rinks, for example, will be able to claim input tax credits for many of their costs. These items include heaters, Zambonis, refrigerants, scoreboards, equipment and energy.

We recognize that for some our sales tax reform will result in some higher prices. That's why, as part of our comprehensive package, we're dramatically reducing income taxes. I want to share with the member that, because of that reform, some 93% of Ontarians will be receiving a permanent cut in their income taxes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Certainly the opposition likes to portray the HST as having a negative effect on people when they talk of increasing hockey fees. However, Minister, I've heard you say that the HST is about creating jobs and improving the economy so that, at the end of the day, more kids can play hockey and other sports. Business also says the HST is going to make Ontario more competitive and create jobs. I know our government has supporters from the business community, including the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto Dominion Bank.

But how about low-income earners faced with these increased fees and prices? Are there any benefits for them in the short term? In

summary, Minister, how will the HST help create jobs and help low-income earners?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say to people, "You're not able to play hockey if your mom and dad don't have a job." It's just that simple. What our tax reform is about—the biggest tax reform in some 40 years—is to get people back to work. That's in everybody's best interest, to get high unemployment down. That's why we're reforming our system.

But we do understand that it is so important for people of low income that we have taken particular concern to enhance the tax credits that people will receive. I can share with the House that that new tax credit of some $260 is for every adult and child in a family. We've taken special care—$260 is the 8% tax on over $3,000 worth of purchases. We've taken great care to ensure that we're able to do this in a fair way. But the most important thing for a hockey kid is that their mom and dad have a job.

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is to the Premier. The Auditor General, in his report on the spending at eHealth, says, "Normally we receive the full co-operation of" the ministry. "Unfortunately, this was not the case for this audit." He goes on to say that he first wrote the deputy minister in the summer of 2008 and was not granted access until he phoned the deputy minister himself sometime in February 2009—six months later.

What actions, Premier, have you taken against those responsible for this stonewalling?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague raises a very important issue that was first brought to my attention when I saw the auditor's report. I think the auditor noted that this is an exception. Certainly the attitude that we have as ministers—and one that we demand that the bureaucracy adopt—is that if the auditor is coming in, we welcome the presence of himself and his team to get their work done. So the first thing I want to make clear is that that attitude demonstrated by some within the ministry is completely unacceptable, and I undertake to speak to the secretary of cabinet to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: The Auditor General gained easy access and co-operation from both the eHealth agency and from the people involved with the former Smart Systems for Health Agency, but he did not get the co-operation and access from your Ministry of Health.

When the auditor did gain access six months after he asked for it, invoices were missing. Given that there was a six-month period between when he asked and when he was let in, will you ask the Attorney General to undertake a forensic audit into all contracts and payments made by either the Ministry of Health—your Ministry of Health—or the eHealth agency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand where my colleague is coming from on this, but no, I decline his request. If there is a legitimate concern, I would have expected the auditor to raise that and to have made specific reference to it and to have made specific demands of us, with which we would have readily complied. He did not do that, and I think that ends the matter.

But my colleague does make an important point, which I would invite those in the bureaucracy to pay close attention to. Our responsibility is to co-operate fully with the auditor. He works in the greater public interest. That's our job. We're doing that in government—the elected arm of the government—but the bureaucracy has a corresponding responsibility to co-operate as well.

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister live on $572 a month?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I think that's a very important question. That's why this government, since we have been in power, has increased social assistance. This November and December, it will be 11% in total. We have done a lot to improve the quality of life of people.

Moreover, we have the Ontario child benefit that we're supposed to get up to $1,100 or $1,200—

Interjection.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: —$1,100 by 2013, and we have advanced this investment this year so they are receiving $1,100.

Is there more to do? Yes, there is, and this government, as long as there are people in poverty, will continue to invest to make sure that we improve their quality of life.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister didn't answer the question because, of course, she knows she can't live on $572 a month. She's never even in her life had to try to do it. The fact is, she can't live on $572 a month, but she expects 137,000 Ontarians to do exactly that. This $572 a month is 40% less than a single person received in 1994 and half of what The Stop Community Food Centre's new survey says a single person needs to survive. Toronto's medical officer of health says inadequate social assistance rates are making people sick.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, will this minister stop punishing social assistance recipients with poverty and sickness and increase ODSP rates by $100 a month so that they can eat properly?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the comments presented by my friend on the other side, but this government is very proud of what we have done, not only on the poverty side but also on what has a great impact on those in poverty.

For instance, the Minister of Housing has increased support for housing. We're creating more, because we know that the number-one problem that people in poverty have is to find affordable housing, so my colleague has invested $1.2 billion to help build affordable housing. My colleague in the education sector has improved the school breakfast program and all types of supports within the school system which will help those in need. As I said, we need to do more for those in need, and that's what this government—

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

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I had the opportunity to attend Dr. Jean Augustine's presentation to the members of the Legislature and their staff on the progress her office is making in regard to breaking barriers and supporting newcomers to get their qualifications recognized. Her office published a study of each profession, guidelines for regulatory bodies and a study on the agencies that assess each newcomer's qualifications.

We live in a province where diversity and equality are not only embraced through our values, they are enshrined in our laws, such as the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act passed in 2005. Could the minister inform the House of the achievements we have made so far and about the steps we need to take to ensure that fair access—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his question. More than 100,000 individuals make Ontario their home every year. Many of these individuals travel long distances and face many hardships to make Ontario home. Once in Ontario, many newcomers face challenges such as finding a job in their field. This is why we are working hard with the Fairness Commissioner, Dr. Jean Augustine, to eliminate the systemic barriers that newcomers face. As well, we are investing in bridge training, language training, credential assessment and settlement services.

We are committed to helping newcomers, and we are committed to the continued success of our program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: The minister has outlined the success made so far, and all members can appreciate that we serve a province as diverse as ours. I have heard stories of those who immigrated to Ontario to realize that their years of education, work experience and qualifications were not recognized as they should be.

We have the right legislation in place, and we have initiated systemic change, but investing in our skilled workers should also be a priority. We must ensure that there are clear results by this government. Minister, how much are we investing and how are we measuring the success of these investments?

Hon. Michael Chan: Individuals are getting jobs and there are tremendous results: 70% of graduates from our bridge training program, aimed at employment, are successful in getting jobs.

I've taken the opportunity to attend some graduation ceremonies for the bridge training programs. Some graduates approach me and say, "It is because of the bridge training program that I have found employment in my field."

Successful graduates are the result of more than $120 million in over 180 bridge training programs, helping 30,000 individuals to get a job in their related field of study.

Is there more to be done? Yes. But I'm proud to say that this government is on the right track.

MINISTER'S RECORD

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Infrastructure. Minister, you've been quick to let David Caplan carry your dirty laundry for the billion-dollar scandal at eHealth, but it is clear you still had a hand on the eHealth file after you moved to your new portfolio.

Through a freedom-of-information request, the Ontario PC caucus obtained minutes for a January 28, 2009, meeting of the eHealth board of directors at the posh Royal Canadian Yacht Club. Guess what we learned from these minutes? Your new ministry was directing eHealth's creation of a new diabetes registry.

Why have you been hiding the fact that you maintained a managerial role in eHealth even after you changed portfolios?

Hon. George Smitherman: Well, I know that fishing is a very popular pursuit in the honourable member's riding, and it's nice to see that he has brought his skills here to the Legislature.

A couple of things that I think might be helpful in discussion: First is that, on the day—

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think he's found a whale.

Hon. George Smitherman: Oh, that was a very nice—Howard, I've been working to try and slim down.

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: Oh, thanks. Those are in order, right? Yeah.

Well, first and foremost, when I had the privilege of leaving the Ministry of Health and enjoying the privilege of going on to another ministry, eHealth Ontario had exactly no employees when I left the Ministry of Health. I had spent a lot of time trying to clean up Smart Systems for Health and to reduce the number of consultants that were there.

By way of supplementary, I'll be happy to speak to the role that Infrastructure Ontario is playing in procurements related to eHealth—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thank the former leader of the third party for stealing my next proposed line about, "We've landed one big one and we're going after another one."

On page 34 of the auditor's report—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I understand this is a very intense place that we work in, and sometimes heated things are said within this chamber. But I would just remind all the honourable members of the importance of using proper parliamentary language and not using language that, in any way, directly or indirectly, is derogatory towards another member. I think we all need to continue, to the best of our ability, to treat everybody with respect.

The member from Renfrew.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will scale down my rhetoric.

On page 34 of the auditor's report, he criticizes the lack of progress on eHealth records on your watch. The auditor goes further to reveal that "the agency has decideed to involve Infrastructure Ontario in the procurement process...." He adds that the plan isn't working.

The diabetes registry has missed its delivery targets, is having its expected functions diminished and is losing the confidence of family doctors. Why is your infrastructure agency wrecking this important health file?

Hon. George Smitherman: Well, first off, I do want to say to the honourable member on that other point that he was raising that since the beginning of August, I have taken more seriously my diet, and I am down two shirt sizes—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, just please let's stick to the issue. I'm going to start the clock and I'm just going to continue to let the clock run if we're going to continue with this. And I would say to all sides that any references to personal appearance or whatever are not acceptable on all sides, whether it is in a question or whether it is in an answer. Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I didn't consider a reference to my own self as petty. I was acknowledging that I'm a work in progress. My husband works for a chocolate company. It has its challenges; I have to admit it.

I think that on the matter at hand, in the circumstances where big pieces of infrastructure are required to be constructed, this government, through its agency Infrastructure Ontario, has gotten more of that done than any government in the history of the province of Ontario. It was decided therefore that it might be appropriate that Infrastructure Ontario, with its expertise at procurement and involvement in these kinds of situations and the construction of big pieces of infrastructure, could play a role.

I believe they're playing a constructive role, and we're all very motivated to deliver the electronic health record that everybody wants and needs in the province of Ontario because we've invested so heavily in building the foundation of it that makes it possible.

PATIENT TRANSFERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Emergency department physicians at Sault area hospitals have taken the extraordinary step of alerting the media to a very serious situation there. The doctors are demanding that the Ministry of Health provide timely evacuation of critically ill patients to specialty centres when local expertise is not available. They are very concerned that long delays to get air ambulances to transfer critical patients are happening. Yesterday, the auditor pointed out $1 billion in wasted eHealth money. My question: Are critically injured patients in Sault Ste. Marie paying for the $1-billion boondoggle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Applause.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, and thank you to the member for her question. I do confess that this is not an issue that I have yet been briefed on. I think I am in hour 26 of my job. But I can assure you that I will look into this and get back to the member as soon as I can, when I have information that relates to this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps I'll take a moment to enlighten the minister. In Sault Ste. Marie, the nearest centre for specialty care is across the border in Michigan. When it's necessary, emergency room physicians will refer patients to specialist hospitals in Michigan to save precious time because, in the case of critical injuries, minutes and seconds do matter. But when a patient needs to be transported over to the US for treatment, the Ministry of Health has refused to pay for the cost of that transportation. Why is the McGuinty government willing to pay $1 billion for eHealth insiders with little to show for it while abandoning critically-ill patients in Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think when it comes to delivering improved health care for the residents of Sault Ste. Marie, it's really important to acknowledge that we're building a brand new hospital for the people of Sault Ste. Marie. I think it's also important to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinarily fine work of our health care professionals.

It's my job to make sure that every dollar we spend on health care goes to support people with better health care in this province. We're moving forward on that agenda. We're making great progress. There is more to be done, and as I said, I will look into this specific situation and get back to the member.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It is no secret that many Ontario families have had a hard time making ends meet over the last year due to the economic downturn. Whether they're trying to pay for warm clothes for the winter, nutritious meals or rent and hydro, household budgets have been stretched. I believe that it's our duty to ensure that no Ontarian has to struggle to give their family these necessities. Many people I speak to in this situation just need a little extra help to get back on their feet.

Minister, we have heard about your consultations to develop a long-term affordable housing strategy for Ontario, but what are you doing to help these people today? How is the minister making the fundamental needs of safe and secure shelter more accessible to Ontarians who need—

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

Hon. Jim Watson: The member is correct; we are conducting the long-term affordable housing strategy consultations, but we're not waiting for the results of those consultations. We are investing a significant amount of money today in communities like Richmond Hill: for instance, in York region alone, $2.6 million in funding for social housing repair. On top of that, York region will benefit from another $14.4 million over the next two years from our social housing repair and retrofit program. In fact, an example: I know the honourable member knows well that the Richmond Hill co-op on Bayview Avenue will see 59 units renovated under this particular program.

These investments are important to individuals to ensure that they live in a clean, safe and affordable home. We're committed to making sure the money flows as quickly as possible, because this is a joint federal-provincial program. We want all that money to be invested in Ontario and stay here, repairing and building new homes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: I'm sure the minister saw first-hand during his province-wide long-term affordable housing strategy consultation sessions that these struggles are not limited to geographic areas or urban and rural boundaries. People across the province have voiced their concerns and suggestions about affordable housing. I'm happy to hear that the citizens of York region and of my riding of Richmond Hill have access to housing assistance. However, I know that I'm not the only member of this House advocating for affordable housing in their region.

What other help is the ministry offering to social housing providers, their tenants and other Ontarians looking to secure decent housing in the province?

Hon. Jim Watson: There are a number of initiatives that we're undertaking. One is, of course, the $622 million that the McGuinty government has committed in its recent budget, that will be matched by the federal government's contribution to bring the total over the next two years to $1.2 billion. This will create an opportunity for us to retrofit and renovate 50,000 housing units province-wide, as well as build 4,500 housing units—in the interim, creating 23,000 jobs.

We also have the very successful rent bank program. That is now a permanent program within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Since 2004, 981 families in York region have been able to stay in their homes and stave off eviction. York region has received $1.37 million for this project. It's a very sensible, thoughtful program that works well to ensure those individuals and their families are not upset with the turmoil of eviction. We're proud that it's now a permanent program of the McGuinty government.

HOG INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, hog farmers in Ontario have been hit with one thing after another: rising costs, low market prices, flawed programs from the McGuinty government, and now the H1N1. All they get from the minister is to be told, "Be quiet and wait for a long-term solution." The federal government has announced a program to help these farmers, but still no sound from the provincial minister. Minister, why haven't you stepped up to the plate with at least your 40% of the federal program?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I appreciate the opportunity to share with the members of the Legislature—and to reiterate for the members of the hog community—that this government has been working with our provincial colleagues in understanding what the best way is to support the industry. In July, when we were in Niagara-on-the-Lake, the provincial ministers recognized this as a national issue—and it does require a national response. The Canadian Pork Council put their requests to the federal government, and on August 15 the federal minister of agriculture did respond.

All of the provinces in Canada are pleased that the federal government has recognized why it is so important that we have a national response to this issue that provides hog producers with options in terms of what they can—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to thank the minister for being so complimentary about the federal Conservative government at least stepping forward to help our farmers. But, Minister, hog farmers in Ontario are losing their farms today. They came to Niagara-on-the-Lake this summer to tell you, but you wouldn't talk to them. We now find out that while were you in Niagara, you could afford to drink $3,300 worth of wine, hire a band to play music for $3,500 and even find $110 to buy mosquito repellent. This is all on the taxpayer's dime, and you couldn't find a nickel for our hog farmers.

You couldn't even find any time to talk to them. Minister, do you think that's appropriate that you wouldn't even talk to them?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This summer in July, the province of Ontario hosted the provincial ministers' conference. This was the first time we had hosted the conference in 10 years. What I can say to the honourable member is that we did our very best, given the economic times in which we are, to reduce expenses. We have had the very generous support of our stakeholders.

At the end of this event, what I can say is that the cost of hosting this event—we did it for less money than was spent 10 years ago when the member's party had the privilege of hosting it. We did it for less money. So we have been trying to be responsible with the dollars, and we certainly—

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

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On August 21, workers at DriveTest Serco went on strike over matters directly related to road safety in this province. Since Serco acquired the right to provide driver examination services from the MTO in September 2003, there has been a significant reduction in the quality of driving examinations, threatening road safety in this province. Will this government immediately commit to reviewing the delegation agreement between MTO and DriveTest to ensure that public safety is not compromised in this province?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would say to the member: First of all, that is done on an ongoing basis. He would recognize that there is a strike on at the present time, and there are two sides who, I understand, are back at the negotiating table, trying to resolve their differences.

He will know that the previous Conservative government in the year 2003 signed a 10-year contract with Serco to deliver these services. It is our hope, and I know the Minister of Labour is being helpful in this regard, that with mediation efforts, once again, the two sides can be brought together and resolve what are some difficult differences that they've had. Ultimately, of course, we want to ensure that the people of Ontario are best served by the services that are provided. I'm looking forward with anticipation to the two sides engaging in meaningful negotiations and coming up with a collective agreement.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the concern of the Minister of Transportation, but if in fact you've been reviewing that agreement, then the reduction in the quality of testing for school bus drivers is something that must have been brought to your attention. Are you in fact reviewing that agreement, and will you take steps to bring driver testing back into the public sector?

Hon. James J. Bradley: You're with a party that is always interested in collective agreements being reached and in collective bargaining, and I think you know that in the midst of collective bargaining, to introduce situations such as this does not militate in favour of a resolution of it. For instance, if the company were to bring in replacement workers, I think you would be justifiably concerned about that. If there's any interference that takes place during the negotiations, unfortunately what that does is, it means that an agreement isn't reached.

I know that your party has been interested in collective agreements over the years, even though you tore up every public sector collective agreement back when you were in power with the social contract. I know that basically you understand the importance of collective agreements, and I don't want—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As you are aware, the Minister of the Environment has approved the environmental projects report for the Georgetown South service expansion and the Union-Pearson air-rail link submitted by Metrolinx and has attached 18 strict conditions to his approval. One of the conditions is that the trains that travel to, from and through Georgetown along the Georgetown South corridor shall be tier-4 compliant when the service begins in 2015 or as soon as the tier-4-compliant technology becomes commercially available.

Some of my constituents still worry about diesel-powered trains. Can the minister describe how tier-4 compliance reduces harmful emissions to minimal levels?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I want to say that the advocacy of this member on behalf of her community has just been outstanding on this and many other issues as well. She is quite correct that we have implemented 18 tough conditions with respect to the approval process. Tier-4 engine technology has been designated by the EPA in the USA—standards that we have adopted here in Canada—to be available by the year 2015, when we expect these engines to be available here in Canada as well.

They expect to be in production at that point in time, and we expect that those diesel engines will be utilized here. What it will mean is that the emissions, over current engines, will be approximately 90% less with respect to particulate matter and 80% less with respect to nitrogen oxides. That is good for the environment. It's good to get people out of their cars, off the roads and into transit. Everybody benefits, including the people of York South—Weston.

VISITORS

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

I just want to take this opportunity to welcome a couple of our colleagues from the federal House: Claude Gravelle, the MP from Nickel Belt; and Glenn Thibeault, the MP from Sudbury. I hope you enjoyed our question period today. Welcome, gentlemen.

I just want to take this opportunity to wish all members a happy Thanksgiving. Make sure that when you're out buying your turkey and food, buy local, buy Ontario, buy Canadian. Please do it.

This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

M me France Gélinas: There are a few guests with me today. They're in the gallery; some of them are upstairs. I'll start in alphabetical order:

Mark Bradley; Bill Belowos; Jim Rollo; Dan Neilsen; Shawn Smith; Joe Guido; Chris True; Ray Hammond; Bernie Arsenault; Mike O'Brian; Ned McDonald; Cam Duncan; Derek Craig; Todd Guthrie; Brent Laaskonen; J.P.

Mrochek; Alex Patterson; Denis Therrieau; Lyle Young; John Laundry; Ryan Chabot; Guy Lamarche; Jim Levac; Norm Black; Mark Desjardins; Denis Barbeau; Jamie West; Carol Mulligan; Charlie Sullivan; Eric McNeil; Steve Saari; Pascal Boucher; Gord Courville; Guy Shank; John Vandenhouvel; Kevin Morley; Denis Robichaud; Eric Delparte; Nick Larochelle; Jacek Zantarski; Eric Gagne; Brian Hailey; Tim Smith; Jerzy Sredniawski; Rob Morano; Mike Prevost; Claude Laliberte; Bob Boileau; Kelly Kydd; and Al Michaud.

Welcome to Queen's Park. Those are people from my riding and from the Sudbury riding.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think the honourable member from Nickel Belt has just set the new record for the longest introduction. We congratulate her on that.

We welcome our guests. We just remind our guests that you are allowed to observe but not participate, as much as you may wish, in any of the debate. Enjoy your visit to Queen's Park today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to say that this is Fire Prevention Week in the province of Ontario. Last weekend I pointed out that we had a huge display of fire prevention equipment, and the fire prevention officers worked with the local police chiefs and the police associations to bring awareness to Fire Prevention Week at the Home Depot mall in Orillia. There's an opportunity for people to donate to the fundraising campaign for MS. They had depots all around the community for that. They're trying to make an overall impression on fire prevention.

Also, I attended the firefighters' memorial here at Queen's Park. Of course, that all ties into this week as well.

But one thing I wanted to point out is that the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs pointed out very, very clearly that presumptive legislation is not extended to volunteer firefighters right now. Even in the speech at the memorial, he asked that the province of Ontario move forward with this. I know my colleague Mr. Arnott has introduced a private member's bill that was turned down by this House.

As we move forward and we want to protect our firefighters and have them take preventive measures in our communities, we must provide for them the same benefits that are applied to our professional firefighters across the province. We know that the professional firefighters agree with this and we ask the minister to move forward quickly with this presumptive legislation.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

RESOURCE CONNECTION PEEL

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: On June 24, I had the pleasure of attending the annual general meeting of Child Development Resource Connection Peel. The meeting was held at the CDRCP's new office, which I'm very proud to say is located in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South.

CDRCP is a non-profit organization that connects community and practitioners with information, resources, training and services t