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

February 24, 2010

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Feb-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 February 2010 Mercredi 24 février 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

LONG-TERM CARE

TAXATION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TOURISM

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

NORTHERN ECONOMY

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SMART METERS

ENERGY CONTRACTS

JOHN BABCOCK

MUNICIPAL CONFERENCES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

LOCAL DEMOCRACY WEEK

DISASTER RELIEF

FIRST AID TRAINING

TESSA VIRTUE AND SCOTT MOIR

TABLING OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

TAXATION

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FULL DAY EARLY LEARNING

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'APPRENTISSAGE

DES JEUNES ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS D'ÉNERGIE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 17, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 235,

An Act to enact the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 235, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur la protection des consommateurs d'énergie et modifiant d'autres lois.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: Speaker, I was at the tail end of my 20 minutes, and I believe I've got about three or four minutes left. I wanted to do a little bit of a wrap-up by reviewing the issues that I brought before the House in regard to Bill 235, the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010.

What we talked about were the seven key problems that were identified by the public for the retailers, which were: salespersons' practices at the door–consumers don't have the information they need to decide because of language barriers; verbal contracts, usually by phone; contracts not with an account holder; consumers feeling pressured into signing a contract at the door—pressure tactics; unfair cancellation policies and fees; automatic renewal of gas contracts; electricity retailers and gas marketers not having accountability because they put third party collectors in there, and we need to have them culpable for their actions.

Fixed contracts don't clearly disclose all the costs or offer products promoting conservation.

Those kinds of issues during that particular

section of the bill were explained both by the minister and by myself. We now move to suite metering, which allows us to identify some of the problems there, which were: no framework to install suite metering in rental apartment buildings, no rules for individual billing in rental apartment buildings, and the like. The other one is regarding deposits and disconnections, which was important, and that is that gas and electricity companies work under different rules regarding invoices, disconnecting and security charges, which this bill will address.

The bill will not cover all the issues that I'm sure the opposition and others, including ourselves, would want to discuss. It's not the kind of bill that is somewhat of an omnibus bill, but as I indicated, I as parliamentary assistant have an extreme willingness to listen to concerns and to the issues. I reinforce one more time that we will definitely be going into committee and having the stakeholders and the public at large make presentations. One more point that I made clear to the opposition when they asked was that we will definitely be doing a consultation when we deal with the regulatory stream that accompanies the bill.

I do look forward to further debate, further discussion, further issues that need to be raised. And as parliamentary assistant to the previous minister, I make the same commitment today; that is, I will engage in a listening exercise and make sure that if good ideas will help us make it a better bill, I will be encouraging all staff to participate in that activity to ensure that we do protect consumers in a bill where we say we are trying to protect the consumer.

Having said that, I will wait for the responses from the opposition and from my members, and look forward to continuation of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm very pleased to respond to this important bill. The member from Brant, as I recall, summarized some of his concerns. I do want to acknowledge that I hope to have the opportunity to speak on this this morning. There are so many people on our side of the House who are here and want to speak—well, one of them is actually leaving now.

One of the things, the sub-metering, does become an issue. When you get into the apartments, many of which are not efficient, the actual discretionary use—discretionary use at time—is very important. A lot of them are seniors—not all but a lot. A lot have income—not all; I don't like to generalize with any particular group. A lot are often in a situation where they don't have a lot of control.

The real treachery of the smart meter itself is that it is really not a smart meter. I see Phil here. He's an engineer; he knows. A smart meter would allow you to remotely turn on and off appliances such as hot water heaters or air conditioners. That's a smart meter. This is actually a time-of-use meter. It's a disguise, because—and people of Ontario should pay attention here—they're actually raising the price of electricity. When you use electricity on-peak, you're going to pay twice as much for it. They're saying you should use it off-peak. If you don't have full control with timers and other devices to switch the load usage, you're going to be paying more.

So what I can tell you is that, for sure, this bill does the right thing with respect to retailers knocking on your door and demanding certain information—some of it you should not give them, by the way. It's going to put an end to and solve that. But the poison pill here is the smart meter issue itself. I'm in support of the bill, because it takes care of the issue of people knocking on your door and causing you headaches, but at the same time there's always a poison pill in every piece of legislation

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm looking forward to hearing the comments from the member for Durham, because his comments around sub-metering appear to make sense to me—I'm not sure what the government has to say about that. But he's got 20 minutes coming up soon, and I find that commentary interesting.

All I wanted to say to the member from Brant is that I really appreciate when a parliamentary assistant says, "I will be listening to what deputants have to say, and what opposition parties have to say, with a view to making changes or lobbying for change, if necessary." I find that very useful to hear. Generally, very few changes are made in committee by the governing party; that's just the way it has been historically. But I find it encouraging when a parliamentary assistant says, "I want to listen to good ideas, and if they're good ideas, I want to lobby for those kinds of changes." That is good.

The member from Oakville, in two committees I was at, did make an effort as well on some issues, I have to admit. On others he was a bit reluctant, and I understand that; his minister was even more reluctant than he.

But when members make an effort—that is, the parliamentary assistants—to hear the arguments and then to carry those arguments to the minister, saying, "There were good arguments to be made. Why can't we do that?" that's the most you can expect of them. I just wanted to thank the member from Brant for saying that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Being from Ottawa—Orléans, primarily a bedroom community of single-family homes, the energy retailers are the big issue in our area. I'm very pleased that this bill is coming forward, because we received, as did all members, a lot of complaints about practices which were not acceptable.

Parts of the process will be information brochures and Ontario Energy Board telephone service in 21 languages, key information required in large font on the first page of the contract, explanatory information on energy bills and improved safeguards for customers. Contract signatures must be text-based and not simply provided over the phone; a third party is to contact the customer to ensure contracts were wilfully entered into. A standard script will be required for contracts, verifications and renewals. Automatic renewals will not be permitted, and there will be enhanced cancellation policies and capped charges.

There will be higher standards for the industry. All employees who deal with the public will be required to meet training standards. The OEB will appoint a director to ensure companies abide by the act. The OEB will provide reports to the minister on enforcement action.

All these, when they come into effect, will protect the people at the door. I mean, the stories—we've all heard them—about signing contracts with two different companies, the pressure tactics, asking for your energy bill, looking as if they were there from the government sometimes—all these things will be controlled in the new act and will protect the homeowners.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The member for Oakville, you were standing for that?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I will pass.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend from Oakville for that indulgence. I wanted to come into this House because I've received something and I have a particular issue around energy retailers, where I've received a letter personally from a company called Bond Street Collections Inc., and they tell me that I owe a bill to a company called Just Energy Ontario LP, formerly Ontario Energy Savings LP. They're telling me that I owe them money, plus interest, and that they're going to send me to a collection agency.

They say, "If you just pay this amount"—a company that I have never signed a contract with—"we'll waive the interest and the fees." And then conveniently, at the bottom, they're asking me to jot down the name on my utility invoice, the address, the utility provider and my utility account number. And it says, "Average rate during your contractual period: 39.3" square metres or something, and to lock in now at a price, to sign and date it, on a little thing they can detach.

This has got to stop. I'm waiting for the energy retailers to come to this place—I understand they're having a reception—because I want to talk to them about this. I've never signed a contract with this company, I have never had anybody send me to a collection company and I find this to be particularly misleading.

There is a need for a reform in this province of these practices and we are going to protect the consumers in this province, because this stuff has got to stop. I want to thank the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure for bringing this bill in. If there is anything in this House that everyone is going to vote for unanimously, it's going to be about this reform, because this reform is well overdue. Put them on notice that this stuff is going to stop, because our constituents, our consumers, are fed up with this. That's why we brought this bill in and I hope we all vote for it. I'm sure we will.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Brant, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Dave Levac: After that, I'm sure that everyone will stand up and vote in favour of the bill, for sure.

I want to thank the member from Durham, obviously, and the member from Trinity—Spadina for his kind words. I hope he keeps my feet to the fire with my commitment to him and to the rest of this House. The member from Ottawa—Orléans has a very strong background on this portfolio, and I thank him for his comments, and obviously the Minister of Revenue, for revving me up and making sure that we get that bill passed.

I do have a couple of quick comments, and I do look forward to the member from Durham's—I think he has negotiated the opportunity to speak. I'm getting the nod that he has finally been given the okay. I do want to correct one thing that he did say, and I hope he would acknowledge that we need to have that correction out there. We're not doubling the cost during peak time; that's the set price. We're giving a reduction in price when you do the off-peak time for energy use. I'm sure he would not want to inflame the seniors out there, thinking that we are going to double their cost; that's not correct.

What we are going to do is set the price, and then, if you use off-time energy, you get a cost reduction. That's the hope of this.

I do look forward to his comments on the so-called poison pill part of the bill. I don't characterize it that way. I suggest to him very respectfully that this is a new way of doing things. It offers us an opportunity to learn how to conserve energy and gives us assistance in doing so, for those who are able.

One of the things I know that the member from Trinity—Spadina and his colleagues in the NDP mentioned was apartments and the condition they are in. There are going to be some other retrofit programs outside of this piece of legislation that encourage people to fix their apartment buildings so that we can find savings there, too.

I look forward to the continuation of the debate and I thank all the members for participating in this particular part.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: They did give him a chance.

Mr. John O'Toole: Someone has to make sure there's a voice here to be contributing to this important bill.

I should put on the record right away that our critic, Mr. Yakabuski, has made it very clear that substantively we are in support of the bill. I guess we could end it there and adjourn until 10:30, but I'm going to use the time to represent my constituents in the riding of Durham and raise just some of the small questions.

Yes, the smart meter—the time-of-use meter—is in this bill, under the sub-metering. Sub-metering refers to apartment buildings, some of which today have one big meter. Electricity comes into the building and the charges incurred on that meter will be spread amongst the 10 or 20 or 100 units in the building. That's basically how it works. The discretionary problem that is there is that the tenant is a price taker. The landlord, by the Tenant Protection Act, has some ability to spread these costs over each unit.

But one unit could have the windows open and the oven on, or be heating the apartment with the oven, and yet the one that is trying to be conscious of the environment and is conserving would have to pay. So it's a good idea, probably, to sub-meter.

But there may be investments required by the landlord. I hope they can pass those on to the tenants as part of the rent increases, and they will, because that's a provision that they apply to the Assessment Review Board, I think it is, and the board can approve those rate increases, which could be improving the efficiency and the safety and those kinds of provisions within the apartment.

Often—and I'm not going to characterize all the landlords as being from the past; I think that some of them are quite good. They're investments, by the way. They have to take care of the building to the extent that it's an investment for them that should generate some sort of return. But they often have very poor insulation, often have very poor windows, often don't have the most efficient appliances—those kinds of things. So even if the appliances, say, are supplied, they're probably the cheapest ones you can get. They're not Energy Star rated, probably. Hopefully, I'm not generalizing too much here.

But that means that the tenant is going to be disadvantaged because of the windows and the insulation and inefficient things.

Now, here's the real thing for general consumers in Ontario. If you look at your electricity bill, which is what this is really about at the end of the day—we do want to get rid of these retailers, these people knocking on the door and infringing on your privacy etc.—that's for sure. But at the end of the day, this is really a more serious debate about energy itself and the cost of it.

I want to commend Andrea Horwath, the leader of the NDP, who raised a very, very good question yesterday, and that was with respect to the HST. I know that the Minister of Revenue—the minister of increasing taxes—is here this morning, and he will probably respond to it in his two minutes, but we've done some calculations. If you are using, say, $100 worth of electricity, you're going to be paying $8 more. Let's say it's only $100 a week for your utilities. Okay, that's going to be $8 a week. Stay with me here. How many weeks in a year? Fifty two. Eight times 52 is four hundred and some dollars—$416. That's just one thing.

Let's say you commute to work, or let's say you have to have physiotherapy once a week: 8% on every one of those expenditures. Let's say that your expenditures, on a monthly basis—let's just be civilized here—are $1,000. That's 8% on $1,000 for these discretionary expenditures, including electricity, natural gas, physiotherapy—you name it. Ms. Horwath raised it: It's going to cost $225 a year for electricity and natural gas.

Now, the minister is probably going to say, "You're going to get $300 back." Well, that's also income-tested. If you have income over $80,000, they claw it back.

Hon. John Wilkinson: And then you get your income tax cut.

Mr. John O'Toole: Oh, yes, then you get your income tax cut. Well, it actually increases your income. No, it's not taxable, I'm led to believe.

But I want to stay on line. Here's the key: All of us want clean, safe, reliable energy. There's no question of that—we all want that—and we want it to be affordable as well. I believe that electricity is an essential commodity. It's not discretionary consumption like cable television; it's an essential commodity.

The discretionary use of energy is another shell game. Conservation is when you don't use electricity—you don't dry your clothes using electricity. That's conservation. When you choose to use a timer so that your dryer goes on in the middle of the night when electricity is cheaper, that's not conservation; that's load shifting. Conservation is when you don't use it. That's conserving it; that's real conservation. In other words, getting a clothesline and putting clothes outside is conservation.

My point here is that if you look at a normal couple, let's say a senior couple, it isn't that much; it's roughly 1,000 kilowatt hours a month of electricity. That's a generalization, but it's roughly that amount. The discretionary amount, according to technical reports, is about 8% of usage. That means turning the light off and not using the air conditioning, or a ventilator, if you happen to have a problem.

If you have electric heat, you're euchred, and most of these apartments with sub-metering have electric heat. You can't be turning that on and off because it's 3 o'clock in the afternoon and rates are very high—it's not quite double, but it's higher. At 3 o'clock in the morning, electricity will be quite cheap. So you have to look at the fairness of this issue.

I'm respectfully suggesting that you're going to use less electricity—I'm all for conservation, by the way—and you're going to be paying more. What the minister is going to say to you is, "Look, we can tell you how to save on your electricity bill. Look at your smart meter. Go to your computer. You'll be able to see a profile of usage and it will show you"—I'm sure there will be little subroutines on the program to show you that if you use your dishwasher and your clothes dryer at night or off-peak times, you could save money.

They're going to say to you, once you get these smart meters up and running, "Look, if you want to save, get some timers and shift that load to off-peak so it's cheaper." So it's your fault that you're using all this energy to cook your meals, have your shower in the morning and in the evening, bathe the children and wash your clothes. Busy families out working all day and coming home have no discretion. They have to cook the food, heat the house and maintain their personal hygiene etc. I don't think there's very much discretionary use.

As I said before, we see the devil is in the detail—not specifically this bill. I want to put this on the record. There's no question that we want to see significant changes and improvements, and I think the bill attempts to achieve that. The bill is long overdue. In fact, the bill was promised in 2008-09.

I want to give Dave Ramsay, the member from Timiskaming—Cochrane—he used to be the Minister of Natural Resources. He's not a minister anymore. I don't know about that, either. He brought in a bill, and his bill would have easily improved things. The government has copied his bill. It says here—a similar bill last year that the government could have worked in, instead of choosing to let it die on the order paper, in favour of a government bill. So he actually had the same bill, and they've copied it, but didn't give him credit for it. I don't understand that.

We're largely supportive. I think it's important that there is training and oversight for these retail salespeople. I think that's good. The training and the whole marketing of it, I think, should be left to the retailers, meaning the local distribution companies, whether it's Hydro One or Meridian or Toronto Hydro. I think they would have a marketing plan there to give people some marketing choices. I think that would be good.

Direct Energy is generally in support of the bill. That's good to hear. They note that because the electricity prices are regulated by the province—and this is important because, really, the Ontario Energy Board regulates the price—these retailers are sort of hedging against future price changes. But the most part of the bill is not regulated by these retailers—the debt retirement charge, the delivery charge and the line loss charge. Those are three charges in the bill that many of the consumers don't look at.

Line loss is when the dispatcher, OPG, shoots out electricity across the grid—they fire out one kilowatt of energy, they get paid for it, but by the time it gets to your house, there's only half left. There's a 10% to 15% line loss on electricity. That's the line loss charge. You'll see a charge on your bill: It's 0.00123 or 0.00145 or something like that. The consumer is actually paying it. To get this electricity to you, they had to dispatch more energy than you actually use, so you have to pay for it. That makes sense, I guess.

The other one is the debt retirement charge, and it's called the provincial benefit. Now that's really an important issue. For small business that has gone into setting up conservation and load management within their facility—there's one in my riding. I'll mention the name. It's Bowmanville. It's a foundry, and they have smelters that are electrical. They set up their whole operation to be off-peak so that they'd get a lower distribution rate. Now that they've done all this and put in some modernization and tooling and stuff like that, their provincial benefit charge has gone up. In fact, I've written to Mr.

Duguid, who—prior to that, I think it was George Smitherman. There have been so many different Ministers of Energy over there. I think they should put Mr. Wilkinson in that job, because he has been a pretty good minister. He's done a great job of selling the HST.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: And it's hard to sell.

Mr. John O'Toole: You can't sell that. That's like trying to push a rope uphill.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: He's telling the truth.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm not buying it. That's one thing we're not buying on this side. It's a shell game.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could—they're yelling at me now.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Often that just ignites the flames, so you want to be quiet on that one.

I think the stranded debt issue is something that many consumers ask all of us. There's the Ontario electricity financing authority—look on the public accounts, look online, look in the budget. If you look under that, you'll see that the total amount of debt owed by what was the old Ontario Hydro is around $17 billion. It's going down, but—each of us pay 0.07 cents per kilowatt hour of debt retirement charge. On your bill, you'll see it. That's what it's for. My question to the Minister of Energy, and perhaps his parliamentary assistant in the response could tell us, is when is that debt going to be paid?

It's just another tax. Where did it come from? I'm wandering around here a bit. This is very important. If you want the history of this, Mr. Speaker—you've been here longer than I have—you would know that the NDP, when it was under Bob Rae, got into trouble on electricity—a lot of trouble. Energy went to about 12 cents a kilowatt hour. They finally froze it. Once they froze it, costs kept going up and they created a great amount of debt.

There was a lot of debt created when they built the nuclear plants. What happened is that they looked at—

Hon. John Wilkinson: It was all spent in your riding.

Mr. John O'Toole: Do you know who did the report? It was Donald Macdonald, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's finance commissioner. That's who did the report—great guy. He did a great report; it was called the MacDonald commission. What he did is he looked at the amount of assets that old Ontario Hydro had and the amount of liabilities it had. What it did is, it apportioned a certain amount of assets—

Hon. John Wilkinson: In Durham region.

Mr. John O'Toole: Generating facilities generally—Niagara Falls and some of the coal and gas and other fossil fuel plants—and then they said, "You can take on a certain amount of debt." Then they took the transmission, which used to be part of it, and made it Hydro One. They allocated a certain amount of capital and a certain amount of debt to Hydro One, and that's why this debt retirement charge is left over. It was stranded debt that no one could pay. The assets would not support the amount of debt, and it was just poorly managed until we got in there and tried to sort this out. I think it's being worked on. I'd say the government is following our advice quite well.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, they haven't changed a thing. Have they deamalgamated Toronto? I don't think so. You guys haven't changed as much as you think.

But I do believe this: We've all agreed to getting rid of these retailers at the front door. In my final—I might seek more time here because I'm not going to have enough time to finish all my arguments.

I know the Minister of Revenue mentioned a specific case, and I do sympathize. It's just energy that he—he should check some of his BlackBerry records or maybe phone records. Maybe he got a call from a retailer on his BlackBerry and accepted the call. As such, that would be the first step in a contract, a contractual relationship where someone phones you, you answer the phone and say, "Yes." It could be implied that you've actually accepted the dialogue, that you're somehow engaged here.

I would say that these collection agencies are another whole deal, but I'm happy to say that they have increased the claims limit in Small Claims Court. Some of this stuff should be settled in civil court, I believe—some of these untoward agencies.

There are a couple of other things here, because I have read the bill, actually. It's in the

section here that I'm talking about: "The bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998." That's

section 3 here. It's in the

section under the explanatory notes. Here is what it says: "The minister may issue cabinet approved directives to the board in relation to retailing of gas and electricity and the board shall implement the directives."

Let's face it; let's be clear here: The Minister of Energy is running it. In fact, Mr. Duguid is running it on behalf of the Premier, because they know that energy, whether it's oil—read the books on peak oil. Prices are going up. They're not going down; they are going up. I'm forecasting now—if you look at Bill 150, the Green Energy Act, I'm surprised people in Ontario aren't catching on to this stuff. Here's what they're doing. I like the sound of wind energy. I like—well, no, I don't; it's a low-decibel noise. Solar energy: They're paying these generators 80 cents a kilowatt hour. Wait a minute.

How can you pay someone 80 cents to generate it and the consumer is only paying five cents? What's going on here? What's the average price of electricity? It's about five and a half cents per kilowatt hour. How can you pay for wind energy at 20 cents a kilowatt hour under a standard offer under Bill 150, on a feed-in tariff? They call it a FIT.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Thirteen cents.

Mr. John O'Toole: Let's say it's 15 cents. How can you pay them 15 cents and be charging the consumer five cents? That's not fair. In fact, no, you should pay the price for what it is. I'm all for it, but we'll find out how many people want to buy 80-cent energy.

They always refer to Denmark. Do you know what the average price of energy in Denmark is? Thirty-four cents a kilowatt hour. So no wonder people conserve. They can't afford it. That's why they're conserving.

I think there's a lot of good in this bill and it's the first step to getting it right, but I'll tell you, be prepared. The consumers of Ontario, I put to you now: Solar power is about 50 cents a kilowatt hour; wind is about 15 cents a kilowatt hour. These contracts are going to be honoured. They're standard offer contracts. They're outside the grid price, and you're paying for it in the taxes. We're doing things in Ontario that I don't think are fair to the consumer because, as I said, electricity is a non-discretionary consumption. In other words, you have to eat to live and all those things take energy. So you're going to pay more and you're going to use less.

This bill only helps the guy knocking on your door bothering you to sign a contract. Why are people wanting to sign these contracts? Because they find the price of energy exorbitant. I can't blame all of that on the Premier, but I'd like to. There's a time and a place but I'm waiting to see if anyone has a response to this. I've run out of time to make any more substantive arguments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to say how touched I have been by the remarks made by the member of Durham. His concern for tenants is good and I think it's due to political corrections. You know how there are market corrections in the system? Political corrections are equally good. When you're moved away from government and are in opposition, you learn so much more. You learn to worry about people, as the member from Durham is expressing his concern for tenants, and this is good. That's what I call political correction. How long the political correction takes is hard to say, but in some cases it takes a long time.

But I could see how much learning there is in many of the members of the Conservative Party. Remember, and I will speak to this briefly as I speak next, that this is the party that deregulated the market. Of course, the Liberals are continuing with that deregulated market and are trying to correct it seven and a half years later, and to the extent that this little correction is coming, it's a good thing. But mostly, this was to simply say thanks to the member of Durham for worrying about many of the tenants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 235. I think when you see a bill like this, the Energy Consumer Protection Act, you realize that it's not a philosophical bill; it very much is a sort of operational bill that's going to protect—it's a practical bill. It's going to help people in their homes. It's going to help ordinary and everyday individuals deal with what has become an increasing problem.

I think those problems have been outlined quite well by the previous speakers, but certainly you've seen in the past three years that retailers of energy have cracked the top 10 list of consumer complaints that are currently received by the Ministry of Consumer Services, and there's a number of problems that go along with that. Those problems include salespersons' practices; there's a lack of consumer information; there are some language barriers that need to be overcome. Often they try to do the business over the phone, obviously, and it's a verbal contract that ends up being entered into.

That's just not good enough for this type of an arrangement. Consumers often feel pressured into signing these agreements.

So for all these problems that have been brought forward by people over the years, we have solutions that are contained in this bill. If this bill receives the support of the House, consumers in Ontario will receive the protection they need. That also extends into things like suite metering, into consumer security deposits, into disconnection fees as well, so all the everyday issues that ordinary Ontarians face when they deal with an energy retailer over the changing electricity market are going to be included in this bill, with the intent of protecting the consumer.

That's what I was trying to say at the start, that it appears this bill is going to receive support from the House. I think that's a good thing, because I think consumer protection crosses party lines. This bill deserves the support of all members.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to commend my colleague the member for Durham for speaking this morning on short notice and expounding eloquently on the subject that he did, on Bill 235. Certainly it is our intention to support this bill in principle.

The member, in his comments, talked about wind energy, and I wanted to inform the House of a proposal for a wind farm in the Belwood area of my riding, proposed by Inver Energy Canada. They're proposing to build between 25 and 35 wind turbines, and of course they are seeking approval under the process set out by the Green Energy Act, which is a bill that I actually voted against.

I had a meeting with some of my constituents on Friday, people who are in the vicinity of this area, in Centre Wellington, and people in East Garafraxa township, who are very, very concerned about this proposal and concerned about the health impacts. I think it's fair to say that we don't have a complete and full understanding of what the health impacts might be. Certainly the government seems to be interested in studying that subject. I would suggest that they would be prudent not to proceed with the massive expansion of wind energy without a full and complete understanding of what the potential health impacts might be.

I also received an e-mail from one of my constituents and I'd like to inform the House of it. It's from Janet Vallery, and it reads as follows: "Under the Liberal Green Energy Act the government has eliminated public process to participate in approvals. Companies applying for wind farms only require approval from REA"—renewable energy approval—"at the Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Power Authority. This is not a democratic public process and threatens all rural communities who happen to be located in a wind area. I would go further to say the Liberals have now made Ontario rural families second-class citizens with no property rights."

She goes on to say that the people in the area are meeting with local politicians, who are currently moving forward: "We've requested Centre Wellington and Wellington county council [to] sign the moratorium against wind farm development."

I want to encourage the members of the Legislature to think about those issues and respond accordingly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Mr. Rick Johnson: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and make some comments here. The member from Trinity—Spadina spoke eloquently about it, as well as the member from Wellington—Halton Hills, and of course my friend from Durham.

The intent of this bill, as we all know, is to protect consumers from unfair practices of gas marketers and energy retailers. My office has received a number of contacts from consumers and residents in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock who have signed contracts and basically been taken advantage of.

I think we are trying to strike a fair balance between protecting consumers' rights and allowing businesses the opportunity to provide consumers with energy options. If passed, this legislation will empower our consumers. We look forward to further consultations with our residents on this. It's taken a bold step for our government to step up to the plate on this issue and make sure that the issues are properly addressed. It's all about protecting the consumer when they come to the door.

Regarding the smart meters, when it comes in for apartment buildings and everyone, it's really going to allow us to look at where we use our energy, how we use our energy, and to use it smartly. I'm hopeful, in my house, that, first off, the kids will shower at a different time of the day, which will cut down on the use of the water tank and the energy used. I think it will lead to conservation, and anything we can do to help preserve our electrical use and energy consumption will be a good thing.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Durham, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O'Toole: I want to thank the members who responded, from Trinity—Spadina, Oakville, Wellington—Halton Hills and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. And, yes, I think we're all onside on this.

I want to put on the record here an e-mail, which I think is in the public domain, from two of my constituents, Peter and Christine Box:

"As an apartment dweller in your constituency I am interested in the above subject insomuch as how it will affect me financially once the proposed legislation is implemented.

"The legislation seems to concentrate more on the time of use rather than the efficiency of use and when you are in an apartment with no dishwasher and no washer/dryer I can't see where timing can have any great effect.

"Most of the use of hydro in an apartment is determined by the landlord insomuch as he supplies the stove/fridge/water heater and at the lowest cost/least efficient.

"He also controls the efficiency of the windows, doors and insulation. Where is the benefit to the tenant.…

"I see in one of the government sites there is a list of foreseeable problems and possible solutions.

"One of them addresses some of these problems and the solution suggested is to make landlords comply with certain standards on windows and suites….

"

(1) What are 'certain standards'?

"

(2) If the landlord is made to comply and spend money upgrading can they not then turn around and complain they have been forced to spend money," which will affect my rent itself? My rent will be increased.

"I trust you will look into this and provide"—I have written to Mr. Duguid, the minister on this, and I think it's worthy to look at income consistency. If you look at the implementation of the HST, it's another 8% on essential consumption. In British Columbia, which is also implementing the HST, they're not applying the HST on gasoline. I'm encouraging the ministry to look at people with fragile incomes in this fragile economy. We each have a social and a collective responsibility to be making sure we're not leaving people behind in this very tough economy.

We'll be supporting the bill, but let's not assume that smart meters are smart; they're time-of-use meters.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm happy to speak to Bill 235, and I want to say it is timely. It's about time. After seven years of complaints that we have all heard in our ridings about energy retailers who often come around to your door with misleading information that entraps people into contracts they simply, in the end, cannot afford, I say, it's time.

Every MPP in this Legislature comes with a story, a horror story, including the Minister of Energy, where he reads a case that has happened to him. It's instructive how it can happen to anyone. Errors can happen to anyone and misleading information can be given to anybody. People can buy into contracts that are not right. It happens to many people, but particularly to the most vulnerable in Ontario.

Seniors are particularly fragile and can be easily tempted into buying into a contract that they think is going to save them a few dollars. People who don't understand the language can be easily taken in by misleading information from energy salespeople who come to your door, telling you you're going to save money, and in the end, you don't.

The stories are many. We've had this ever since the market was deregulated many, many years ago by the Conservative government. So this is timely because, if nothing else, it's going to help some people for sure.

But I've got to tell you, there are many people in Ontario like myself who long for the good old days of Consumers' Gas. Many, many people in my riding and others who I know long for the good old days of Consumers' Gas, when they could call just one number and get the service that they desperately needed. They would come and the repairs would happen. The reliability of service was there; the charges were predictable, affordable and reasonable.

That ended many, many years ago when my friends to the right of my right decided that deregulation was the way to go and they had to emulate Alberta, their close cousins politically, who had deregulated the market. They too felt that the time was right to put hydro on the spot market, which we have been suffering through for many, many years. I'm telling you, there are a whole lot of people who are looking forward to the day when government will have the power, the fortitude to come back and say, "We're going to re-regulate the market and bring back the good old days of Consumers' Gas."

While some of these measures seem to be helpful and seem to be going in the right direction, nothing short of re-regulation could solve the problem—nothing short. I am one of those old soldiers that wishes that we could go back to those good old days. If truth be told, I'm sure there are many Liberal MPPs who would probably say the same thing but dare not because they can't, including many of the Conservative Party who probably feel the same way but cannot because, ideologically, to do so would be to go against the current leader and the former leader of the Conservative Party.

But we don't have that luxury. We don't have the freedom or the pleasure to be able to say, "We're going to go in this direction. Let's push in that direction." Unfortunately, what we're stuck with is a government who says, "We're going to take some corrective actions to help the consumer because we've been hearing from them for the last 10 years and we've got to do something." So it's better than nothing.

They are going to bring in some protections. For those who feel pressured into signing a contract, the bill proposes three alternatives: a 10-day cooling-off period; upon third party verification within 10 to 60 days of signing the contract; and 30 days after the receipt of the first bill. This is better than what we had before. It's very useful to bring in something that is a little more effective than what we have.

Whether that will solve the problem for those who have literacy issues in the home, for those who don't realize that the new law is there, that they have different measures to grab at as a way of helping them, and whether it will help the majority of citizens who will not have a clue about the changes of the law, I don't know. It will help middle-class professionals who have access to the Web, who are able to use Google and get this information within minutes. It will help those who have the literacy to be able to get that information. This is true, and that is good.

But I still maintain that the majority of people will not have a clue about the changes to the law that are being proposed, that are likely to pass, and will continue to suffer the problems that they will face at the door.

They will add additional licensing conditions for retailers—will that help? I don't know—including individual salesperson training and background checks. Okay, they're going to have a background check. I'm not sure what that will determine, what the particular elements of that will be, how it will be able to spot a miscreant, a bad salesperson who they're going to be able to figure out by their training shouldn't be there. I don't know how they're going to be able to do that, but that's what they propose.

An insurance fund to assist in covering potential losses for consumers—very useful.

The Ontario Energy Board will randomly audit retailers—better than nothing. It's better than not to audit retailers at all. Anything is better than what we had, so even a random audit is something more than what we will have had in the past.

Improved officer and director accountability: That's to be determined by regulation. We don't know what that means.

Unfair cancellation policies and fees, automatic renewals for gas contracts: The government proposes that it will prevent excessive cancellation fees or, in some instances, any fees such as when people move or accidentally sign a second contract, and they will eliminate negative option renewals. That is good. But much of what they say by way of what they're proposing is going to be in regulation, and we'll have to see what they propose in regulation to determine whether or not what they recommend is, indeed, going to be effective.

So on the whole issue of marketers, any effort to stop misleading sales of energy contracts at the door, in my view, is going to be a positive step in the right direction. But I look forward to deputations coming to committee; I really do. I'm looking forward to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants and other groups, such as the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario. There are many different groups that will be representing tenants, which I think will bring to the table a lot of concerns that the government may not have yet heard, and if they haven't heard them, hopefully they will have their ears open to the suggestions as a way of improving this.

There are questions of submetering that we have. I believe that the Advocacy Centre for Tenants and the other group that I mentioned, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, have raised concerns. I want to raise a couple, and they relate to submetering.

The sub-metering protections only happen to sitting tenants. Those who are willing to have them, presumably they understand what they're getting into and presumably it's something they want. But because of vacancy decontrol, it means that the people who are coming into the apartment have no control whatsoever about what they're getting into. In fact, vacancy decontrol often means that if that person was paying that much rent, as soon as you leave, when the new person comes in, the landlord can charge what they want. That's what vacancy decontrol is all about, and it's going to hurt them.

It has been hurting a lot of tenants ever since the law was changed by the Tories and continued by the Liberals. As it relates to the protections, the new people coming in will not have any say whatsoever. That's something that I suspect people that are coming to depute will speak to. I think that is a concern. How the government intends to deal with that is beyond me. My suspicion is that they don't intend to deal with it, but we'll wait and see.

Landlords' obligations concerning necessary retrofits are not clear at the present. Those obligations would likely only extend to current sitting tenants. This means that tenants will potentially face higher fees due to factors entirely within the landlords' control, which in turn will affect the tenants' ability to pay.

There are other concerns that tenants have. Tenants still pay for common-area energy use in their rent. They have no control over reduction of energy use in common areas. I don't believe that the government has thought about the implications of that. How are they dealing with common areas? Common areas are beyond the control of individual tenants but they're still going to be paying. This particular bill does not deal with common areas and does not deal with the effects this will have on tenants and their ability to pay.

Load-shifting, something that the member from Durham was talking about, typically involves using appliances such as dishwashers, washers and dryers during mid- or off-peak pricing periods. The problem is that most tenants do not have these appliances in their suites, and so they have absolutely no control.

It's instructive, because the member from Durham was reading a letter in his last two minutes in which a tenant was talking about how many of the things that affect the hydro prices are not within their control. The lady or the man that sent that letter was talking about, "We don't control the quality of the windows. We don't control the quality of the doors. We don't control insulation—no insulation or bad insulation. We don't control, indeed, the appliances" that I just mentioned.

So this will affect tenants in a serious way. And while the government says that the landlords are required to meet certain energy efficiency standards for appliances in suites, we don't know what that means because that has yet to be determined by regulation. Unless we have a sense of what that is going to be, we don't know how tenants are going to be affected.

The most dramatic thing for me, which I think the member from Durham was getting at as well, is that over 30% of Ontario tenant households live at or below the poverty line, so any increase in shelter costs, including those costs associated with utilities, has a disproportionate impact on these low-income households. This is a serious matter.

Homeowners earn, I believe, twice the amount of money than those who live in private rental housing. The majority of people barely make ends meet. Some struggle. So when the government says, "We're going to introduce a harmonized sales tax," that harmonized sales tax is going to add an extra $225 a year for tenants. It may not sound like much to those who earn over $100,000, but tenants who live in private rental households, who only earn $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, are going to be seriously affected by that extra $225 they're going to have to pay because of the introduction of the harmonized sales tax.

We raised that question yesterday. We went through the freedom-of-information request to try to ask how much it's going to cost people for the additional 8% retail sales tax on utilities. It took eight long months to get that information—eight long months, as if somehow there was a great deal of secrecy attached to it. The government did its very best to delay and obstruct the opposition parties from getting that information. Eight long months—I don't get it.

If you're proud of your harmonized tax, just go out and defend it. Continue to defend it. Be aggressive about it. If the members of the opposition want the information, why take so long to give it to them? There is no overriding privacy interest. If you're proud of your harmonized sales tax, be aggressive, go out and defend everything. Don't obstruct the opposition parties as you've been doing for years and months when they are requesting to get that information.

We also made a request to find out how much it will cost drivers, with the additional harmonized sales tax, for gasoline. We can't get that information. For some reason, with this particular government there's a great deal of privacy. Why so much privacy on the issue? I just don't get it. This additional cost is going to hurt.

We talked about two major issues that I am convinced are going to make for instructive deputations. One is whether or not we're cracking down sufficiently on energy retailers, and whether or not the government is interested in re-regulating the market. It is my profound hope that deputations that will come forward are going to be calling for bringing back Consumers' Gas, having one regulator of the market, one provider of hydro as opposed to the many different providers of a deregulated market that the Conservatives brought in many years ago. That will be one question.

The other question is, what kinds of regulations are we likely to see this government introduce that are going to bring the protections that the Ontario Energy Board said we need to bring in to protect tenants, particularly those who are most vulnerable; and, third, the issues of sub-metering and how that will affect many of the tenants who live in private rental households, and how that will affect particularly those who are most vulnerable.

I look forward to the hearings. I look forward to the member from Brant being sincere, as he said he will be, in his comments about how responsive he will be to the deputants. Hopefully, he will be true to his word because I suspect a lot of advocacy groups are going to come forward, stating a lot of concerns that they will have, and if they haven't yet heard them, that they will consider them at the time of the hearings.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Trinity—Spadina has left me with a small challenge, and I'll take that challenge up: to confirm one more time that indeed, as his concerns have been laid out, I've made that commitment to him and to the House. I've made that commitment in the past and I believe I have a record that fulfills that whenever I was a parliamentary assistant. I believe I have a spotless record when it comes to amendments. We did find some amendments and we did work with the opposition when I was the parliamentary assistant previous. We did find ways to make the bill better, and that would be my intent.

So I recommit myself for a third time to the minister—to the member from Trinity—Spadina—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I don't mind being a minister.

Mr. Dave Levac: You don't want to be a minister.

But let me comment quickly on the aspect of the bill that the member talks about. He does speak about specifics that can be done inside, and will be done with other aspects of other ministries, actually, regarding the building code and upkeep of the tenants' facilities. There are opportunities for us to use federal and provincial programs that are already in existence to upgrade an awful lot of the areas of apartment buildings and single-family dwellings to do that.

We are in a culture of conservation regarding energy. We are learning how to conserve energy and we are starting programs and have programs that are always in existence, that continue to get us to a better place when it comes to using energy. I don't think there's anyone in the House that will not agree that Canada, just as much as Ontario, has been well known for not being very good at conserving energy. We are getting much better but we've got a long way to go. So this is one of those areas in which I believe we are finding commonality.

The last comment to you is that this is a consumer protection bill, that's what we're trying to accomplish, and I'm sure that we're going to be able to reach that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's always interesting and challenging to reply to the minister—or the member, rather, from Trinity—Spadina—

Mr. Dave Levac: We all want him to be a minister.

Mr. John O'Toole: —who used to be a minister and now doesn't want to be a minister; there's too much responsibility that goes with it. Because when he was in government, that's when they implemented the social contract, something they didn't want to do but had to do. I always admire the eloquence of his remarks.

But we are on the record of being in support of this Bill 235 with respect to the provisions of the retailers coming and knocking on your door, wanting to see your bill and charge you more. What we have concerns with—and I raised it on behalf of my constituent and the member from Trinity—Spadina referenced it, and I'd be happy to share this e-mail with him from my constituent who is concerned about the sub-metering provisions in this Bill 235—and that's to deal with the smart meters.

Again, I want to repeat they are not smart meters, they are time-of-use meters and they allow the utility to bill you three different rates: on-peak, off-peak and high-peak. These rates, if you pay about five cents a kilowatt hour now, at the top of peak you're going to pay almost 10 cents. The energy costs are going to double. The question was raised yesterday by your leader, Andrea Horwath, about the implications of the HST on electricity. It's going to cost $225 a year, per person, more in HST for natural gas and electricity.

When you look at this thing and you factor in the smart meter and the time-of-use provisions under the regulations, I put to you and to Mr. Levac from Brant, who is an excellent member, that to the people on fixed incomes who often live in apartments or in less—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Trinity—Spadina for roughly 18 minutes. He spoke about many different elements about energy consumption in the province of Ontario and raised many different concerns, and rightly so, I guess, as he's in the position to raise questions. I think we as a government—I listened to the PA for the minister, the member from Brant, speak about the process.

You know, all the bills, all recommendations proposed in this place take a chance and go to committee, and those committees travel the province of Ontario. We listen to many stakeholders, consumers and many people to give us advice and raise their concerns in order to enhance the bill and make it a good bill.

The most important thing in this bill talks about consumer protections, because all of us from across the province of Ontario heard about the stories. Every riding, every constituency office, received many different complaints from constituents about people knocking on their door, signing a contract, and they cannot get out of this contract. So many different parts and elements of this contract are hidden and they don't understand. They're stuck with the contract, and in the end, if they want to get out of it, they pay a high price.

That's why this bill came, to protect those consumers across the province of Ontario: to make the act and make those contracts very simple, using simple language so that people can understand it, and also get the chance, if they don't understand it the first time, to get out of the contract within 10 to 60 days or 30 days after paying the first bill.

It's very important to focus on the issues which this bill is trying to do in the province to create some kind of protection mechanism for the people across the province of Ontario who were victims in the past of many different people knocking on their doors and forcing them to sign a contract they don't want.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I was listening to the member for Trinity—Spadina. I'm sure he's well aware that this bill is for the protection of our consumers. At the present time, we know all those retailers that are knocking on doors are not really telling the truth to the consumers. I had, just this morning here, because people must be watching the debate, this lady Nathalie who is writing me, sending me a note saying that I have to call her back., She signed a contract at 7.99 cents. She did the calculation. It comes up to over 11 cents a kilowatt hour. This is the approach they are using.

They are trying to convince people that they will be paying less money when they sign a contract. That is completely, completely false. Every one of them—I get at least one call a day from people who have signed contracts, and I'm able to work with most of them to get them cancelled because they are not telling the truth to the people. Very often they sign the contract for them, so they're forging the signature. Myself, they told me that I had signed for my company. I immediately called a lawyer. The lawyer told me, "You've got to see the police." I got the OPP to investigate that.

We had 23 of those in my area that forged the signature.

I'd just like to go back to what my friend from Durham was saying. It's true: We have a debt of over around $17 billion at the present time. But let me tell you, why do we have that debt? At one time, December 2002, we were paying $1.33 per kilowatt hour and the government was charging the people 4.3 cents.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Trinity—Spadina has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to thank the members from Brant and Durham for referring to me as a minister. I'm looking forward to that, actually, in the next election. It would be something that I could handle. Twenty years later it would be a lot easier than it was.

Second point: The members from London—Fanshawe and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell make a strong case for re-regulating the market. I agree. I think you probably liked the system as we had it when you were in government many, many years ago and when we were in government in 1990. We had one provider of the service, Consumers' Gas. I think that is the argument I made earlier and that I believe you're trying to make as well: The abuses have happened so frequently against consumers for so long that something has to be done.

Whether or not the suggestions you are making in this bill are adequate to curb the abuses by retailers remains to be seen, but that action has to be taken is a must, and I agree with that.

That's why I put to you, are you interested in re-regulating the market? Because that would be the ultimate way of solving it; that's what I put to you. But I'm not sure I heard any of the Liberal members speak to that particular issue at all. You stand up and say, "We need to help the consumers"—and I agree with that, of course, but I put the ultimate test to you: What about re-regulation?

By the way, member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the debt that we have on energy has to do with nuclear. You'll remember Darlington: It cost us $15 billion or $16 billion. We're still paying for that today. That's why we have that debt, not because of any other reason.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes, it's true. I wanted to remind you of that.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): This House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Our family are avid campers, and we've gone from tents to a fifth wheel that the kids call the travelling cottage. So I'm really pleased to welcome to the Legislature today Camping in Ontario and the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association, who are in our east gallery.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I'd like to introduce some guests in the west gallery who have come a long way to see us today: Denis Bideri from the World Vision Rwanda program; Didan Rwabika, youth ambassador from Rwanda; Rachel Makenge, the youth ambassador from Tanzania; Max Seunik, Canadian youth ambassador; and the chaperones Henry Vanderspek, Alex Sancton and Ellen Kuschnik from my constituency office.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'm pleased to introduce my guests in the west members' gallery: Paul Bradbury, Rosalind Cameron, Moe Horenfeldt and Marlene Horenfeldt, all from the region of York.

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to welcome in our members' gallery Rudy and Marie Cuzzeto and their children Michael and Joey. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Glen R. Murray: Joining us shortly in the gallery will be the grades 4 and 5 classes from St. Paul school in my constituency.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's my pleasure to introduce Councillor John Phair from the town of Petrolia, joining us in the members' gallery today.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to introduce Emily Reid—she may already have been introduced—from Camping in Ontario; as well as Roland Goreski, who's the general manager of Campkin's from my riding, involved in that industry. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I'm delighted to introduce to you a delegation from the People's Republic of China, specifically from Anqing province. They're being led by Mr. Fang Zuzhong, vice-chairman of the standing committee of the Anqing local people's congress. They're being joined by a committee of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians and Mr. Shu King Kong.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Scarborough Centre and page Julia Louis, to welcome her father, Hani Louis, to Queen's Park today.

As well, on behalf of the member from Barrie and page Christopher Parker, I'd like to welcome mother Michelle Parker and father Al Parker to Queen's Park today. Welcome, all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Acting Premier. How many manufacturing jobs in Ontario have been lost since you took office?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Regrettably, in the last year, there have been some 252,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector, which is far too many. There have been job losses in Michigan, Ohio and across most manufacturing jurisdictions. That is precisely why, working with the federal government, we have put together a comprehensive tax package that will create, according to the Conservative Party's expert witness, some 600,000 net new jobs over the next 10 years.

Jobs and employment continue to be a major issue. Your party and your leader have said nothing about how to deal with this world crisis. We have laid out a plan. We will build on that plan as we move forward. We have taken the tough choices that will get this economy and get those unemployed people back to work in meaningful, good-paying jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: You can project any number of jobs that you want in a perfect world at some point in time, but let's look at the facts.

According to Statistics Canada, Dalton McGuinty has lost almost 280,000 well-paid, full-time manufacturing jobs since taking office. How many of those jobs did Dalton McGuinty lose before the recession even began?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What Statistics Canada said is that the Canadian manufacturing sector, like the world sector, has had a massive restructuring and seen job loss across the western world. So I would caution the member about interpreting what Stats Canada says. What Stats Canada has also said is that since June of last year, we've seen a net increase in manufacturing jobs.

That being said, we have lost far too many jobs. Far too many families in this province are struggling not only with job loss but job uncertainty. That's why we've laid out a plan to create jobs. That's why we've said what we need to do. That party and her leader have no answer, except to go back to a long past era that this province rejected in 2003. Give us a plan, give us an alternative, and lay off—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Obscured in all of this rhetoric, what this government does not want to talk about is the fact that 206,000 full-time manufacturing jobs were lost in Ontario under this government before the recession even began. When Dalton McGuinty is reminded of the facts, he calls it "fun with numbers." There's nothing fun about 206,000 Ontario families without a paycheque.

Here's another important fact: Between 1995 and 2003, Ontario PC governments created over 200,000 manufacturing jobs. Then Dalton McGuinty came along and cancelled the tax cuts, implemented a health tax, raised corporate taxes, is raising sales tax, increased red tape and implemented a crippling energy policy.

Why did Dalton McGuinty abandon Ontario families who make their living in the manufacturing sector?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I know a lot of people who've lost their jobs in my riding, and I think they see through the shallowness of that rhetoric. They recognize that the world economy took an enormous downturn in 2008. They recognize that it happened in Michigan and Ohio.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And they can yell and shout—but we have acknowledged that. We have said that that crisis is an enormous challenge for our families and those families who have lost jobs or seen their jobs threatened. But we have taken the right steps to create jobs. That has been endorsed even by their own expert witness. And, I might point out to the members opposite, working with the federal government, working with the people in Ottawa who get it around tax reform and the need for job creation, we have taken the right steps—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again to the Acting Premier, a simple question: How many long-term-care beds have you created since you took office?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think by any measure we have really invested in long-term care in this province. We're really committed to providing high-quality care for those who need long-term care.

One of the real successes of our government, I think, is the quality of care. The Ontario Health Quality Council will measure and publicly report health outcomes and satisfaction for the first time starting this fall.

We're working with partners in the sector to implement the recommendations in the Sharkey report to improve the quality of care. We're rebuilding 35,000 beds over the next 10 years. We've begun that process now. That's more than half the homes in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I didn't hear a number there. I'll take it that the answer is none.

Between 1995 and 2003—again, let's look at the facts—Ontario PC governments created—

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Between 1995 and 2003, Ontario PC governments created 20,000 new long-term-care beds and refurbished 16,000 more. We prepared for this—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The clock is stopped.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ministers of Education and Economic Development and Community Safety.

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We created spaces across the province, and the McGuinty Liberals have closed emergency rooms, long-term-care beds and clinics in the Ottawa area, like Bruyère Continuing Care, Ottawa Hospital and Cornwall Community Hospital. You've also made cuts to Douglas Memorial in Fort Erie and the Burk's Falls and District Health Centre.

You're spending a record amount of money. Why are you incapable of creating new long-term-care beds?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think that the question demonstrates how terribly out of touch members of the opposition party are.

I'm very, very happy to tell you that we've opened almost 8,000 new long-term-care beds, and I want to remind the member opposite that our 2009 budget commits to adding another 2,000 beds in 10 communities across this province by 2010.

In my home community of London, we're adding 600 new beds. I'm not talking about redeveloped beds; I'm talking about new beds. In Thunder Bay, 132 new supportive units. Across this province, people are benefiting from the increase in the number of long-term-care beds. We are also expanding the continuum of supports available so that people can stay in their homes longer.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: If you give a Conservative $1 billion, you get 20,000 new long-term-care beds. If you give a Liberal $1 billion, you get eHealth. And who knows how much more the 14 LHINs are wasting on sweetheart deals with the same Liberal-friendly consultants from the eHealth boondoggle. You boast you'll be spending—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The noise is coming from both sides of the House, honourable member from Renfrew.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Especially from—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. John Yakabuski: She's been told so many times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don't need the help from the member from Renfrew.

I've tried very hard not to be warning members and turfing members out, but if we're going to persist, I'm going to have to get to that point.

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: This government's boasting that they'll spend $42 billion this year on health care, but what difference does it make when most of the money ends up lining the pockets of your consultant friends rather than on direct, front-line patient care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I just am astounded by the question. I will line up our record on health care against their record on health care any day of the week.

When we were elected in 2003, we were on the brink of moving into a two-tier health care system because the system was simply not being supported.

Almost 900,000 more people have access to primary health care than they did when we took office. By 2013, we will have doubled the number of new doctors graduating each year. We will have doubled the number of new doctors graduating next year. There are now 2,300 more doctors practising in this province than there were just six years ago.

Family health teams are a huge success for us. The New England Journal of Medicine has praised—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. We learned yesterday that Ontarians will pay an extra $225 each year to heat their homes and keep their lights on, thanks to this government's HST scheme. Also yesterday, consumers were warned that they should expect gas prices to rise to $1.12 a litre, and that's without the extra 8% HST. Can the Acting Premier tell us: How much more will the average family pay at the pumps as of July 1st?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: No, I can't. I'll give you a "for instance." When I filled up my tank two weeks ago, I paid 95 cents, and seven days later I paid 85 cents. It's varying up to 10 to 12 cents. I don't know the last time she went to a gas station, but I go to them at least once a week, and they are varying like that.

What I can tell her is that the tax package we put forward provides sales tax credits and personal tax cuts which will more than offset any additional expenditures that at least 93% of people have with respect to the implementation of our package, which will create 600,000 jobs. I would invite her to take the advice of Hugh Mackenzie and of the institute for policy alternatives: "Do the right thing—create jobs and lower taxes for Ontario's most vulnerable citizens." That's why your own supporters don't back you up.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All I'd advise this minister to do is to actually listen to the people of this province. That's the advice that this government needs. We know very well that this government has the information. But they've repeatedly rejected our freedom-of-information request asking for it. People have a right to know exactly how much extra they're going to be paying at the pumps. StatsCan reports that Ontario families already pay, on average, $2,310 a year for gas. Simple math suggests that the HST will tack on an extra $185 each and every year. Will the Acting Premier confirm this for us? Does the HST mean $185 extra every year to fill up at the pumps?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No; absolutely not. What the member is doing is trying to take one part of the story. I would refer her to page 25 of Ontario's Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth, where it gives a very specific breakdown about how people of different incomes and different family situations will in fact benefit overall from our tax package.

We did consult Ontarians. We consulted anti-poverty groups. We consulted Hugh Mackenzie and other prominent New Democrats, who have all embraced the notion of lowering taxes to create jobs and, particularly, to lower taxes for Ontario's most vulnerable citizens through the Ontario child benefit, which she voted against, through the cuts to the lowest bracket of income.

This is about creating jobs. We have a plan. Every expert agrees it will create jobs. All they want to do is trade in tired rhetoric. We want to create jobs, and we will—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All the people of this province tell me they want and all New Democrats want is for this government to come clean. That's all we want. Yesterday the Minister of Revenue acknowledged that he has a breakdown of the government's revenues from the new tax on gas, on home heating and on everything else. But they've blocked our request seeking that very information. If the government is so confident that their HST scheme is a good one, then why are they hiding the information and refusing to tell Ontarians exactly how much they're going to be hosed at the pumps?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's in the budget. We laid out how much revenue the HST will collect. What the member forgets—and this is why, I think, many Ontarians are coming to be very skeptical and why Ontarians recognize how difficult this is. She doesn't talk about the sales tax credit; she doesn't talk about the personal income tax.

We put together a package—it's outlined in the budget—with three-year projections going forward. We updated that in the fall statement and we will update it again in the budget. It's all there for people to see and to make judgment on.

We are confident that a government that addresses the jobs challenge and the unemployed in northern Ontario, Windsor and across Ontario will see job growth, an improved economy and a better Ontario in the future because of the decisions we've taken today that address the employment challenges that she and her party refuse to address.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. On Monday, in response to a question on the Buy America trade deal, the Acting Premier quoted the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, but their reaction to the deal can be characterized as lukewarm at best. In fact, the CME is calling for continued discussions. Others just call it a bad deal.

Ontario has been asked to ratify this deal. Will this happen behind closed doors, or will the McGuinty government agree to public hearings so Ontarians know exactly what their government is getting them into this time?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very happy to speak about Buy America because this is a great-news story for Ontario and people who work in this province.

For many months we were very worried when the US started down this path of Buy America. Ontario was the lead in asking the federal government to do something about stopping this Buy America clause, so you can imagine that we were delighted, along with our partners—yes, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters being one of them—to ask, how can we work with our American counterparts to get rid of that clause?

I'm pleased to say that we had unprecedented support from coast to coast to work with our national colleagues to bring forward a solution which removes the Buy America package not just from the current economic stimulus package, but as well from future purchases at the state and federal level in the United States of America.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This deal has some serious implications for the province and for municipal governments, in terms of their ability to use public money to support Ontario jobs.

Critics of the deal say Canada gave American companies access to $25 billion worth of Canadian contracts in exchange for Canadian suppliers getting a mere $4 billion worth of American contracts. It's like selling the farm to buy a tractor.

Given the apparent imbalance, why isn't this government allowing the Legislature and the public to debate this deal?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think there are two key numbers to keep in mind: one is 10, and the other is 65. The $10 billion represents what we across Canada, provincially, are prepared to offer in government procurement to our American colleague companies. The other number is 65, which is the access that our companies will have to $65 billion worth of annual procurement from state levels in the US, and that's what's so important. Yes, what we are offering up is unprecedented; we hadn't done that before in government procurement at the state and, for a temporary period, municipal level.

What we get on an ongoing and annual basis is $65 billion of access to government procurement. This is a win for Ontario companies and it is a win for workers. That's why the CAW came into my office to get a personal briefing on the buy-America package, an offer that we—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are some of the possible impacts of the buy-America deal: It might prevent cities and towns from buying food from local farms and vehicles from local manufacturers, and it might restrict the province from sourcing medical equipment from Ontario's suppliers. In other words, it may take job-creating tools away from local governments in exchange for not very much at all.

If the McGuinty government is so sure that this is the right deal for Ontario, then why will they not, at the very least, agree to a full public debate?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I know you seem worried about the municipal reaction. The president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities says, "Canadians are fighting hard to recover from the recession.... Today's announcement gives them hope." In North Bay, they called the agreement "a spectacularly huge win."

Moreover, I would encourage the NDP to take us up on the offer to come in for a full briefing so we could give you the kind of detail so you too could be proud of the fact that workers want to work and that our companies here in Ontario want access to those contracts so that Ontario workers will work. I thought that's what the NDP wanted as well, but apparently we've been mistaken again.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the environment minister: Are you firing Ontario's Environmental Commissioner because he revealed Dalton McGuinty's climate change targets are nothing but hot air?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, you know, I can't believe this question. It's nice to get an environment question, by the way, because usually that party isn't interested in the environment at all.

First of all, Mr. Miller has done an outstanding job over the last 10 years, there's no question about it, and we appreciate his advice on an ongoing basis. But I think it's also fair to say that we want to have a transparent and open process. We all know that these appointments are for five years. We certainly ask anyone who may be interested in the job, including Mr. Miller, to go through the transparent process. Let's take a look at who's out there and interested in the job. Let's get the best-qualified person, who may very well be Mr. Miller. He has done an outstanding job and I'm sure that he will continue to contribute to the province of Ontario in the years ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, that's all well and good, but in his latest report the Environmental Commissioner exposed Dalton McGuinty's dirty secret: Greenhouse gas emissions have gone up and will keep going up under the McGuinty Liberals. The commissioner says, "The fact that greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise between 2014 and 2020 points to a serious deficiency in the government's planning.

Interjection: Shame.

Mr. Toby Barrett: That is shameful.

While your climate change guru, your Liberal friend Hugh MacLeod, was allowed to make a quiet exit, the commissioner joins the Ombudsman in being hung out to dry. Why does Dalton McGuinty dump everyone who criticizes him or holds him accountable?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, it is fascinating getting these kinds of questions from this member. If you're so much interested in climate change, why did you vote against the coal-fired energy plant closures? Why did every member in your caucus vote against the greenbelt? And I can think of so many other good, positive environmental initiatives that this government has brought along over the last six years.

We look forward to working with that member and his caucus to deal with the real environmental issues, which include climate change, and we look forward to working with Mr. Miller in whatever capacity he chooses and we choose as a result of the transparent process that we're involved in. But it's great to see you're finally interested in the environment, because that's quite a change from the usual attitude of the Conservative Party.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Your government has hired two controversy-ridden banks to advise on privatizing Ontario's assets. The first is Goldman Sachs, which admitted complicity in the great financial crisis and is currently embroiled in the Greek government's debt scandal; the second, CIBC, which just last month paid $27 million to the Ontario Securities Commission for its role in the sale of sub-prime securities and which is deeply involved with the rail privatization scandal in BC. So we don't take your word for things being upfront when it comes to these kinds of deals.

Will the government table the tender documents for the services of these companies? And if not, why not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government routinely employs the service of outside advisers who do these on a competitive basis on a variety of issues.

I should point out to the member that we are looking at our assets with respect to the proper management of those assets, going forward. This is something that governments routinely do. It is appropriate in the context of how capital is invested, how we're maximizing the return on those assets.

We look forward to continuing to do the kinds of research and background that will help the Legislature—and I say "the Legislature"—make more informed decisions as we move forward into the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The minister and his boss consistently refuse to put on the table the documents that show whether or not Ontario is protected in its dealings with these controversy-ridden firms. Will this minister put on the table the contract with these two companies? If not, why not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government will continue to follow the procurement directives that have been agreed to and voted on by this Legislature. We will fulfill our obligations to that.

This is a government that has in fact done things like bringing Hydro One and OPG under freedom of information and has made a variety of other changes on our procurement practices that are designed to provide greater transparency and accountability.

It is important that from time to time in a competitive process, the government of Ontario look at assets and a variety of issues to ensure that we are in fact maximizing the support and the assets that we have in our quiver.

It's important that we continue to do that kind of due diligence in terms of assuring the taxpayers that the considerable sums of money they have invested in those assets are well invested.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, during question period the member for Parkdale—High Park made reference to an individual who wrote to your ministry, raising safety concerns about a workplace. The member claimed that the individual has yet to receive a response from your ministry regarding specific safety violations.

Minister, you have often stood up in the House and said that workplace health and safety is your number one priority. Would the minister be able to update the Legislature on this matter?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. First of all, let me applaud the individual who wrote the Ministry of Labour to express his concerns around health and safety at this particular workplace. I appreciate the time that he took to make these concerns known to us. I want to reassure him and the member opposite that my ministry followed up on those concerns.

I've been advised that upon receiving the written letter, a ministry inspector visited the site and ensured compliance with the Occupational Health And Safety Act. The inspector spoke to property management regarding the safety issues raised in that letter. The inspector prepared a written field report and a copy was left with the workplace on November 3. I have also been advised that a letter will be sent to the individual who raised those concerns. Again, I thank him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I am glad to hear that you followed up on the issue raised yesterday by my friend from Parkdale—High Park. More importantly, it is good to know that your ministry staff has responded to the individual's concerns and have had inspectors visit the site.

It is also good that concerned citizens are actively engaged in the safety of Ontario workplaces. We all lead busy lives with various responsibilities. However, Ontarians are known to look out for one another. What else can our citizens be doing to help keep our workers safe?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member for the question. My ministry has 430 inspectors who are out in the field every single day to ensure that our workplaces are kept safe. This is double the number of inspectors that we had in 2003.

But even with such a large team, our inspectors can't be everywhere at once. That's why I want to encourage all Ontarians to report any unsafe or questionable worksites to the Ministry of Labour. We have a hotline set up for concerned citizens to call and report any health and safety concerns in Ontario's workplaces. That's 1-800-268-8013. You can also send a letter in to the Ministry of Labour with your concerns.

I can assure you that every issue about an Ontario workplace that is brought to our attention—

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

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Attorney General. Your government counsel in a civil lawsuit settled over Christmas cross-examined an Ontario man about his decision to fly a Canadian flag in his yard. Your civil lawyer asked, and I quote, "Weren't you at all concerned about instigating a confrontation" by flying the flag, and later added, "I take it from your answer that you were not at all concerned about provoking a response."

This wasn't an arm's-length police officer or a prosecutor. This is your civil counsel. His instructions had to come from someone. Who instructed him to take the position that flying the Canadian flag in your own front yard is

an act of provocation?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know we all stand as proud Canadians and proud Ontarians yesterday, today, tomorrow, forever.

I would suggest, respectfully, to the honourable member that he actually go back and take a look at the full court transcript. You know, things taken out of context always have a different flavour than when they are seen in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It really doesn't assist anybody in any way to start picking and poking at a word or two from lengthy court proceedings. We stand as proud Canadians, all of us, in discharging our duties.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Yesterday, when I asked about the right of a citizen to raise a Canadian flag, Minister Bartolucci said the question was inciting inappropriate behaviour. Only in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario is asking a question inciting and the right to fly Canada's flag inappropriate behaviour. The man was in his own yard, flying a Canadian flag.

Liberals used to believe that this was

an act of expression protected by

section 2(

b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know from the citizenship minister's answer that the McGuinty Liberals' new policy against flying the Canadian flag isn't being applied in Toronto St. Paul's yet. But who else in Ontario should be on notice that flying the flag makes them a provocateur?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, we all stand for the principles which our flag represents, and those who represent the laws on which the flag stands stand for those principles as well. Whether they're the police, whether they're the crowns, whether they're the judicial officials, whether they're the lawyers, they all stand to discharge those duties, sometimes in very challenging and difficult circumstances, and sometimes their role is to make sure that they try to keep matters as calm as possible so that we can, as a society, get to a more peaceful, prosperous and fruitful resolution of very difficult and challenging issues.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the transportation minister. There seems to be some confusion over on the government side when it comes to declaring public transit an essential service. Monday morning, the transportation minister said the McGuinty government was opposed, but Monday afternoon, 29 McGuinty government MPPs, including a half dozen cabinet ministers, voted unanimously in favour. Yesterday, the Premier dodged the issue, saying it was up to municipal politicians to decide. My question is, what is the McGuinty government's position on declaring public transit an essential service?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows perfectly well that in private member's business it is the custom of this House to vote in favour as part of the democratic process to get a bill into play.

The Premier and I and our caucus are on exactly the same page. It really is up to the people of Toronto to decide whether they want to request that the provincial government look at the issue of the TTC being declared an essential service. There has been no departure from that position. That is the position that both I and the Premier have expressed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I thought George Smitherman had left the McGuinty cabinet but it looks as if he's still informing polity.

Rather than abdicating its responsibility for public transit in Toronto and elsewhere, this government should stop playing games and actually do something constructive for public transit. It could start by making a commitment to fund half of all operating costs. Municipal politicians have already called exactly for that. When will the McGuinty government finally deliver?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Since 2003, we have committed almost $12 billion to transit projects in Toronto. I think by any standard, and particularly the standard set by the member opposite's party, that is a huge commitment to public transit in Toronto. That includes more than $3.5 billion to the city of Toronto for a number of transit initiatives, including the Spadina subway extension, revitalization of Union Station and money for the replacement of 204 streetcars; in addition, almost $8 billion committed to Metrolinx for rapid transit projects.

Our commitment to transit across the province, but transit in the city of Toronto, is absolutely unquestionable. Twelve billion dollars is the physical manifestation of that, but I think the other reality is that we have worked in partnership, Metrolinx is working in partnership with the city of Toronto because we understand how important transit is to this city.

TOURISM

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Tourism generates employment, supports small businesses and stimulates the economy. That's why investing in marketing Ontario and, more specifically, our regions needs more efficiency and coordination. However, there is a concern in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. The implementation of the 13 new tourism regions will have Haliburton county divided into two different tourism regions.

The Haliburton County Echo quotes Sally Moore, who owns Sunny Rock Bed and Breakfast in Minden, as saying, "There is concern for the county being split up after so many years of work to create an identity for the Haliburton Highlands."

What assurances can you make to the tourism operators in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock with regard to their concerns over the implementation of the new tourism regions?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for the question. The tourism industry has become more and more competitive. There is a need to act. This is why my government commissioned the competitiveness study. As a result, we are implementing 13 new tourism regions that will help us better market Ontario.

I would like to assure the honourable member and tourism operators across Ontario that these steps are being taken to better showcase Ontario, to strengthen the industry and stay competitive. We are building on past successes and encouraging further co-operation between regions and tourism organizations. We are confident that these regions will work together to grow tourism in Ontario and take it to the next level.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: Tourism is an economic driver for Ontario. The benefits are far-reaching. Tourism strengthens our province and provides the 13 million people who reside here with a better quality of life. From one end of the province to the other, there really is so much to discover.

We all have a vested interest in attracting more visitors. Increased visitors are a must for Ontario and for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. At the heart of the matter is the future of tourism across the province and in Haliburton. We need to ensure that the implementation of these regions will ensure greater efficiency in marketing and managing tourism while giving Ontario a competitive edge.

Will the implementation of these new regions support the long-term viability of tourism in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member again for the question.

As a result of our government's consultation, as a result of the study, as a result of our investments, there will be long-term viability in our tourism industry.

The study engaged 500 tourism partners. It consisted of 13 public consultations and 200 written submissions. While developing regional boundaries, we had 17 planning sessions and yet another 40 written submissions. We are also investing a total of $65 million a year for two years in support of the tourism industry.

The honourable member is correct: Tourism is an economic driver for Ontario, and we are going to keep it that way.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Mr. Frank Klees: With us today at Queen's Park are members of the Ontario Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association and Camping Ontario—and I'm pleased to hear the minister's support for tourism. My question is to the Minister of Transportation, because they're here with a very specific and very practical request, and that is a request that has now been ongoing for some five years to the Ministry of Transportation. It simply takes a small regulatory change.

In the province of Ontario, unlike other provinces throughout this country, someone wanting to drive a recreational vehicle is required to have a class A licence. That is essentially a commercial truck driver's licence. In other provinces, it's simply the equivalent of a class G licence.

My question is this: Will the minister agree to meet with representatives today for but a few minutes to hear their—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to welcome, wherever they are, their representatives to the House—thank you very much for being here—and I want to thank the member for the question.

I did have the opportunity, at the Ontario Good Roads Association conference yesterday, to meet with some folks who had some concerns about snowmobiles and the operation of snowmobiles. I think you're talking about a different issue, but I just want you to know that I am interested in these issues. I don't have the answer for you in terms of the logistics or the actual regulation that you're speaking of.

I'd be happy to talk to the folks. Whether I can do it today or not—I'll certainly touch base with them. I'd certainly be happy to hear the details of the issue and to explore it with you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: It is a very straightforward issue. The ministry, for the last number of years, has had representation—and I appreciate the fact that the minister is agreeing to meet with these people. They are here today. The minister surely can find 10 minutes in her

schedule today, even if it's immediately following question period. I would just ask her to take the opportunity to hear from them on this straightforward issue. Will she agree to meet with these people immediately following question period?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'd be happy—and the member will introduce me—to have a conversation with them. I do have to ask—because this member was the Minister of Transportation—if this was such a simple issue, why it didn't get changed when he was the Minister of Transportation. Methinks there might be a layer of complexity that I haven't heard about. But I would be happy to hear from the members who are here.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. On Monday, I met with a group of mayors from the Northern Ontario Municipal Association, and they expressed real concern about Queen's Park ignoring northerners. High unemployment is wreaking havoc on their families and communities. In Thunder Bay, for example, food bank use has soared by 40%. People are leaving the north in droves to find jobs. Why is northern Ontario being abandoned by their government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to travel through northeastern and northwestern Ontario and to meet with a variety of mayors, and there is no doubt that the north is experiencing challenges, particularly unemployment, and a range of very difficult issues. We have taken some steps up until now in terms of $1 billion for the forestry industry; the northern Ontario heritage fund, $1.3 billion to create 12,000 jobs; a new mining act; the northern highway strategy; infrastructure, $470 million.

There are far too many people not working in the north, there are far too many challenges of international commodity markets, but there are also some bright spots. The Ring of Fire has such enormous potential. We look forward to working with our northern mayors, our northern colleagues, and the members of this caucus whom the people of northern Ontario return to the Legislature. We have more to do. We will take steps to assist—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I've got to say, I don't think northern mayors are going to be very happy with that non-answer.

The Premier himself said recently that Ontario is not going to grow "by pulling stuff out of the ground." But northern resources generate billions of dollars for Ontario's economy and for this provincial government's coffers. More and more of the resources that are being extracted by Ontario workers are being sent somewhere else for processing. Why, then, does this government seem so content to sit idly by as northern Ontario loses good-paying, value-added jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: When we proceeded on building the subway and extending it and wanting to buy cars from Bombardier in Thunder Bay, what did that member and her party do? They said, "Don't do it. We don't agree with that."

I had a very good meeting with the mayor of Sudbury, a former federal New Democrat, and he thanked this government for its efforts on behalf of his community. I have had countless meetings with the mayors of Thunder Bay and Kenora and a variety of other communities. While they acknowledge and we acknowledge that there are enormous challenges, they also acknowledge and thank this government for responding in a variety of files.

What I'll say to the northern mayors but more importantly to those northerners who pay taxes, those northerners who are worried about their jobs or have lost their jobs, is that this government will continue to stand with them and make the kinds of investments that will help get northern Ontario through this enormously challenging time.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, yesterday the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth released his annual report. The independent advocate's office serves children and youth by highlighting their concerns related to child welfare, youth justice, mental health, provincial demonstration schools, First Nations and special needs.

The advocate's report raises many concerns related to access to supports for children with special needs, children facing mental health challenges, and youth living in care and those leaving care.

Minister, what has your ministry done in these service areas to enhance services for our vulnerable young people, and what are you doing to act on the concerns raised by the advocate in yesterday's report?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his question but more particularly for his advocacy on behalf of youth and children in his community and beyond.

I'm very pleased to have a chance today to talk about the advocate's report. I want to thank the child advocate for the work that he does and the voice that he provides children and youth across the province. I want to thank him for working with us on these important issues. I'm so very pleased to be part of a government that allowed and enabled the independence of the child advocate so that we can continue to work in partnership.

The issues that the advocate raises are the very ones that are active files within my ministry. I had the opportunity to work with him very closely just this week. He and I worked closely together on an issue of great importance to both of us.

Let me tell you some of the steps that our government is taking. We've increased base funding to children's mental health. We've invested more in the support for mental health services. We're transforming child welfare—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I've been proud to work closely in my riding of Ottawa Centre with great organizations like the Youth Services Bureau and Roberts/Smart Centre that offer a wide variety of important services to vulnerable young people.

However, Minister, the advocate's report specifically highlights some troubling conditions for Ontario's young aboriginal population. He cites high rates of attempted and completed suicide, and reports that these children, living on and off reserve, are often without adequate mental health services and that they live in unacceptable poverty.

How is your ministry looking to support and provide opportunities to Ontario's First Nations children and youth as we look forward to a better situation for these vulnerable communities?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I agree with the advocate that we have much more to do to support better outcomes for Ontario's aboriginal young people, and I am absolutely committed to doing that work.

At the end of last year we were able to provide an additional $4.1 million to two aboriginal CASs, Tikinagan and Payukotayno, to ensure that they could continue to serve the children and families in their communities. We have now provided an additional $2.5 million in funding to the six aboriginal CASs in recognition of the very issues that the advocate is raising.

I've recently returned from a trip to the far north, where I heard from chiefs, councils, teachers, foster parents, front-line workers and public health nurses, and it's clear to me that the issues these communities face are unique and require an all-hands-on-deck approach.

I work closely with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We continue to tackle these critically important issues. There is a great deal more work to do, but we are 100% committed to doing that important work.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Minister, last week I met with six representatives from York region's children's mental health agencies, and their financial situation is nothing short of desperate. Their current funding only allows them to accommodate 16%—I said 16%—of the identified need, and that means that 84 out of every 100 children in York region needing mental health services are going without—84 out of 100 families being torn apart with no help in sight.

Minister, when will this government give children's mental health in York region the support that you have the responsibility to deliver?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to have an opportunity because I, too, was in York region last week and visited the York Centre for Children, Youth and Families, which is doing incredible work on the ground in communities, serving children who need that help and attention.

I am so proud to be part of a government that provided the first base funding increase in over a decade, in 2004-05, and another $24.5 million in 2007-08. We've invested an additional $64 million in support to expand mental health services for children and youth—an increase of 20%.

Is there more to do? Of course there is. But good work is being done in communities across the province. I've been talking to those groups about how we can better improve the services that they're providing in communities. It is something that we have very much focused our attention on.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: The minister is certainly right: They are doing good work, and in spite of you.

In York region, Children's Mental Health Ontario has taken on the arduous task of child mental health support, yet York region only receives—here are the numbers—$127 per child while the rest of the GTA gets $221 per child. The people of York region are tired of being treated like poor cousins of the GTA by this Liberal government on this file and many other files.

Minister, will you commit today to fully funding the mandate of Children's Mental Health Ontario? Yes or no?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I heard some echoes in the House about where these questions are coming from, and I agree very much that this is quite rich coming from the other side.

I point to the Auditor General's report in 2002: "Since 1992, there have been no increases in base funding provided to community mental health agencies for programs that were operating at that time. One district health council noted that this has forced community mental health agencies 'to reduce services'...."

The good work that's being done in communities across the province is in partnership with our ministry. We continue to work on these critically important issues and expand services for communities. I've met on many occasions with Children's Mental Health Ontario. I'm learning about the innovative solutions that are being developed across the province. Yes, there's more work to do, but for the first time in many years, they have a government that is committed to doing this work in partnership with them.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps not surprisingly, my question is also for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

A government study concludes that Hamilton and Niagara families face the highest wait times in Ontario for children's mental health services. They face delays in obtaining early intervention programs for children, waiting 68 days on average compared to 17 days in the rest of the province.

When will the government do the right thing and address this glaring disparity?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to have a chance to talk about this important issue that exists in the community of Hamilton and beyond.

The reason that we know what is happening in Hamilton is because for the very first time our government has released a policy framework for child and youth mental health, and we are measuring and undertaking the most comprehensive data collection effort ever.

We're not scared of these issues. We understand the importance of the work being done in communities across the province. It is only by measuring your baseline and understanding the support that exists in communities that you can know where to focus your efforts to do more for the families, to respond to the families whose children need these services.

As I said to the Hamilton Spectator, it's incumbent upon all of us now to work together to improve the services for children in Hamilton and beyond.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The children of Hamilton and Niagara need action, not a bunch of talk. The minister's vague response isn't helping agencies like Lynwood Hall Child and Family Centre in Hamilton to deal with the severe and immediate growing need that's happening in our community. Children are in crisis, and this government is turning its back on them.

Will the minister agree right now to steady, dedicated funding that will rebuild the system and bring the wait times down to the provincial average?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I work closely with my colleague from Hamilton on this important issue, and we've made big investments, significant investments, in Hamilton's kids. We've invested $15.6 million to support the establishment of 1,256 new licensed child care spaces; we've invested nearly $3 million this year in five Hamilton OEYCs; we've provided 19 Hamilton agencies $14.6 million in annualized children's mental health funding, and since 2003 these agencies have received a total of $95.7 million in funding.

Is there more to do? Of course there is. Mapping out has allowed us to take a good, hard look at the services that do and, in some cases, do not exist. With that information, we will be able to continue to bring partners to the table, work with the parents, work with the community providers to find innovative models and solutions to meet the needs of these kids, and that is exactly what we will do.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Many of my constituents have been worried about the access to family physicians and patient care in Ontario. They want good quality for their loved ones close to where they live and where they need it.

It's of the utmost importance that each Ontarian has access to a family doctor within their neighbourhood. It is crucial that we continue to achieve this goal so that Ontarians can get the care they need as fast as possible. With increases in chronic diseases over the years, it's also important that dietitians, nurses and other health care professionals are available to meet the various needs of all Ontarians.

Could the minister please update this House on the progress made to provide Ontarians with access to family doctors and other health care professionals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I couldn't agree more with the member from Peterborough. When it comes to access to family health care, we've made real progress and we're committed to making even more progress.

I'm very pleased to report that we have now created 170 family health teams across the province. These teams consist of doctors and nurses and other allied health care professionals, and I want you to know that we are planning even more.

The success of these teams has been nothing short of overwhelming. So far, these 170 teams are providing care to more than two million Ontarians; 334,000 of those had no access to primary care before the family health teams were created. So not only do Ontarians have better access to health care, but we've hired approximately 1,300 new allied health professionals, and these numbers will continue to grow as more become operational. In time—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Another area of importance for my constituents is the current supply of family doctors. Many people are worried that the effectiveness of family health teams is not yet proven. When people have serious health problems to discuss with their family doctor, they want to know that there is a constant supply of new physicians looking to set up practice in Ontario. I know that a lot of work has been done to increase the number of family health teams, but it's also important to attract doctors to the province and ensure job opportunities for Ontario medical students.

Can the minister please explain what the government is doing to increase the number of family doctors throughout the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The family health teams have proven to be so successful that they have actually captured the attention of the New England Journal of Medicine, which has praised them, praised the collaborative approach and the patient-centred care.

Peterborough is an excellent example of success when it comes to family health teams. They have five family health teams, 81 doctors, 16 nurse practitioners, 24 registered nurses, six dietitians, eight mental health workers and five social workers all working in a co