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

September 23, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 September 2009 Mercredi 23 septembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

HEALTH CARE

TAXATION

HOSPITAL SPENDING

SKILLS TRAINING

TAXATION

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

VICTIMS OF CRIME

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

LEGAL AID

CEMETERIES

BUS TRANSPORTATION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JIM MCCARTER

CELEBRATE BISEXUALITY DAY

UBISOFT

LEGION WEEK

RAPPORT YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DES MUNICIPALITÉS DE L'ONTARIO

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER

CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERPROVINCIAL POLICING

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

INTERPROVINCIAUX

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAW ENFORCEMENT

NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DES BIOTECHNOLOGIES

LAW ENFORCEMENT

NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY WEEK

LAW ENFORCEMENT

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DES BIOTECHNOLOGIES

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

TAXATION

PROTECTION OF MINORS

DENTAL CARE

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BARRIE-INNISFIL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA MODIFICATION

DES LIMITES TERRITORIALES

ENTRE BARRIE ET INNISFIL

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 17, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector / Projet de loi 201, Loi prévoyant l'examen des dépenses dans le secteur public.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It is a real pleasure to be back in the Legislature after a couple of days of paying attention to rural Ontario. It is my privilege as the critic here to address the opposition's response to Bill 201. I would imagine that most members have had the opportunity to review the bill and to consider what it indeed intends to accomplish. In the very limited time I have, which is about an hour, I will try to spend a considerable time on the merits of the case, and also some glaring examples of where this legislation may not be the appropriate way to deal with the issue.

We reserve judgment, as the opposition party. What we are impressed with is the urgency at this time for the government to start to speak towards and address the issue of accountability and transparency, which they talked about in the election in 2003 endlessly but have done very little about, after the lottery scandals and the–you could call it the summer from hell. Well, it isn't from hell; it's the summer of a lot of scandals that erupted while they were out vacationing.

Without trying to be trivial, I just want to read the explanation and purpose clause here; it's very important. "The purpose of the Public Sector Expenses Review Act, 2009 is to enable the Integrity Commissioner to review the expense claims of certain persons who are employed in or appointed to public entities." I'm wondering why they have to appoint an arm's-length agency in the first instance.

The reason I say this is that it has been the tradition for 100 years or more in this place and other Legislatures that the minister who is acting on behalf of the crown is in fact responsible for due diligence and oversight. After all, the ministers themselves don't actually run the ministries. They appoint qualified, legitimate people whom I have the highest regard for, our public sector civil servants, to actually run the day-to-day business. These are large corporations. In fact, if you look at it, Mr.

Speaker—you'd be very familiar; you've been here many years—you would know that the budget is now over $100 billion.

In that, there is an executive committee, much like a board of directors: cabinet, who are really the government officials who set the policy direction and allocation of resources to the execution of these policies. In that, they have oversight. We would all agree, I think on both sides, that the ministry and the cabinet—specifically Premier McGuinty, respectfully—have the final say. As the old saying goes, the buck stops here. I think it was a famous US President who said that.

In this case here, just reading the first phrase in this explanatory note, it would appear that they are going to skate around, blur or just transfer some of these important responsibilities to an arm's-length agency, the Integrity Commissioner.

Now, having been a member here, as all members have—mine is closing in on 15 years, which I have enjoyed and hope to continue to enjoy, at the leisure of the people in the riding of Durham, of course—I have to file a report to the Integrity Commissioner each year, which is due this weekend; I remind members to get those forms filled in. It's sort of like doing your income tax twice. I don't see why we don't just send in our income tax; I mean, I've already done that and paid for it. But anyway, I'll get on topic here.

We all know that we have the highest regard for the Integrity Commissioner's office and the work they have done. I'll refer to a specific case here shortly. The work they have done is commendable and a good point of reference as a resource to the minister, who could actually consult with them from time to time on issues. In fact, I think this minister has consulted with past Integrity Commissioners on various issues personally, because he has been a member of cabinet for most of his time here—I think all of his time.

In fact, I would say he has worked very hard at being a minister, and I think in this case here perhaps the Premier is shuffling it off to him to sort of make sure this thing isn't getting a lot of press.

It really is, ultimately, our opinion that the ministers, the Premier, cabinet as a whole and Management Board—I think they have the qualifications to have the oversight, the ability and the integrity, hopefully, to do the job. But it appears that there are a few times, with OLG and eHealth, that they haven't done the job—it appears. The Premier had promised that they were going to get PricewaterhouseCoopers to look into it, but they didn't. Maybe they were afraid of what they'd find. I have no idea.

Does the Premier have to agree with the advice of this arm's-length agency, whether it's from the WSIB, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board—do they have to agree? No, they don't actually have to agree. They can take the advice and they can shelve it, file it, look at it, refer it. They can do lots of different things with it. They don't have to follow with direct action on these things from these outside, arm's-length agencies.

But I'll go on here: "Any entity in the public service in Ontario or in Ontario's broader public sector may be prescribed in the regulations as a public entity that is subject to this act. An expenses officer will be prescribed for each public entity (separate expenses officers maybe prescribed for employees and appointees). This individual is required to submit the expense claims of certain persons designated in the regulations to the commissioner for review."

Now, it's my understanding that the commissioner's office today has under 10 employees. I know a couple of them personally because I've been there and actually consulted; I think they're terrific people, with integrity as the number one thing on the checklist of what I think of them. It's my understanding that there could be as many as, say, I don't know, at least several thousand people who would be required to submit these expense reports. If they do them, say, 10 times a year, there could be hundreds of thousands of these expense reports that have to be filed. I just can't imagine the amount of paperwork and how many accountants they're actually going to need.

To get qualified accountants, chartered accountants, CAs, CGAs—they're also qualified as far as I understand—and CMAs, certified management accountants—these people should probably make, let's say, $70,000 to $200,000 a year. I'm concerned that they are creating a whole new bureaucracy here, like huge, perhaps as many as hundreds of these qualified professional auditors to overlook these.

What's missing here is leadership in the first instance, saying, "Look, let's start." I think that the ministers—I know that each of us, if we have expenses each month, are required to file, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you do, with the exception of the Speaker's office, of course. They don't have to file. They can file but they're not public. I think they should be public. I'll say on the record today that any of these trips, junkets—sometimes Peter Kormos calls them junkets—should all be public. After all, we are in the trust of the public, spending public money, and we're saving it.

On the explanatory note—I don't really have quite enough time to get through the whole bill because of some of the opinions I have on it—"The Commissioner may review the expense claims of designated persons for each public entity and determine if the claims are allowable in accordance with standards set out in the regulations. These regulations may incorporate by reference government of Ontario policies and directives."

I worked for a large company—I won't mention the name because it's not the same company any longer—for 30 years, and we always had to file expenses. There were clear directions on what the meal allowance was. There were clear directions that there was no alcohol involved, period. You are representing the corporation, you shouldn't be involved in it, and I endorsed that and followed those rules for 30-plus years at the company I was with. I did travel to various parts of the world, and I did so with some apprehension.

When you went to other countries that weren't as safe as Canada—let's put it that way—but I always at the end of that filed an expense report. They were audited, generally by the accounting department. There were clear rules. We were given a manual—"Here are the rules." If you are in violation of those rules, I think there should be consequences for breaking the law. I think in this case here, I would assume that the Premier—well, it's the Minister of Finance who fired the person from OLG.

Now, it's my understanding that the person from eHealth—some of these people are going to sue the government. It's my understanding that they've filed a claim and these claims are going to ask for $8 million. If you looked at it, it looked good. It really looked good that the Minister of Finance stepped up and fired the people, like it's very decisive action. But was there just cause? Because in here they're admitting that they are going to set out in regulation what is an appropriate expense. Did they not give them clear instructions? People making $200,000 a year plus—I think she was making $400,000. It's an unbelievable amount of money and it is questionable what they actually did.

In the lottery business, OLG, I'm even curious why they have such a big bureaucracy. I can't imagine why they have these people. They are all appointments, of course, and I think those appointments are sometimes people who know the government, sometimes they're friends of the people who know the government and sometimes they're just friends of the government. It doesn't mean they aren't capable, I suppose, and that isn't my job here. My job here is not to cast aspersions on any of these, but I would expect a person with a job making $400,000 a year—one example is that they spent $25,000 on one speech. This one this morning is free but, of course, you often get what you pay for.

My point here really is that $25,000—my goodness, I think for some of the clerical people that's all they make in a year in this very building. If I look at the young pages here this morning, and I might suggest that—I have a page from my riding and I'd like to take time just to mention that. So far, she has done an impressive job and, as far as I am concerned, has no expenses to be reported at this time.

In the event that they designate in regulations who should report what—I know that there is a statement of our entitled expenses; I have a copy with me now. It's out there now. I don't know what this new set of rules is all about, except to clarify the rules that exist. They have existed for many years and, I think, have been well done. There have been occasions; I remember that Cam Jackson was accused, and in fact resigned from cabinet.

This leads to the diceyness here. This is the nuts and bolts of this legislation. Does the commissioner's ruling have to be followed by the Premier? Should a person be sanctioned in some way for a breach of the rules—that, ultimately, is the question as we see it—or is this just a way of obfuscating or getting around the rules? In my view, the minister isn't running the ministry on a day-to-day basis. He's directing, in a policy sense, and allocating resources, which is very important—don't get me wrong—but he's not running it; he's not directing traffic.

Chief Fantino is doing that on the highways, and he's probably running more than that. But he's certainly running that much, I know for sure, and, I would say, pretty much doing a safe job. And I'm happy that they're going to be implementing this ban on the use of cellphones while driving. I think that's very important, and they're going to have a tough time enforcing that. But there is a case where there are rules and you have enforcement and you have consequences. That's why this relates to Bill 201, which I'm discussing this morning.

I'm going on to the next explanatory note in the very limited time that's left. "If the commissioner determines that all or part of a claimed expense is not allowable, the commissioner shall notify the expenses officer"—there are two layers of bureaucracy here: the commissioner, who is going to do the audit, and the expenses officer in the ministry. Why don't they just give the expenses officer the authority to say, "Look, you're claiming alcohol here; not allowable. Please return the money." And if it's not, they should be sanctioned somehow, depending how expensive the wine was.

The commissioner may review the expenses of the designated person for each public entity and determine if claims are allowable in accordance with standards set out in regulation. If the commissioner determines that all or part of a claim is not allowable, the commissioner shall notify the expenses officer and may require repayment of all or part of the expense and may recommend other remedial action—hmm, remedial action. Have them read the instructions on expenses again, perhaps.

"The expenses officer is required to report back to the commissioner as to whether the expense has been repaid or the remedial action undertaken." Talk about red tape. Who's got the button here? Do you understand? We've got the ministry and their own person who's looking after this stuff; we've got the minister overseeing that, who would see and approve expenses that exceed a certain amount or special trips outside the province, probably for valid reasons, but they should be able to say, "No, you can't do this or that." Maybe you shouldn't be able to travel first class or whatever it is; I don't know what the rules are, exactly.

The point is, there are a lot of layers here. There's the minister's oversight within the ministry, and I get that; I think they're qualified people. All I'm asking is that they step up and do their job. If somebody within the ministry is allowed to break those rules, they should be sanctioned, and it's up to the minister and the Premier to deal with that. Now we've got this other person, the Integrity Commissioner, whom they can blame: "Well, the Integrity Commissioner didn't report." What's that about? It's just another layer of bureaucracy to hide from the obvious thing of the executing of your duties.

"Each year, the commissioner is required to give a written report about his or her review of expense claims under the act to the Speaker." Now they're implicating the Speaker; that's your office, Mr. Crozier. "The commissioner also has discretion to make a public report respecting any matter related to the commissioner's functions under the act." If they're anything like André Marin, the Ombudsman, I hope they take advantage of that ability to issue these reports. They would be noticed a lot more than most commissioners, let's put it that way, and maybe they'd do it to be noticed; who knows?

But if they're making a valuable contribution to the public oversight, I think that's good. In this case here, I think that—in any case, a member under the integrity act today, any member, can make accusations, but they have to be substantiated or at least able to stand the test of credibility by the Integrity Commissioner.

In fact, that was done in the past, which leads to the second part of my remarks, which I hope won't come across as unkind or unfair, but they are part of the public record and as such they should be read. This is a report issued on January 4, 2006, to the Legislature. It goes to the Speaker, as this legislation would, and it's the Office of the Integrity Commissioner report from the Honourable Coulter Osborne, Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, re the Honourable Harinder Takhar, Minister of Transportation and member for Mississauga Centre. It's a very long report.

There was an accusation launched—and this isn't to be mean-spirited. We're talking about this very office and this very minister, and the role of the Integrity Commissioner. I don't want to get too far out on the ice here, but it says that, "The Sunday, June 12, 2005 edition of the Toronto Sun included the photograph of the minister speaking on his cellphone outside the Chalmers offices. It accompanied a column headlined, 'Caught in the Act?' by Sun reporter Christina Blizzard. That

article appears to be the first public disclosure of the minister's attendance at Chalmers on April 29, 2005. In her article, Ms. Blizzard referred to comments made by the minister in relation to his attendance" at Chalmers Group.

Some background: Mr. Takhar was the Minister of Transportation and he has been a successful business person in his life as an engineer, I believe maybe with a master's degree, and quite qualified and well recognized as an expert, I guess, in transportation suspension systems. Because of being appointed to cabinet, he had to have an arm's-length relationship with that and have a trustee in place. That's really the essence here. I guess the commissioner went on and there were some judgments made and testimony given.

Under the act, someone can report this, and it was reported and there were hearings, and there was a course of testimony. I think sometimes people don't do things intentionally—I'll put that on the record, and I would hope that that's the case here—and sometimes out of not knowing, which refers back to the bill.

Lots of people expense things that maybe they aren't sure if they should. Maybe for a $100 bottle of wine, they should ask somebody, "Do you think I should expense this?" Or in the case of a coffee and a doughnut, "Wait a minute here; I think the coffee and the doughnut"—if you're getting $400,000 a year, maybe you can skip expensing that, because you're taking it from the hand of a child at school. They're talking about having full-day kindergarten and the big issue there is the money. They said this morning they may not be able to implement it because they haven't got enough money. Well, if they had taken care of the money they had, they wouldn't be chasing the money they don't have.

In a case of somebody spending recklessly or without regard for the public, they should be sanctioned, no question about it, period. It doesn't mean they get fired or anything else; it means they certainly pay it back or make restitution, maybe do public service by working in a food bank or something like that to learn that a $100 bottle of wine would probably pay for meals for a month for a family, or certainly for a week. We've got to put this stuff in perspective and I, for one, would like to think that's important.

I'm not going to go through this testimony and review in the report by Mr. Osborne, but here's the series of interviews that were held: Joseph Jeyanayangam, trustee—gone; Balwinder Takhar, the minister's wife; Christina Blizzard testified; Brett Kelly, who was the director of research for the opposition at the time; Jeff Kroeker, policy adviser to the Minister of Health; Earl McKinnon, the minister's driver; Muriel Alvarez, minister's executive secretary; and the honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Takhar, were all interviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, Coulter Osborne.

There wasn't a conclusive—I would say from my reading. Over the signature of the Honourable Coulter Osborne it just says, "It is imperative that ministers take their obligations under sections 10, 11 and 12 of the act seriously. Those obligations include having a trustee, where applicable, who is in an arm's-length relationship with the minister. Although I regard this as a serious matter, I have to recognize that the minister did not go about intentionally trying to short-circuit the system.

I accept his statement that had he realized that his arm's-length relationship with" his CEO "was compromised, he would have taken steps through this office to straighten things up. I also recognize that in circumstances like this, there is a political price that sometimes has to be paid." That's fairly important here. "Since this is a matter of first impression, I think it would be unfair to sanction the minister beyond issuing a reprimand under

section 34(1)(b). Upon the filing of this report with the Speaker, that reprimand will be duly recorded."

In fact, the Integrity Commissioner, I think in fairness, listened to all the evidence, didn't think there was anything done intentionally and issued a sanction. It was up to the Premier to ask—now, in all fairness, the opposition, in the past, I can think of two cases of persons: one who is here, Mr. Runciman, who unknowingly, unintentionally, unmaliciously issued the name of a young offender in this place and had to step aside until such things were heard. It was the same thing with Minister Jackson, who at the time was accused of making certain things, which was not held up under scrutiny, and had to step aside.

All I'm saying here is the Premier didn't take the advice of the Integrity Commissioner. It wasn't Minister Takhar. He was sitting there as kind of the innocent victim of the whole thing. I think he's sitting here again as the innocent victim. Imagine giving this to him, this particular bill, which causes us to do research about reports of the Integrity Commissioner. I come across this report, the very report about the minister who is the author of this bill on integrity.

I don't know; if I was Minister Takhar, I would on principle alone question the Premier: "Why didn't you give this to Minister Wilkinson, who's prancing around trying to sell the HST?" Can you imagine that, trying to flog a dead horse? I'm telling you.

But I would say that the truth here is that this report, in itself, no one can find fault with the idea. I think "Integrity Commissioner" should have been replaced with "Premier": "The Premier shall approve all expenses." Let's get on the record right now that the buck stops with the Premier of Ontario. People have entrusted him as the bridge between them and government. Government is the civil service that makes the hospitals run, makes the schools run and makes the province run, I guess. If they can't run, then you can blame the Premier for not giving them enough money or resources, human or physical resources.

But that Integrity Commissioner's report stands. When we ask questions about the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., where the first instance was, or back as far as the eHealth scandal that emerged this summer, in the summer of discontent, this is where the Premier should have stepped right in and said, "Look, step aside until we solve this problem." What did he do with the minister at the time, Minister Caplan? He probably called Minister Caplan's mother to find out what to do. I mean, he is her son and she was the Minister of Health at one time. But no, he wasn't spanked and he wasn't sanctioned in any way.

In fact, he's still trotting off that he had nothing to do with those things. Well, somebody should have been looking at it: a person getting $25,000 for a speech and $400,000 a year, and other people charging a nice cup of tea when they go to bed at night when they're on a $3,000-a-day expense thing? I don't know; it's a shameful abuse of public money.

Ultimately, we probably support the intent here, but there is a process already in place. This is shifting it. It's trying to shift the focus from Premier McGuinty's failure of oversight and management duty to the Integrity Commissioner. In fact, there isn't even an Integrity Commissioner; there's a temporary one—who has done an excellent job, by the way. I'm surprised that she didn't accept the full-fledged commission of being the Integrity Commissioner, but I guess they're interviewing a judge. Coulter Osborne, of course, was a judge as well, so maybe they want somebody with the higher pay qualifications or something.

Finally: Each year the commissioner will issue the report. What's the report going to be? Right now, there's the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. Anyone making over $100,000 a year—that list is public. If they're on the public payroll, it's published. Every member of the Legislature, their entire expenses are published every year, already. You can tell what they spent on travel, expenses, stationary—you name it, they can find it. That's the way it should be. I think some of the public sector appointees like the OLG—take for instance the racing commission.

There are all kinds of agencies, boards and commissions. I have no clue what they're making, and it should be published. I wonder why it isn't in this bill. If you're going to have a bill, let's make the rules clear once and for all. If you run on a platform of openness, accountability and transparency, let's get it done. You'll find complete support under our leader, Tim Hudak. That's what it's about: openness and accountability. There are mistakes made, in fairness, by all sides. I can remember we had—

Mr. Paul Miller: You'll move up a row, John, with that one.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm working on two rows. We want the two-row move.

Mr. Paul Miller: You're moving, kid, you're moving.

Mr. John O'Toole: As long as it isn't backwards. Anyway, up here we consider that we're actually in the penthouse. You've got to look at things positively in life. I think that's important.

But I digress. I've got to stay on the topic in the short 30 minutes I have left here to talk about this bill. This bill, by the way, is almost three pages—not quite, though. It has a lot of details. I think it's important that the public knows the purpose. The purpose clause is where you first go to when you read legislation. What are they trying to do here? They're establishing a redundancy, an oversight that already should exist.

It's clear from the evidence presented in the last two weeks in question period, whether it's eHealth, whether it's the Ontario Lottery and Gaming commission, whether it's MPAC or—I don't think the list is done yet. I think the culture of entitlement had already taken place. It's only those things that we found that have been disclosed. We're looking for more. Apparently, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of freedom-of-information requests.

Now, I'm going to get to the substance of how difficult it is for the opposition to do the job. In the report that I read in the paper last week—I'm actually going by memory here. Last week in one of the papers there was a report that said, under eHealth—no, it was the OLG scandal. There are so many of them that I get confused after a while on these things. Under the Ontario Lottery and Gaming, the CEO was asked by the minister, according to the press, to fire someone.

Respectfully to this person, she initially refused to follow the orders or at least gave them an alternative and said, "I would rather handle it this way." I read that, and I thought, "Gee, that is a person who believed that the intention of the government"—this is my own impression—"under the OLG, was to give the impression to the public that they were acting decisively and swiftly to stop the hemorrhaging of public spending or wasting of money." That was mostly for the media, really for the photo op, for the impression—bingo, a person being trashed; they're responsible.

They should have been trashing the minister, that's who they should have been trashing. Who's been watching the vault all summer while they're giving away cars and taking trips to various places and drinking expensive wine, eating big three-inch steaks and all those—it was almost disgusting, really, when you read it. But I'll stay on topic.

The key thing that I found in reading the

article was that the professional person who was the head made recommendations on how they could handle these unfortunate circumstances of people wasting money in their expenses, taking lavish trips. Although she would have some fiduciary responsibility, I think she should have stepped in herself, making—I think it was $400,000 a year she was making. Anyway, they fired her. They wanted her to fire a couple of other people, too. As it turned out, she believed that she was wrongfully dismissed, so she's turning around and, in a court action, making some of this information public and suing the province of Ontario for something in excess of $8 million.

She had said to them, "Look give me my severance"—which would be one year's pay, half a million dollars—

Mr. Paul Miller: Five for most people.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, a couple of years' pay. She might have got a million bucks or something and lived happily ever after. Well, maybe not happily, but certainly able to pay the bills. I guess the key is, they didn't accept that.

My impression—and I'm not qualified, nor are we as legislators qualified; the judges can do that. Perhaps the Integrity Commissioner's first duty should be to rule on whether or not they should waste money on lawyers. It'll cost $10 million by the time they get the $8 million.

She'll probably win, I would suggest. Just reading the media release, it would look to me like she offered alternatives and took some sense of responsibility. It's sort of like going to confession. You do the penance and I guess you're forgiven, but you should not repeat it again. You sort of make a solemn promise: "I will do better the next time." But some people digress and fall into their old habits, and this is what I'm concerned about.

We've learned now there are three commissions or arm's-length agencies, all of which have wasted millions of dollars on wine and cheese parties or things and unnecessary, lavish expenses in hotels and trips. Often I wonder where Minister Pupatello is.

Mr. Paul Miller: Globetrotting.

Mr. John O'Toole: Globetrotting, junkets. Hey, look, I'm sure there will be reports from the Integrity Commissioner. That's what I'm looking for—every minister's expense reports outline the lavish entertainment. When Greg Sorbara was Minister of Finance—the receptions for the prebudget hearings.

We would probably propose an amendment here and the amendment would probably be in the tone of "no alcohol should be served." I think that's an appropriate request. No alcohol should be paid for by the government either in a ministry's office or out of a ministry's office. Let's be clear.

What are the penalties? I don't see any penalties here. I would expect the minister to step aside, at least as a symbolic gesture. The symbolic gesture here was firing the lady from OLG and setting her as an example: her picture in the Toronto Star walking out with a box full of papers.

Mr. Paul Miller: Pass the buck.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's the third party delegation.

But what are the consequences? There's no clear—it says here they may take each year a review of expenses to the Speaker. "The commissioner also has discretion to make a public report respecting" the "matter related to the commissioner's functions," but also whether or not—what actions were taken by the ministry, because it ultimately goes back.

I say this time and time again. They've hired another fancy level of bureaucrats, similar to the LHINs, the local health integration networks. That's a shield for the ministry. That's all it is. They're not performing surgery or giving vaccinations. They're not doing anything but travelling around with coffee and doughnuts and telling people about health care, how you can get a doctor or something like that. I maybe trivialize it a bit, but that's another layer shielding the minister. You say, "Minister, why are you looking at closing the emergency in the Bowmanville hospital?" What do I get back for an answer?

"Speak to the LHIN." That's a tragedy. The Minister of Health is in charge. He's got the gold pin. He signs the cheques. He's got it all, and yet he's not responsible. "Why did that person in that hospital not get that service in a timely way?" "Well, we've done reports, we've done this, we've got people." Minister, if you can't do the job, step aside. I know a government, or at least a group of individuals in a caucus, who are prepared to step up and take over in 2011.

Kelly McDougald, the former CEO of the OLG, is the person mentioned here. And it's right here: "Ms. McDougald alleges she was fired from her $400,000-a-year CEO job with no severance after refusing to sack the corporation's chief financial officer and one other senior employee, as demanded by Finance Minister Dwight Duncan to make it appear the 'boils are lanced.'" That's in quotes, the boil has been lanced. It's appearance here; it's not substantive. This is the tragedy: How things look are not always how things are.

I think the public can see through this bill much like this "The boil has been lanced." Premier McGuinty would like to think that we've solved the problem, with Bill 201, of all the lavish spending and waste of taxpayers' money. Minister Takhar is bringing it to us and asking us to speak to it, and they'll say, "Well, they didn't support a bill on accountability and integrity." There is no need for this bill. I believe that Minister Takhar—and I say this respectfully—is qualified. He ran a very large, successful company. I'm impressed that he's here giving public service, but the issue is, now the Premier is saying, "He's not qualified. I'm going to get somebody else." It's shameful.

I think the ministers should be standing up and rebelling. They should be standing up and saying, "Look, Premier, we're capable. We're not just puppets reading the speeches you give us." But then, maybe they are. Maybe they are just saying, "Oh, I'll read that. Give me that; I'll read that quietly and carefully." They're in charge of the ministries. That's why I think when the minister was in charge of transportation—no disparaging remark on Mr. Bradley; I think he's doing a fine job. Certainly he's reading all the speeches that he's given quite well, anyway.

My point here is that there are CEOs working with them. The deputy ministers are qualified—in many cases I've met some of them—and they're working with highly qualified ministers, respectfully. Why do we need this bill?

Let's stand up here as a group today, and I would move that we just set it aside. Don't bring it forward anymore because it's not needed. What's needed is Premier McGuinty to get up there, give his ministers the authority and the accountability and say, "Look, we're going to govern according to the principles and rules of integrity, openness and accountability, and Minister, if you mess up, screw up, whatever, you're finished." I think they will respond. I think that the OLG scandal would be gone.

Minister Caplan should be at least asked to introduce this bill. He's the one who should be the scapegoat here. You could say, "Look, Minister Caplan, it wasn't your fault." It was probably George Smitherman's fault, really, because all this stuff happened when Smitherman was the minister. They put David Caplan in there. I think if he stepped aside, we'd probably support this bill, because at least then I'd say, "Okay, before this bill was law, somebody was responsible."

Now, who was it: Caplan, Smitherman or McGuinty? I wouldn't think that the Premier should resign, but then, of course, I'd leave that open to the House. But I would say certainly somebody over there should step aside. Then we can deal with this bill. It sends a better signal than sacrificing this poor Kelly McDougald.

Again, I'm referring here to an

article from the Toronto Star. It's from September 16, and Rob Ferguson and Rob Benzie commissioned this: "Kelly McDougald says she was axed amid scandal after refusing government order to fire underlings." Well, we'll see how this plays itself out in the courts. I would say the public should follow this closely. Watch it and see if the government really played this hand wrong.

You know, it's funny the way that whole thing worked. There was the week of scandals here. It wasn't just eHealth and OLG; I think there was MPAC. There were a bunch of them, really, and there are still more to come. This is going to become a novel, a bestseller.

I say to the people of Ontario: Stay tuned. There are thousands more of these cheques that have spent your money on wasteful entertainment, trips and travel by a government that's going to blame someone else now—the Integrity Commissioner—if it's not caught. Meanwhile, the ministers are twiddling their thumbs, I guess, and letting people run about, doing as they wish, without much accountability. I'd like to think that isn't the case, as much as I'd like to criticize the government—it is my duty as the critic—but I remain concerned that this issue has not been properly dealt with in Bill 201,

An Act to provide for review of expenses in the public sector.

This implies that there isn't any process today. There certainly is. I've just explained that I have to file every month; I have to file every year—the Premier does; everyone does. The Integrity Commissioner reviews all this. It's set up. It's under the Integrity Act today. The public sector already has reporting. They have expense forms, they have expense guidelines, and if somebody breaches the rules, sure, there should be sanctions. I don't see any sanctions in here.

It really says that "the expenses officer is required to report back to the commissioner as to whether the expense has been repaid or the remedial action undertaken." I don't even know what that is in terms of remedial action.

Let's look here: "Supporting documents

"

(4) An expenses officer shall,

"(

a) ensure that each expense claim he or she gives to the commissioner is accompanied by supporting documents."

That would be a credit card notice. I don't think so. It should be the detailed list of how many glasses of wine, how many people, why they were there, who approved it before the meeting or the soiree at the big restaurant. That should all be on there. I don't want just the Visa bill showing you spent $4,000 on a steak dinner for 10 people who were all friends. This is what has been going on. I am putting that on the record. It's there.

"(

b) indicate whether each expense claim he or she gives ... was paid, in whole or in part, by the public entity or out of public funds of the province of Ontario."

"

(5) The commissioner may make a written request to an expenses officer for information and documents relating to expense claims made by the relevant designated persons for expenses that are reviewable under

section 3."

There's a review by the commissioner: "Discretion of commissioner

"

(3) The commissioner may, in such circumstances as he or she considers appropriate, choose not to direct the repayment of an amount and choose not to recommend other remedial action."

I would hope they don't use that section. I think they should be recommending repayment—and "...gives a direction or recommendation under subsection (2) shall promptly give the commissioner written notice of any action taken by the expenses officer in connection with the matter."

"

(5) If the amount is not repaid or remedial action that the commissioner considers appropriate is not taken on or before the specified date, the commissioner may advise appropriate persons as to any matter that the commissioner considers appropriate in the circumstances."

Who would the commissioner advise, do you think? Let's just put that simple phrase—I'm going to leave it for the minister in his two-minute response to my shortened speech here this morning. It says here—I'll read it again—"If the amount is not repaid or remedial action that the commissioner considers appropriate is not taken on or before the specified date, the commissioner may advise appropriate persons...." I wonder who that would be. Would it be the minister? Would it be the Premier? I would ask them to advise me, and I'll be raising it in the Legislature the very next day. And who would I ask that question to? I'd be asking the Premier, because the buck stops with Premier McGuinty.

If it all goes well, the Premier's taking credit for it. He's out saying, "What a great job I've done." And if all goes badly, he should take credit for that as well. It's only fair.

Let the people judge here if this bill is going to shuffle this off to the Integrity Commissioner, whatever their name will be, because they haven't been appointed yet. There has been a vacancy there for a while, and it has been a temporary appointment, and now they're going to make it—this eight-person office is located on Bloor Street, isn't it, the Integrity Commissioner?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Yes.

Mr. John O'Toole: I haven't been there this year, but I will be there in the next month or two. It's on Bloor Street and it's quite expensive real estate. In fact, there was an

article in the Toronto Star today and that

article was saying how expensive. It was $300 a square foot per year. The most expensive real estate in all of Canada is on Bloor Street. Why are they located there?

Mrs. Julia Munro: So you can walk there.

Mr. John O'Toole: No. They should be located where I can walk, in this building. Let's get them in here. There's all kinds of room for it.

Now, that being said, they're going to have to move. Look, I am advising the people from the integrity office on Bloor Street—it's about the eighth or 10th floor or something. Right at the corner there where they're building the expensive condos is where it is, over the Hudson's Bay Centre. Now, they're going to have to move. In fact, they may take over the whole building, because there are going to be thousands of auditors now, thousands of them, and all making $100,000 a year. Where are they going to park? They're going to have to build a parking garage for them. It's unbelievable.

This bill is going to set this government back. The deficit will be $30 billion now, easily, because of this new bureaucracy that they are creating. No disrespect to the integrity office; that's not what I'm saying. It's the government's initiative here that's going to cause the expenditure.

I should tell you that I've been following this quite closely. I have a question on the order paper. The minister, I see, is here. The question is, how much is this going to cost? It's only fair on behalf of the people—it was never in the budget. It's not in the budget, and they're going to cut junior kindergarten. Apparently, they're not going to introduce that. It's going to cost too much money. How much is this going to cost? Maybe the minister, in his response, would give us the privilege of knowing what the average pay would be for all the thousands of accountants.

There could be a million expense reports issued a year, and I think it's worth us knowing what in fact is going to be the bottom line here.

If I look at it, we respect and support the work of the Integrity Commissioner and we're confident that the commissioner will have a role to play in ensuring accountability. That is the case today and it's what we support. We will continue to insist on an all-party committee of the House reviewing the eHealth and OLG spending scandals and any other scandals that emerge. It will take them a year to set this up, by the time they hire somebody to interview all these thousands of people and relocate the Integrity Commissioner from Bay Street to, I don't know, some other executive tower.

With this accountability legislation, McGuinty is trying to delegate integrity to someone else. What a shameful statement. It has to come from the Premier. We've said that all along. The Premier's announcement pre-empts the Auditor General's report on what went on and what went wrong at eHealth. Are the Premier and his cabinet, Minister Smitherman and Minister Caplan, interested in accountability and integrity, or is this another knee-jerk reaction that is attempting to distract from the summer of scandal? Tragic. Being accountable is the job of Premier McGuinty, his cabinet and his government.

Unfortunately, the Premier insists on shifting responsibility elsewhere, to a third party review that was cancelled, to the Auditor General, and now to the Integrity Commissioner. They said PricewaterhouseCoopers was going to look at this, and then they cancelled that. They are stalling. The evidence is here.

Is he saying the ministers are not capable of overseeing aspects of their ministries that they should be responsible for? I hope he isn't. There are several ministers here, and I think they are very capable people, as the people on all sides of the House are capable. But I am wondering if this is a subtle put-down of his own cabinet. What does it say about their own competence?

At what cost? That's the question. How can the nine staff that are currently in the Integrity Commissioner's office oversee expense accounts of these many agencies? Is Premier McGuinty creating a new bureaucracy just to avoid an all-party committee having direct responsibility for reviewing eHealth and OLG and other scandals?

Will this added challenge detract from the current work of the Integrity Commissioner in the five existing areas of responsibility that they have today: members' integrity, lobbyists' registration, review of ministers' and opposition leaders' expenses, ministerial staff ethical conduct, and public service disclosure of wrongdoing? Will it interfere with the current mandate of the ministry? Will it be separated from—and let's just admit it's another level of bureaucracy.

How do we know this government will follow through on its promises? As we've seen in the past, whether it's the tax issue or whether it's the issue on many things they've said they would do—closing coal plants: They'll be blowing smoke, just like the coal plants. They had already promised to the House an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into eHealth and then mysteriously cancelled that.

A key consideration: The "largest agencies, boards and commissions will be required to have their expenses reviewed by Ontario's Integrity Commissioner.

"Under the new rules, employees who claim unacceptable expenses like personal items and alcohol for staff functions will repay taxpayers." I guess so. Why they're doing it is the issue.

The culture of entitlement is rampant. We're seeing it in all our FOI requests; we're hearing it in the media every day. It has been the summer of scandals. What other evidence do we need? This is just a way of shuffling it off as a deflection.

The new rules will apply to Ontario Lottery and Gaming; Ontario Power Generation; Hydro One; the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator; the Ontario Power Authority; Workplace Safety and Insurance Board; the LCBO; eHealth; Cancer Care Ontario; Ontario Infrastructure Projects—there's one I'd like to have a look at. Wow. These little agencies—this one that's handling all the infrastructure money: Let's have a close look at that sucker; consultants and wine and cheese parties galore.

The Ontario Financing Authority—a pretty solid group there. Ontario Realty Corporation—there's another one we should have a look at. Ontario Public Service Pension Board—where are all the pensions? They're in the ditch, all of them. There's a big problem there. Who has been running it? Who's running FSCO, for that matter? Toronto area transit—there's another one. Who's driving the bus? Ontario Human Rights Commission—a good friend of George there. She has written a few reports on Oshawa this year, on housing. I don't know. The Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre is another one. Ontario Educational Communications Authority; Ontario Racing Commission; Ontario Clean Water Agency.

This is just a partial list to alert the people of Ontario. There are hundreds of agencies out there, many political appointments that are all being paid off for support in the last few years, by way of these appointments. They're earning salaries in excess of $400,000 a year, and they are spending money—you're paying for their cup of tea at night.

These aren't political statements. These are questions of a government's entitlement, and the rule of entitlement seems to be the play of the day.

I'm concerned that this bill is just one more step to obfuscate, to shuffle off, to deflect, to try to put out the fire. This is a scandal and this is just the tip of an iceberg.

Public sector money—and we have a deficit in this province that's growing exponentially. The deficit is now bigger than in the days of Bob Rae. It's raging and out of control.

We have over 300,000 people unemployed. We have large companies going aside and losing contracts because of this HST. This new tax is just a tax grab for another $2.5 billion of your money. There isn't enough money to solve all the problems of this government, and now they're asking a lowly Integrity Commissioner with nine employees to audit these thousands and thousands of expense reports, which the minister should be responsible for today, to start with. What else are they doing besides meetings and briefings and question period with no answers?

It has just become a litany of suspicions on my part, and I've tried to shed some light on an issue where I think the people of Ontario should be outraged about what's going on.

We have issued FOI reports, and this is a final statement in the brief time that I've been allowed this morning. This is documented in the media, and it's clear that the ministry has tried to delay the release of these FOI reports—this is documented. The minister actually said, "We've delayed it as long as we can." I think it was the OLG scandal or eHealth—one of the scandals, anyway. Now they're charging for FOI requests. Why are the people of Ontario paying twice?

There's suspicion of an error, we ask for information from the ministry, which is public and already paid for, and now they're charging us—which is your money—as much as $7,000 and $10,000 for these freedom of information requests. They're anything but free. This shadows on a cover-up, in my opinion, when you are charged money to get honest information.

Mr. Paul Miller: A cover-up?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's shades of that. We didn't make any accusation; otherwise, Minister Smitherman would have jumped to his feet.

My point here is that there's a good example. If we want to move forward together—you use this phrase "moving forward" all the time; I think you've run into a ditch here—I would suggest that they make these freedom of information requests open and free. If it's a spurious accusation on the opposition's part, they should have to pay. But if we find evidence like we're finding today, it should be free. The people of Ontario already paid for the coffee and doughnuts. What we want is some action, and it's clear to me that this bill and this minister are being used to further remove the Premier from being accessible to the people of Ontario.

At the end of the day, the price will be paid, and it's called an election in 2011. I ask the people of Ontario not to forget. We are supposed to learn from history, and we've given you a brief history lesson this morning that the regime of entitlement has arrived, the evidence is clear and you will have the final say. The Integrity Commissioner isn't the final judge; the people of Ontario will be the final judge.

I can put to you that all members of all caucuses have learned a lesson here. But the government today is ultimately responsible for the actions of today. That government is Premier McGuinty and his cabinet, some of whom are here today. I'd say that this bill should be put down, we should put the responsibility back with the ministers, and certain ministers should resign when they've taken an inappropriate action or their subordinates have not informed them of what's going on in their ministries. I would ask every minister to come clean now.

Submit your reports, stop the spending on alcohol and gaming and trips—put a stop to it. We don't need legislation to do the right thing. I've run out of time—really, I could ask for unanimous consent for more time.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: The member from Durham is always quite to the point and sure knows the buttons to push, which is a good thing, because there's no sense in keeping things hidden. One of the expenses that really stood out in my mind, and I was absolutely disgusted when I saw it, was a CEO or vice-president at OLG who spent $3,713 on one meal. Most of my constituents—I would say 80% of my constituents—do not make $3,713 in one month. This oversight that continues with all these ministries and all these agencies has got to stop now.

I've had several calls from my constituents, outraged at what has been going on in the summer of scandal, and it will continue. There's more coming. They're not done yet. There's more information coming in every day that this will go to other agencies and other situations.

You know, expenditures that are reasonable are accepted by the public. A $60 meal or a $40 meal is acceptable; $3,713 is absolutely outrageous. There are many more incidents throughout this report of these things happening. You know, I for one, coming from my background, wouldn't spend that in a year on meals outside the home, and I hope the people in this room realize what's going on and do a lot more to stop these terrible things that have been happening.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I was listening intently to the remarks this morning from my colleague the member from Durham, who I know extremely well, and who had a great career with General Motors and the separate school board and Durham council.

There are a couple of points I want to make. First of all, to anybody looking for an economical lunch, I recommend the East City Coffee Shop in Peterborough. A western sandwich and soup is $6, so if you ever want to have any meetings, you can go there.

None of us on any side of this House condone when the public trust has been broken. Clearly, in this case related to eHealth and the Ontario lottery corporation, the public trust has been broken. Therefore, the Minister of Government Services has proposed Bill 201, the Public Sector Expenses Review Act.

I want to get a few facts on the record this morning. The member from Durham talked about thousands of people coming under this umbrella. I'm told there are only 400 people who will come under this umbrella. Those are the top five people in the agencies that have been identified that are coming under review, the same kind of review that is required for cabinet ministers in the province of Ontario, the opposition leader in the province of Ontario and others who hold the public trust.

Freedom of information is an important part of our democracy. When the Leader of the Opposition was the tourism minister in 2001, the compliance rate for his ministry was only 40%. Only three ministries were lower. Our current Minister of Tourism has a 90% compliance record with freedom of information. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, his compliance rate was some 41%, and he had 19 total requests in the year 2000. So I want to make sure that—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's a pleasure to be able to speak to my colleague's statement earlier today, his one-hour leadoff speech on public expenses. The member opposite would like to speak about public trust. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you'll understand that the public trust was breached this summer when we found out that millions of dollars had gone to untendered contracts in the province. As early as this morning, the Premier, speaking in his weekly scrum, didn't have the details on what type of untendered contracts might be occurring in our LHINs and at our hospitals across the province. That is simply sad.

I think my colleague from Durham makes an excellent point that ministerial accountability must be brought back into the system instead of consistently passing the buck.

I also go back and refer to my colleague from Peterborough's comments where he makes a decision to attack the leader of the official opposition when he was a minister of the crown. What I don't understand here is why the government opposite continues to reach back into a previous century to sling mud. And I don't understand, when they are expecting—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Excuse me, I missed the word—"to sling?"

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mud.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mud. I just ask members to be cautious with their words.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If that's wrong, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw that.

What I don't understand is why they have to consistently move to the back of the pack. When you look at what has happened at OLG and what happened at eHealth, you will recall that these are made-in-McGuinty problems in his summer of scandal. You'll recall that he hired all these bureaucrats he has now fired or has made a "public example" of. I think we ought to start where my colleague from Durham suggests: with the ministers opposite. There should be a few of them who are fired.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a pleasure to make comments about the member for Durham's hour-long lead speech. Certainly, we would have to say in the New Democratic Party that this bill is a baby step in the right direction, but it doesn't address some of the fundamental problems that were uncovered during this last summer. One of them is the allegations that are made in the lawsuit that the Premier's office sat on freedom of information requests and did not let those go in a timely manner. That is an incredibly serious allegation, and that's something that this bill doesn't look at.

This bill also doesn't look at all the agencies, quite frankly, that come under the government's control. For example, we noted with interest the Ontario Securities Commission or FSCO, the insurance and pension regulation agency, is not covered by this. We wonder why. There are conspicuous agencies left out. Is that because there's some trouble brewing there? One can only wonder when it covers some agencies and not all agencies.

The other aspect of this, of course, is will this act have any teeth? Because the Integrity Commissioner has nine staff and a limited budget, so either the member from Durham is right and that staff is going to be expanded ad infinitum or she simply won't have the staff and/or the resources to do what this bill is requiring of her, which is to look at hundreds of expenses and dozens of agencies. This is clearly too much for the structure that we now have in place. Her original job was to look at MPPs, cabinet ministers and their expenses, and that was it. Now it's been expanded beyond all proportion.

Of course, there's the ethical call here. Whether a minister falls or not, it is certainly incumbent upon this government to apologize to the taxpayers of Ontario for the egregious spending that is, by some estimates, illegal.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I thank the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He did mention the one meal by one person and their guests for $3,713—unforgivable. This is what this is about. The member from Peterborough did mention a fine restaurant in each city, but other than that, he was really reading the government's message lines. The member from Nepean—Carleton I think said it all. It's really about ministerial accountability. We're encouraging the ministry to take a second look at this and bring back the traditions of ministerial accountability and the appropriate follow-up actions.

The member from Parkdale—High Park brought to the attention of the people of Ontario that the freedom-of-information requests have been sat on, delayed, held back, withheld—use whatever word you want, but they're not forthcoming.

I think the key thing here is that there are only apparently, according to the member from Peterborough—whom I trust and think highly of in many respects outside the Legislature—five people in each of these ministries. What if they're all, like with Minister Pupatello, travelling around the world? There's got to be an entourage. They're all probably signing it off. Some of the assistant deputy ministers sign these expense reports, and then they're not FOI-able under the minister's report.

There are other ways of changing the focus. What we really want here is for Premier McGuinty to come clean, to step up, take responsibility for the actions of his ministers in cabinet and for them to step up and do the job, which they're being well-paid for, and actually say, "Look, this is exactly what we expect"—set the tone in their ministry and set the example. This is anything but that. This is saying, "Look, we screwed up. We know it. It's in the media. It's not us saying it; we're just doing our jobs here." They're giving it to the Integrity Commissioner, who's going to review all of these inappropriate expenses after the third time.

Ultimately, all of these things—the appointment of the commissioner himself—will be a political decision. Premier McGuinty will appoint the very person who's ruling.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to the standing orders, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Mario Sergio: We are delighted today to have in the House wonderful guests from Ghana, this wonderful country. We have in the Speaker's gallery Nana Serwaaprah I, Queen of Adanse-Praso in Ashanti; we have George Opoko; Chief Evans; Nana Doggo; Nana Pokuaa; Kofi Adjei Perprah; Vida Adjei; Abea; Peter Vecchiarelli; and author Debbie Moskovich. I'd like to welcome them to the House. I hope that they will have a wonderful time enjoying the workings of our Parliament here today.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to welcome the family of our page, Jacob van Wassenaer: his mother Violet van Wassenaer and his brother Philip van Wassenaer. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's my pleasure to introduce some members from Colleges Ontario who are with us today in the members' gallery: Marsha Joseph, who's a manager of government relations; Spencer Wood, the manager of maintenance and operations at Humber College; and Chris Trewartha, executive director of the power application group. They're the advocacy organization for all our colleges in Ontario. They'll be hosting an information session in room 230 from 12 to 3. I encourage all members of all parties to attend.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They're not here yet, but at 11:00, the students from Holbrook public school in Hamilton, in my riding, will be here with their teacher, Erica Read. They'll be in the east gallery and they're grade 5 and 6 students.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery three delegations from the Parliament of Ghana. We have the finance committee, led by the Honourable James Avedzi; the press corps, led by Mr. Andrew Arthur; and two researchers from the research department, Mr. Casmir Addo-Mensah and Ms. Judy Aikins. I'd also like to welcome Kwabena Asare, the consul general of Ghana here in Toronto. Please warmly welcome our guests to the Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday two prominent members of the eHealth board just disappeared. Why are Geoff Smith and Khalil Barsoum no longer on the eHealth board?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: We have—and the auditor will, of course, comment on this and it will be public—quite an excellent board. In both cases, both have done an excellent job on behalf of the people of Ontario, and we do thank them for their service. In both cases, both Mr. Barsoum and Mr. Smith requested that they be able to resign from the board. In fact, that is going to cabinet for order-in-council approval today.

I don't know, of course, what cabinet will do but we do thank all of the members for their service on behalf of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: With all due respect, this is a question to the Premier. I think, considering his summer of scandal and the ongoing problems at eHealth, the Premier would respond to these questions.

Back to the Premier: Geoff Smith is a top fundraiser for the McGuinty Liberals. He was appointed in March of this year but, oddly, his bio never actually made it on to eHealth's public website. Did the Liberals' bagman resign to avoid embarrassing questions about untendered contracts?

Hon. David Caplan: I think that characterization is, frankly, beneath a member of this Legislature. I know that Mr. Smith had done considerable work for the Progressive Conservative Party as well, and I know this is a gentleman who has provided incredible service to Ontarians in this regard. I know that we do have individuals come forward in the spirit of public service to serve on agencies, boards and commissions, and we have the benefit of their expertise.

I don't know the individual circumstances of Mr. Smith and his various commitments, but I can tell you that we were quite honoured to have him. Obviously, his circumstances have changed and he has requested to be able to resign from the board.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: We'd like to know exactly what circumstances suddenly changed, from a high-profile appointee back in March who suddenly disappears off the eHealth board.

I think the Premier and the minister are probably well aware that the PC caucus submitted a freedom-of-information request for contracts between the McGuinty government and EllisDon. Geoff Smith is president and CEO of EllisDon. That FOI is due in early October.

To the Premier: Did Geoff Smith or EllisDon receive any untendered contracts from the McGuinty government?

Hon. David Caplan: I think the member is aware that EllisDon is one of the largest construction companies not simply in Canada but in the world. I can tell you that in fact they have won many tenders to construct hospitals and many projects across this province. It's because of the investment in infrastructure that was a hallmark of this government—a $30-billion infrastructure plan—that not only EllisDon but PCL and other companies, like Bondfield Construction, I know, like Aecon or others, were able to successfully get Ontario and the foundation of the Ontario economy moving.

It is these individuals who in fact have responded to public tender and are doing that work. I anticipate that we will continue to move forward with infrastructure investments. I hope these companies will bid on that work and will—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: I find it unfortunate that the Premier is obviously avoiding responding to my lead questions today.

Let me try again, to the Premier. Premier, during your summer of scandal the media reported that eHealth board member Khalil Barsoum billed taxpayers $2,400 for flights from his vacation home in Florida to attend board meetings in Ontario. He remained on the board for some time after that, but now suddenly is gone. The opposition submitted an FOI request on contracts the eHealth board handed out to IBM, where Barsoum was an executive. Is there something in there that will explain why Barsoum is suddenly gone?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I must tell you, we're again fortunate to have had people like Mr. Barsoum assume the public duty of serving on this important public agency.

Mr. Barsoum decided about his own personal circumstances, that he wished to resign from the board, and it is with regret that we have accepted his resignation.

I can tell you that, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House and outside, the rules for procurement in government are strengthened. In fact, we expect our agencies, boards and commissions to live not only by the letter of the law but by the spirit of the law. It is my contention that it's not simply because it is allowed that you can do it, that it necessarily follows that you should do it. That's precisely why I've asked the auditor to take a look at all the expenditures at—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I have asked you four straight questions. Four straight times, you've sent off that question to your health minister, refusing to answer questions about basic accountability at an agency at the centre of an enormous scandal this past summer. For a Premier that's passed off any kind of accountability for his ministers, I find it sad that he refuses to answer my questions in the Legislature today.

Back to the Premier: When it came to dealing with the OLG, you called a big press conference; your finance minister made a convenient political scapegoat out of the CEO, but for your Liberal friends like Smith and Barsoum there wasn't even a press release. Why is the Premier allowing his Liberal friends to sneak out the back door rather than making a big show like he did with the OLG?

Hon. David Caplan: Four questions, now five; I will answer as many as the member opposite wishes to pose. The answer will be the same: We are determined, on this side of the House, to get down to the bottom of these matters. That's why I took the opportunity to contact Jim McCarter, an independent officer of this Legislature, the Auditor General. I know that the member opposite and his colleagues have had problems with the auditor in the past, but we on this side of the House believe that the auditor performs a very useful function and, in fact, does it in a non-partisan and independent way. My friend opposite might have a particular partisan perspective, and that is his right.

We, of course, are moving forward on delivering on an important eHealth agenda: a diabetes registry, an ePrescribing regime. It's interesting: One million children in the province of Ontario have an electronic health record. Four million Ontarians are part of an electronic medical record as well. These—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Five questions to the Premier; five times he punted the ball down the field. Premier, if you're not going to answer these questions today, you're going to answer these questions soon enough and tell us exactly what has happened with the eHealth board.

Premier, can you guarantee that this is it? Can you guarantee that no board members at eHealth or their companies benefited from untendered contracts handed out by your government?

Hon. David Caplan: I know, as I've said now on five or six occasions to the member opposite, that an independent officer of this Legislature will in fact be able to report to the Legislature, and individual members of this Legislature will have an opportunity at the public accounts committee to speak to him and to review his report. I will not presume what the auditor will say, but I can assure the member that it will not be the partisan speech of the member opposite but unbiased and independent. That, in fact, is the hallmark of an officer of this Legislature.

I will say that members on this side of the House are moving forward to modernize the electronic health infrastructure of the province of Ontario. It is regrettable that such moves were not taken by the member and his colleagues when they had the privilege to serve on this side of the House. But Ontarians know health care—

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

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. It seems that health care spending scandals are becoming a fact of life under the McGuinty government. First, it was eHealth handing out $16 million in untendered contracts to well-connected insiders. Now we learn that in London Health Sciences they're doling out $3.3 million in untendered contracts. This is more than a coincidence; it is fostered by a government that seems to have little regard for the public's money.

When will this Premier finally take charge and end the blatant and disturbing abuse of our precious health dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my honourable colleague understands the steps that we've taken recently and those that we've taken since we earned the privilege of serving Ontarians in government. We recognize that Ontarians work hard for their money and we have a special responsibility to use their dollars wisely.

In the past, we have expanded the ambit of the freedom-of-information legislation to take into account Hydro One and OPG. We've also given the auditor additional powers so that he can now look at, for the first time, our universities, our schools and our hospitals. We're also requiring that the auditor take a look at the government finances before going into an election so we're all clear as to the true state of affairs in that regard. Most recently, we've put in place a number of new measures that are specific to our agencies, boards and commissions, and I know that my colleague understands all of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it's the Premier who just doesn't seem to understand what's at stake here. This isn't pocket change being handed out, it's tens of millions of dollars, money that could make a real difference in an already overstretched health care system. In London and across the South West LHIN, local residents are experiencing a loss of hospital services: Maternity and physiotherapy services are vanishing, beds are closing, and deficits are soaring. How can this Premier seem so content to just sit back and watch as precious health care dollars get poured down the drain, with no accountability?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just can't agree with my colleague's

interpretation of reality. The fact of the matter is that we've invested significant new dollars in health care during the course of the past six years. I think health care spending has been increased by close to—

Hon. David Caplan: Forty-five per cent.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Forty-five per cent. Wait times are down, we are building new hospitals, we've hired thousands of nurses, we've expanded our medical school spaces. I think we've got 800,000 more Ontarians who are now attached to family care. I think we've made real, measurable progress in a number of ways.

There's always more work to be done, but I don't think it could be objectively argued that we have somehow produced a reduction in services. In fact, we've dramatically increased quality of care for many Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier needs a reality check. He just needs to go to talk to the people of this province and see what they think of the quality of their health care here. Across Ontario, 1,200 nurses have lost their jobs. Next door to London, at Grey Bruce Health Services, they're looking to make deep cuts because of a $6.2-million deficit, yet it's very easy to shovel $3 million out the door at one hospital in a sweetheart deal.

This Premier has no problem—no problem at all—telling Ontarians that they have to make do: They have to make do when their emergency rooms close; they have to make do when hospital beds disappear. But when will we finally see him stand up and clamp down on the appalling waste of our health care dollars in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: None of us want to see any waste in our health care system and none of us want to tolerate that. There is something that happened at a hospital in London—my friend makes an oblique reference to it—and it's the responsibility of the board of directors there to ensure that they're enforcing a rule they have on the books, and we would encourage them to do that as quickly as they can.

But again, as a government, we have moved quickly and effectively to improve the quality and number of services available to Ontarians. For example, we have funded close to 1.7 million new procedures and we've reduced wait times dramatically in a number of areas. Now, 907,000 more Ontarians have access to family care. We have 14 new MRI machines and double the number of MRI hours of operation. We have close to 1,800 more doctors practising. We've increased medical school spaces by 23%. There are 150 family health teams, with more to come. I can speak at length about the progress we've made—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is again to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier's harmonized sales tax scheme was heckled and jeered. Obviously, rural and northern families think the HST is a bad deal, and that's not surprising. The HST is a blatant tax grab that makes life less affordable for the people of Ontario, and it will slow down job growth by some 40,000 jobs every year, not according to me but to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

My question is straightforward: How much polling has the government conducted on the harmonized sales tax and how much money has it spent to do that polling?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I was at the International Plowing Match held yesterday in Earlton and I don't know about the heckling and jeering that was raised by my colleague. But I can say that there is obviously continuing interest in the harmonized sales tax, and I can say that our intention here and our motivations are very clear. We think it's the right thing to do for Ontarians. We think it's the right thing to do for our future. We thing it's the right thing to do to ensure that we can grow this economy, that we can create more jobs so we can support services like health care, which my colleague just asked me about.

If we're going to continue to have the financial wherewithal to support the quality of life we enjoy here in Ontario, and particularly the public services that sustain that quality of life—our health care, our education, protections for the environment and so on and so forth—then we must have a strong economy. And the single, most important thing that we can do to strengthen that economy is to move ahead with a harmonized sales tax.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here's what we found through a freedom-of-information request: A poll paid for by the Ministry of Finance shows that support for the HST is falling. When this government's pollsters, in fact, tell Ontarians that the HST will apply to new goods and services, nearly 70% are opposed. One can only imagine what the number would look like if Ontarians were told that the HST will kill up to 40,000 jobs each year.

How does it surprise the Premier that Ontarians know a bad deal when they see one?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's an important debate. We embrace this responsibility. We will not shy away from it as my colleagues did when they were in government and as the Conservatives did when they were in government. They know in their heart of hearts it's the right thing to do. We all understand this is not an easy thing to do. When you have the support of the business community and food banks at the same time, we know that we are on the right track. Tom Cooper, who is a well-recognized, and in fact, as I understand it, a highly regarded anti-poverty activist in Hamilton, has said that this is the right thing for us to do.

We look forward to getting my colleague's support so that, together, we can do what is right for the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government's own polling shows how angry people are about the HST. Half of Ontarians classify themselves as strongly opposed to the tax, and there are very few regional differences in this poll, very few differences in terms of the opposition. Maybe that's why your backbenchers are feeling so nervous these days.

I don't think the government needed to pay for a poll to find out anything about how people feel about this tax. The Premier could have walked into any coffee shop in any community in this province, a place like Earlton, a place like Kirkland Lake or Timmins, and they would tell you they are not happy about this tax.

Given the depth of opposition from everyday Ontarians, why does the Premier not admit that the HST is a bad idea and pull the plug on this tax grab once and for all?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The complaint that my colleague seems to be making is that we're not governing in keeping with the polls. She's right. That's what leadership is all about. We're doing what we believe is right for Ontario.

We didn't move ahead with the Green Energy Act because there was a groundswell of support for that. We did that because we want to put Ontario at the forefront in North America. We're not moving ahead with early learning in Ontario because there's a groundswell of support that prompted that in the original case. We're doing it because it will put Ontario at the forefront in North America. We're not moving ahead with the HST because of the groundswell of support for it. We're doing it because it's going to put Ontario at the forefront in North America.

These are all about leadership. They're all about doing the right thing for the people of Ontario. They may not be easy, but they're the right thing to do.

HOSPITAL SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. A pattern is developing. Executives in the McGuinty government are following the example the Premier and the Minister of Health set when they hired Sarah Kramer, who gave $16 million in untendered contracts. Diane Beattie, vice-president at London Health Sciences Centre, recently gave untendered contracts worth over $3 million to her former business associate.

The Premier and the Minister of Health clearly don't have a handle on these scandals. Why does the Premier continue to have confidence in a Minister of Health who clearly doesn't have control of his portfolio?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The honourable member, I gather, is asking for the minister's resignation and I disagree. Although there are over 150 hospitals in the province of Ontario, each with their own set of rules and regulations, largely in keeping with the advice of the Ontario Hospital Association, she is saying that this particular minister ought to be responsible for the activities of any one individual working inside the hospital when it comes to sole-source contracts. I don't agree with that.

I think it is important for us to set a standard. We've said no sole-source contracts for consultants. That's what we've done on behalf of the government. The hospital is taking responsibility for the course of action which it feels appropriate in the circumstances, and we support them in that regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: There's little point in calling another hastily arranged press conference to blame a scapegoat or to pass the blame off to a third party. Beattie was discovered. An audit has been conducted. Since there's no standard of accountability with his ministers, will the Premier please tell us whether Ms. Beattie is going to be publicly fired like the CEO of OLG, allowed to resign quietly like his Liberal friends, or be kept on like his ministers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my colleague does in fact understand that the hospital has a board of directors. There's a line of authority and accountability connected with that. There is a due process to be pursued in these kinds of circumstances.

My understanding is that the hospital is on to this issue. They feel it's an important issue. They are taking responsibility for doing what they feel is appropriate in the circumstances, and we support them in that regard.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, a year ago you promised Ontarians an expanded retraining program and you said you were going to help more laid-off workers. Yet on September 14, the five brokers in Hamilton for Second Career, which include the John Howard Society, VPI, Mohawk College, Employment Hamilton and Goodwill Amity, were advised by the ministry that the program had been capped and no more applications were going to be received.

Why have you closed the door on so many needed applicants?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very pleased with the success that we've seen on Second Career and I'm very pleased to report to this House that, as of today, we've had over 17,500 people come forward for Second Career, which I think shows a great success. We have a number of outstanding stories that have come forward.

What the honourable member says is wrong. We have not closed the doors on Second Career. We continue to work with all applicants. Applicants who come forward, come forward to Employment Ontario to receive help in terms of finding a job and finding job opportunities. We certainly make sure that they do their due diligence and look at a whole range of options that are available to them. Second Career is but one program amongst a suite of programs to allow people to move on and make the transition back into the workforce.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You'd better check in with the Hamilton Second Career folks, because the program has been capped. No more applicants were going to be received as of September 4. I don't know where you're at, but that's the information we have.

This program is a mess. It was a mess two years ago and it's a mess today. We hear about a lack of accountability, conflicting requirements for acceptance, a lack of clarity about the funding formula and the length of time applicants have to wait. Now, with no warning, you have capped the program. The people who trusted you have been betrayed.

What do you have to say to the unemployed applicants who spent months finding an appropriate Second Career placement, whose employment insurance is running out, and who have now been left high and dry by your ministry?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it more than passing strange when he stood up week after week and said that this program was a failure, and yet here we stand today with 17,500 people who have entered into this program.

The honourable member is wrong. We saw an incredible interest leading up to the start of the school year. We're in a process of assessing the program. We're in a process of dealing with the applications that have come forward. They have not been capped.

I remind all members that when a person comes forward and is looking for help through Employment Ontario, we make sure they explore all options so that they move forward with the most appropriate program—Second Career, Ontario skills development, employment counselling, the whole range that moves forward.

The honourable member is wrong. The honourable member should be standing up and congratulating us on a program that has welcomed 17,500 people into its ranks.

TAXATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, my constituents in Guelph are proud of the strength of the manufacturing industry in our city. People who work at companies such as Polycon, Denso, Guelph Tool and Linamar rely on their jobs to support their families. But many of my constituents have only been hearing half the story when it comes to the HST. They've heard claims made that the HST is not good for the economy and will actually deter the creation of more jobs in Guelph.

Would the minister tell us if these claims are correct? My constituents are looking for some clarity, preferably from the business community itself. We saw a news release this morning which stated that a group of Ontario business leaders have united in support of sales tax reform. Who should we believe, those who tell only half the story or the very businesses who will be affected by the HST?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend from Guelph for the question. It is true that this morning, a group of leaders from the business community in Ontario put out a news release in support of sales tax reform here in Ontario.

Calling themselves the Smart Taxation Alliance, this group includes—I'll share with the members here—the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, AGS Automotive Systems, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters—Ontario, the Certified General Accountants of Ontario, the Ontario Road Builders' Association, the Ontario Trucking Association, the Retail Council of Canada, TD Bank Financial Group and the Toronto Board of Trade. What do they say?

They say that we need to modernize our 20th-century taxation system and get it into the 21st century so we can compete for jobs in the 21st century.

I know that in Guelph, we need to send a strong signal to our manufacturers who export around the world that this indeed will be a—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty supports the HST, and he said the single sales tax "is the single most important step that provinces with RSTs could take to stimulate new business investment, create jobs and improve Canada's overall economic competitiveness." Yesterday, former Ontario Finance Minister Janet Ecker also came out as an enthusiastic supporter of the HST, stating, "Moving to a harmonized sales tax is very good for the economy and it's certainly going to help with our business competitiveness." And now today, we've seen this non-partisan coalition of leaders from the business community support the HST.

But one thing does concern me. Do my constituents have an additional tax burden? Those who are currently unemployed and seniors who live on fixed incomes do not have—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend. One of the things we have to remember is that we're going to be providing some $15 billion over the next three years of income tax relief for people, for small businesses and for corporations, and that 93% of personal-income-tax filers here in the province of Ontario will be receiving a personal income tax cut.

But I'd say to the member that it is important that the people who she's referenced in her riding, people of low income, seniors on a fixed income, middle-income people with a lot of children, will also benefit from targeted tax credits. We'll ensure that we apply this new modernized tax reform in a compassionate way. I can tell seniors particularly that we'll be enhancing the Ontario property and sales tax credit.

But those who receive the GST rebate from the federal government will see from their provincial government a large increase in what they receive as well to ensure that this is applied fairly—

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Attorney General. Last Thursday, members of the PC caucus asked the Minister of Finance how much public money the McGuinty government had spent on the Windsor Energy Centre, something that should be a simple matter of public record. Minister Duncan, the Minister of Finance, was unable to answer that question, citing a lawsuit against the OLG, which makes no sense to me.

Attorney General, just how many lawsuits are there against the OLG?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'll pass the supplementary over to one of my colleagues who can better answer the question.

It's a well-established principle of the law that if a matter is before the courts, it is not appropriate to debate it in other forums. It shows disrespect for the process, it potentially damages reputations outside of the court process and it can undermine the result of the process. That's why we have a system of justice, so that matters can be aired fully before it according to the rules and protections that exist.

I'll wait for the supplementary and determine what he really would like in answer from the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: That answer, with due respect, is not an answer.

We know of at least two lawsuits: the wrongful dismissal suit by Kelly McDougald and a lawsuit by the party that won the bid to design, build, own and operate the Windsor Energy Centre. Neither lawsuit makes an issue of how much public money the McGuinty government has spent on the energy centre, yet it seems that this government is using these lawsuits as convenient cover.

So my question is again for the Attorney General: Is it your legal opinion that these lawsuits are reason enough to hide the truth about how much public money the McGuinty government spent on the Windsor Energy Centre?

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, as the Attorney General has pointed out, there is a commercial dispute between the operator and OLG, so I won't be able to comment on that specific lawsuit.

I can say this: In fact, if one looks at public accounts for 2007-08, page 2-99, he will find the following reference—and by the way, this was a project that was separate from the Casino Windsor expansion—"The corporation is committed to the design, construction and commissioning of the energy centre on Casino Windsor property with total costs currently estimated to be in the range of $65,000,000 to $70,000,000. As at March 31, 2008, $50,555,000 (2007-$11,899,000) has been expended."

It's in the public accounts. It's clear. You ought to read your documents before you ask questions like that.

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

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Last week on the Global television show 16:9, reporter Mary Garofalo exposed Dave Switzer and his accomplice, Doreen Henderson, now living in New Hamburg, Ontario. She also had interviews with at least a dozen victims, people who were bilked out of life savings.

Why has this man not been arrested, charged and put to trial?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The member knows, as does every other member in this place, that investigative decisions are made by the particular police service.

If, in fact, a decision is made or an investigation is made by a police service and an individual is not satisfied with that investigation, that person has the right to go to the police service, to the police chief. If, after that happens, that individual is still not satisfied, he or she then can appeal to OCCPS, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. I would suggest that if there's a concern, there is a process in place.

If the member is asking me to interfere with policing operations, the answer is categorically no.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: People have been making complaints about this con man since 2005, and since the broadcast aired, countless other people have come out of the woodwork identifying themselves as victims as well. These people just don't understand because, when they call the police in any number of jurisdictions, the police are passing the buck. They need assistance to ensure that this person, Dave Switzer, is arrested, charged and prosecuted and some effort is made to get restitution.

Why won't you have your deputy minister instruct the Ontario Provincial Police to examine the concerns that have been raised about Dave Switzer?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me just reinforce: I won't be instructing the OPP. I don't interfere. No minister is responsible to interfere with the operational aspects of any particular police service. What we do have in place is a very, very strict oversight procedure.

Let me repeat: The individual can appeal to the individual police service. If not satisfied, they then can appeal to an oversight body called the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

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

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, as you know, the OPA is still planning to bring a power plant into the southwest GTA-Clarkson area. However, the Clarkson airshed study indicated that we have a stressed airshed. In particular, the study showed elevated levels of PM2.5, which has many people concerned about what this might mean to our health. That's why community leaders, ratepayer groups, Her Worship Mayor McCallion and I are united in saying that we don't want a new gas-fired power plant in our airshed.

Minister, given the findings of the Clarkson airshed study, why is the OPA pressing ahead with its plan to put a power plant in the southwest GTA?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to say to the honourable member, it is duly noted that he is in opposition to a gas-fired power plant in the southwest GTA. I've said on many occasions that it's understandable: Not many people are looking for more energy infrastructure anywhere closer to them than they have to have.

But in the case of this process, we have had a variety of proposals for the location. The city of Mississauga has been instructive in previous advice in saying that they didn't want to see Lakeview continue as a source of power production, so that was taken out of play, to the benefit of the local community. But we are left with the necessity of ensuring that there is an adequate supply of electricity in an area where demand has increased over time.

That's why we're committed to working in that airshed with the Ministry of the Environment on strategies that will mitigate emissions, with a view towards helping to improve the quality of air in that area, working alongside the honourable member and others in the local community.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Charles Sousa: Minister, you recently directed the OPA to delay the RFP to locate a natural gas power plant in the southwest GTA. The purpose of the delay was to give the OPA time to develop a plan to reduce emissions in the Clarkson airshed.

My community has been calling for emission reductions for many years now. There have been numerous town halls and meetings on this very issue. Many have called on me to share their concerns about our air quality in Mississauga South.

We all agree that reducing emissions in our area is the right thing to do, but members still don't know what this plan entails. My question: What is being done to reduce air pollution in south Mississauga?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do think that one of the points here that is important is that an airshed has local contributors, and it has those contributors which have come from upwind. The efforts that we're making in the province of Ontario to eliminate coal from our electricity generation, including upwind influences like Nanticoke, will obviously be beneficial overall to air quality in much of Ontario and will have some substantial implications for the southwest GTA.

We recognize that there is work to do in this airshed. That's why the plant has stringent environmental requirements, much beyond those that are demanded by the law, and that's why the Ontario Power Authority will work again with the Ministry of the Environment and my ministry and other local parties to have strategies over the longer term which will mitigate the emissions in the airshed, with a view towards enhancing air quality there, as we all work together, through the elimination of coal, to advance better air quality all across the breadth of the province of Ontario.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Attorney General. We all know the principle that not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. Today we have Patricia Marshall and her two daughters, Lindsay and Courtney, here with us in the chamber. Their situation is one where this principle failed dramatically.

It's your ministry's policy to involve victims in the criminal justice process, yet a senior crown attorney, under your watch, failed to advise Ms. Marshall and her daughters that he was dropping charges of criminal harassment against their neighbour. Attorney General, what do you have to say to Ms. Marshall and her daughters today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I would say directly to them that the conduct in question was deeply disturbing. Any time a person's sense of privacy, their sense of dignity is violated, it's deeply disturbing, and the crown said this directly to them in a very extensive letter. He has a responsibility to review the facts and circumstances and to determine whether a charge should proceed. He reviewed all the circumstances and made that determination.

He also assessed the sense of public security to make sure that, to the extent one is able, the public security would be advanced, and was being advanced, through the individual obtaining treatment. But he clearly said that he should have and would normally have spoken—and doesn't have a reason why he didn't speak—to the victims and the family before he made the decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The same crown attorney told Ms. Marshall that a primary objective in dealing with this young man was to avoid recidivism. Yet, for Ms. Marshall and her family, the story isn't over. Forced to shower in their basement, they're still living in fear. This is totally unacceptable in the province of Ontario. Faced with this, Attorney General, do you have anything else to say to Ms. Marshall and her daughters?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I indicated directly to them, we take any conduct such as this very seriously. The crown clearly took it very seriously. He reviewed it very carefully, took a look at all the material that the police investigation had gathered, the other material relating to the facts and circumstances of the case, and made the determination which it is his responsibility to make—not always popular, but the responsibility to make. He also made an assessment as to the public safety and the future safety of the individuals in question and the community generally, and he reached a determination.

In the interests of public safety, it's his determination to make, and he did so responsibly.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. At least 30 Niagara grape-growing families are threatened with bankruptcy right now, families like Don Wiley's who have been farming for 60 years. The Wiley grapes are ripe, but they remain unsold. The reason? The McGuinty government is okay with the domestic content in cellared-in-Canada wines to sit at a measly 30%. In March, the government ended its 30% rebate program, to add insult to injury, on Ontario VQA wines that are sold at the LCBO. Why is the government standing idly by while the Wiley family and dozens of other families face losing their livelihood in the Niagara region?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank my friend from Hamilton, the honourable member opposite, for the question. As Ontario's wine industry has matured, it has been vital that we try to balance the grape side with the wine side and understand that it's one industry. The McGuinty government has asked both the Grape Growers of Ontario and the Wine Council of Ontario to work together to help us, in partnership, come up with a strategy that can see us move forward into the next phase of the more mature industry. We're really pleased that they've taken that responsibility very seriously.

We've had a number of meetings with them, we continue to meet on this issue and we're quite hopeful that we'll have a strategy going forward with respect to this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The clock is ticking. If the Wileys and others don't get support now, they face bankruptcy and poverty. Last fall, the McGuinty government came up with a program to buy unsold grapes. This year, three times as many grapes, some 9,000 tonnes, remain unsold and in danger of rotting on the vine, and the government is doing absolutely nothing. Why is this government ignoring the plight of these grape growers?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: With all due respect, I need to point out to the member opposite and to other members in the House that it's the McGuinty government that has provided over $40 million in assistance to the wine-producing industry since 2003, including $4 million last year to purchase uncontracted grapes. We support the grape growers, of course, by focusing on VQA wines. VQA wines, for the information of the member opposite, are wines that contain 100% Ontario grape, and that's really our flagship.

Both the grape growers of Ontario as well as the Wine Council of Ontario understand, appreciate and have been advocating for an even greater focus on VQA wines, and we intend to accommodate that moving-forward strategy.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Attorney General. There is no doubt that this government is working hard across the board to reduce poverty and provide a wide range of support to families who need it most. We know that Ontario's legal aid system serves some of the most vulnerable amongst us and that in these difficult economic times, there is an even greater demand for legal aid services. For many women and children in Ontario, family legal aid is what stands between them and poverty and abuse.

Legal aid has an obligation to ensure that people in very difficult circumstances have the representation they need, yet this vital service was subject to years of cuts and freezes by previous governments. Would the Attorney General tell this House what steps the government is taking to ensure that Ontario's most vulnerable citizens have access to such essential legal aid services?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is quite right, and he has been one of a number who have advocated very strongly for improvements to the legal aid system. He's recognized that we've increased the tariff 15% over the past six years and funded those increases, but he says, "What's the next step?"

So I was very pleased that we recently announced the single largest investment in legal aid's history to make sure that we can support access to justice for the poorest Ontarians. One of the areas where that investment will make a real difference is in the area of family law, because I have—and I know my colleague has—heard throughout the province that those who come before the family courts want access to more information very early on, opportunities to resolve their issues in a collaborative way and opportunities that are in the best interests of the children. This investment will help achieve that justice for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Back in June I had the opportunity to tour Community Legal Services, located in downtown Ottawa, where I have seen firsthand the vital services being delivered there to those who are most in need in our community. It is clear that investing in Ontario's legal aid system will certainly help protect our most vulnerable and drive significant reforms in our family and criminal courts. This means Ontarians using legal aid services and representation can benefit from more solutions and a client-centred approach.

I know that one of the priorities of the Attorney General has been to take action to reduce delays in our criminal justice system and ensure justice sector resources are being used in the most effective manner possible.

Could the Attorney General inform this House about how this investment in legal aid will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of our criminal justice system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, a very important point. There are two broad initiatives, and we're going to be setting up advisory groups so that we can get the best advice from those who do the work as to how this investment will improve access to justice for the poorest Ontarians, and our criminal justice and other reforms.

One of the areas in the criminal law sphere is to make sure that people get access not only to advice, but that that advice is supported in a way that encourages early and effective decision-making. We want to make sure that the lawyers who are doing the work have the appropriate support, so they can make the right decision in the right case as early and effectively as possible. We'll be moving, for example, to block fees in that area, which we had before, which will better support justice effectiveness in the long run.

CEMETERIES

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, I'm advised that the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries is a non-profit, non-share capital corporation dating back to a special act of the Legislature passed in 1871. This organization, as you would know, holds stewardship of two of Toronto's oldest, most historic cemeteries: the Toronto Necropolis and Mount Pleasant Cemetery. It now encompasses 10 cemeteries and over 1,200 acres of valuable land in Toronto and the GTA.

However, I'm advised that there is no longer an open process for recruiting board members and that there are concerns over public accountability for what is essentially a valuable national treasure. Over the years, the publicly owned agency has begun to take on the characteristics of and act as a private company.

Minister, in view of your government's recent commitments to transparency, will you take steps to make this process at Mount Pleasant more open and accountable?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As members of the House know, the government works with a designated administrative authority, namely the Board of Funeral Services, with respect to a number of issues that arise from time to time. The specific issues referenced have some very specific legal implications, and I understand that there's talk or action with respect to legal actions launched, so it would be inappropriate for me to get into any of that detail, as the Attorney General pointed out on a previous question.

Suffice to say that we are aware of the situation and our ministry is in the process of working with the partners there to see what role, if any, our ministry might play in moving forward with a successful resolution.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: Minister, the Mount Pleasant situation was brought to Minister Smitherman's attention during the election in 2007, and he promised there, in the public forum, to respond. As well, the Premier has been advised, as well as you. The reason they have sought legal opinion, Minister, as you would know, is that you have frustrated their attempts to have an open, accountable disclosure on behalf of the Mount Pleasant Group. Yet, so far, I can imagine that the citizens have drafted new recommendations for governance that are based on the spirit of the original trust.

This would include accountability through elections of directors and making annual financial statements public. Some citizens are concerned that the cemetery—there is an intent to mislead the public or become a regular corporation through stealthful means.

Minister, will you make it clear here today that you will take action to assist this group to establish this as an original trust as it was in law in 1871? Or are you going to keep this under the radar and force them to—

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: In fairness, I can't make that commitment today because the legal issues are very complex. This goes back to the late 1800s, and there is considerable legal dispute about the ins and outs, the terms of reference and the carriage forward with respect to those. We are working and will continue to work with Minister Smitherman and the partners involved in looking at this issue, to whatever extent we can move it forward and win some kind of win-win resolution. That, of course, is the kind of action that our government would be committed to.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question for the Minister of Transportation. Greyhound bus lines has said that they will shut down bus services in northwestern Ontario on December 2, leaving literally hundreds of communities and First Nations without transportation services. The government of Manitoba last week met with Greyhound and worked out an agreement so that bus services will continue in rural Manitoba.

My question is this: Why hasn't the McGuinty government met with Greyhound to discuss maintaining bus services in northwestern Ontario? Why doesn't the McGuinty government seem to care about quality bus services in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Let me deal with the second part first, because I think most independent and fair-minded people would not agree with that assertion. The member will be aware that the obligation of Greyhound, when they are withdrawing service in areas, is to find a replacement for their service. Already, when they have withdrawn from certain routes, there has been a company or companies that have come forward to provide that service—because I share with the member himself, who represents the area, a concern that there be adequate service for those individuals who require that service.

So I am optimistic that there are those who are going to move forward to provide a service for the people in the area with which I think they will be satisfied.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister needs to take a closer look at what is happening because, in fact, over the last six years under the McGuinty government, communities have lost frequency of bus service and some communities have lost bus service altogether, and they don't have rail service and they don't have train service. So saying that someone else is going to come in and do the job hasn't been working.

I want to remind the minister that the Ontario government is the principal operator already of two bus services in the province. This government gave GO Transit $35 million last year to provide bus services for people to move from municipalities outside Toronto into Toronto. You gave Ontario Northland $25 million to ensure that there were bus services and some train service in northeastern Ontario. How do you then tell the people of northwestern Ontario, "You're on your own," and, "Oh, we hope that somebody else comes along to pick up some kind of service"? How do you justify that differential of attitude?

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: What has happened to the old Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, when you have that going on in the House?

I say to the member, it's a very good question because it's a service that is really required, but the service that has been provided, I am informed, by Caribou has been a good service for people. That does not mean there's not a need for exploring further options, and I do know MTO is prepared to meet with the company to explore those options.

I know what the member said about Greyhound at the time. He may have changed his mind, but I remember he said that Greyhound is crying poor in Manitoba, even though it has just built a new terminal at the Winnipeg airport, and, "I have no doubt that they're probably losing money ... but this is more than anything else a bargaining tactic." So I know—

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

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I know that our government uses Justice Linden's recommendations in the Ipperwash report as a guide for working together with First Nations and Metis across Ontario. One of the key recommendations in the report is the implementation of the new relationship fund. This summer you announced over $12 million in funding for First Nations and Metis communities and their organizations through the new relationship fund.

Minister, my constituents and the First Nations in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex would like to know the status of the new relationship fund and how it will help aboriginal communities to grow and prosper across Ontario.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'm pleased to respond to the member's very important question, but first I have to recognize the efforts the member is making in her community to bring her municipal community together with the people of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation. It's tough work, but it's very, very important as we work towards reconciliation.

That's what the new relationship fund is all about. We're investing $25 million over two years in this fund to help First Nation and Metis communities more effectively engage with government and the private sector on important land resource and other development initiatives.

In July, our government helped 105 Ontario First Nation communities build up their capacity. In August, our government provided $2.6 milli