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

November 3, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-03 (PDF)

L065 - Wed 3 Nov 2010 / Mer 3 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 November 2010 Mercredi 3 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

BIRTHDAY OF DEPUTY CLERK

REPORT, CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

HAZARDOUS WASTE

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

TAXATION

INSURANCE RATES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

LABOUR DISPUTE

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AIR TRANSPORTATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

CLIMATE CHANGE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

NON-AUTOMOBILE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL 4-H MONTH

BEYOND THE BOUNDARY

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

CANCER CARE

ENERGY POLICIES

FÉDÉRATION DE LA JEUNESSE

FRANCO-ONTARIENNE

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS

AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CELL PHONE SAFETY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DANTE DE MONTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH /

MOIS DE LA PRÉVENTION

DE LA VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

AIR QUALITY

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

AIR QUALITY

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

AIR QUALITY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CHILD CUSTODY

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

KIDNEY DISEASE

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

VETERANS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

PLANT CLOSURE

LABOUR DISPUTE

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

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 122,

An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector, when Bill 122 is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Social Policy be authorized to meet on Monday, November 22, 2010, and Tuesday, November 23, 2010, during its regular meeting times for the purpose of public hearings and on Monday, November 29, 2010, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 12 noon on Friday, November 26, 2010. At 5 p.m. on Monday, November 29, 2010, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment for clause-by-clause consideration on November 29, 2010.

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, November 30, 2010. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: It’s my pleasure today to join the debate on Bill 122,

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

This bill, if passed, would bring in new rules and higher accountability standards for hospitals, local health integration networks, more commonly known as LHINs, and the broader public sector around the use of lobbyists, consultants and expenses.

More specifically, this bill would expand the freedom-of-information legislation to cover hospitals, and that would be effective January 1, 2012.

It would also require hospitals and LHINs to post expenses of senior executives online, and it would require hospitals and LHINs to report annually on their use of consultants.

Although the intent of this bill sounds reasonably good, we must be honest, and the truth is that this bill is in response to eHealth 2.0. It follows in the pattern of knee-jerk reactions that has been the trademark of this government over the last seven years.

Bill 122 is nothing more than a feeble attempt to respond to the findings of yet another scathing Auditor General’s report. A year after being indicted by the Auditor General for wasting $1 billion on eHealth Ontario, the Auditor General has confirmed that this government has once again been caught wasting health care dollars on Liberal insiders and consultants. The auditor’s report revealed that the same waste and the same scandal that plagued eHealth Ontario also plagues the Ministry of Health, the LHINs and some Ontario hospitals.

Despite the Premier’s promises to put a stop to the waste and mismanagement after last year’s report, he has failed to do so, and the waste and the mismanagement continue. This year’s shocking report showed that this government did not keep to their word and they did not stop the waste and mismanagement, thereby allowing it to further spread to the hospitals and the LHINs.

The auditor’s report did not review all 14 LHINs; it focused on only three, which probably drew a sigh of relief from this government, as there would likely be more waste to be found if the remaining 11 LHINs were to be reviewed.

Although after last year’s report the Premier gave the impression that things would change, I would like to highlight that the 2009 and 2010 reports had much of the same language. I quote last year’s report: “Sound and reasonable policies were in place ... but all too often the rules were not followed.”

Let’s move to the report this year: “We noted far too many instances at the hospitals we visited where sound public sector business practices were not followed.” In last year’s report, Ontarians were made aware of the favouritism taking place for Liberal-friendly consulting firms. The auditor said, “Allegations that the agency showed favouritism in awarding ... contracts are ... true.” This year, again, it was much of the same. The auditor said that “The Ministry of Health ... found a way around the rules when it wanted to hire a favoured consultant ... we essentially felt the fix was in.”

The auditor’s language wasn’t the only thing that was similar between last year and this year. The government’s tone this year was just as apologetic as last year, but we mustn’t forget that actions speak louder than words. I quote the Premier last year: “We didn’t do enough to protect the interests of taxpayers.” Well and good. And I quote the Minister of Health this year. She said, “I’m really sorry this has gone on. I don’t think this is acceptable.”

All this is fine and good, but the question remains: Why did this government allow these practices to continue? Why didn’t they take it seriously last year or the year before or the year before? They waited until they were caught.

Their introduction of the Public Sector Expenses Review Act created new responsibilities for the Integrity Commissioner. She is now responsible for looking at the expenses of Ontario’s 22 largest agencies. This new legislation is only applied to expenses incurred as of September 1, 2009; it wasn’t retroactive. However, as we have seen with the scandals at eHealth Ontario and the Ontario Lottery Corp., the spending goes back much further, and what the Liberal government essentially did was give those 22 agencies a clean slate.

As I mentioned, the bill addresses 22 of the government’s agencies, boards and commissions, but there are almost 630 of these agencies in total. The government chose to address 3.5% of these agencies and make them accountable, leaving the other 96.5% to continue to spend, spend and spend without any oversight. So here we are today, then and after, yet another scathing auditor report, yet another apology from this government and yet another promise. And things are supposed to get better.

The truth is that these apologies and promises were empty. They weren’t taken seriously because if they were, I wouldn’t be standing here today and we wouldn’t be debating Bill 122. This is a knee-jerk reaction.

If this government had taken last year’s report findings seriously, they would have supported my colleague from Nepean–Carleton in her bill on May 6, 2010. It was Bill 39, the Truth in Government Act. A lot of problems that the auditor raised in his 2010 report would have been addressed had this government supported Bill 39.

Let me just remind the other side what Bill 39 set out to do. It would have expanded the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to apply to all public bodies. It would have had full protective disclosure of contracts over $10,000 in value to apply to all—I repeat—all public bodies. It would have had full protective disclosure of all travel and hospitality expenses, and that would also apply to all public bodies. And it would have had full protective disclosure of all position reclassifications to apply to all public bodies.

This government failed. They failed to show Ontarians that they were serious about changing these problems, and they failed to support Bill 39. They used their overwhelming majority to defeat Bill 39. Although this government failed to support this important bill, it was supported by many others on this side of the House. Once again, the government used its overwhelming majority to defeat an important bill.

Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said that Bill 39 would help shed light on government spending and that taxpayers should be able to know easily how their tax dollars are being spent by government. Well, that’s what the taxpayers are asking for. That’s what they expect.

Peter Coleman, president of the National Citizens Coalition, NCC, said: “The NCC has always stood for transparency and value for hard-working taxpayers. We fully support this bill”—Bill 39—“and hope that it becomes law and brings back honesty and stops the rampant waste and scandal that seem to be the norm under the McGuinty government.”

Additionally, since 2004, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has repeatedly—repeatedly—called for the expansion of freedom-of-information access to all agencies, boards and commissions in our province. Even the Ontario Hospital Association—get this—has called on the McGuinty Liberals to extend FOI legislation to hospitals. Hospitals are asking for it themselves.

Ontario families will not be fooled again into believing this government’s latest promise to fix this mess. They don’t want to see scandal after scandal from this government. They want to see front-line health care at its best, and that it not continue to be wasted. Plain and simple, Ontario families can no longer afford the McGuinty government and cannot tolerate its empty words any longer.

It is time for this government to open their eyes to the very serious flaws, such as the use of lobbyists by hospitals and other public sector bodies, which are occurring under their watch. People can’t get to the Premier. People can’t get to the minister. People can’t get to the minister’s staff. It is totally unacceptable to use provincially allocated money to pay lobbyists to speak to the Premier on behalf of hospitals. It truly is mind-boggling. Why couldn’t the hospitals have simply picked up the phone and called the minister, called her staff, called the Premier? Why couldn’t they have done that themselves?

Obviously, there is some concern from hospitals and others that they are not effectively getting the Premier’s attention, the minister’s attention or her staff’s attention—the government is untouchable—and they need to hire consultants to do this, and in a lot of cases, Liberal-friendly consultants.

I would also strongly encourage this government to get their LHINs under control. They were brought in to supposedly provide seamless health care. However, what we have seen is wait-lists growing and Ontarians paying more and getting less. Ontarians want to see this government take action, not react to more negative reports on their mistakes, not react when they get caught. I hope they will take the findings of this year’s auditor’s report very seriously and ensure that this practice of hiring their favourite consultants stops—it stops with this report—and that Ontario health care dollars go to front-line support where they belong and where they should be going.

Ontarians will not continue to tolerate these end runs on good and responsible processes, and they will send the message to the McGuinty government, loud and clear, on October 6, 2011, 336 days from now. Are you counting, folks?

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of Ontarians everywhere and express outrage at the government bringing in a closure motion.

The government, for those who are watching, is trying to shut down debate on a bill that shines a light on some pretty questionable practices in this province, I must say. They are shutting it down. They are going to allow only a couple of hours of hearings on a bill to look at the practice of using tax dollars to hire lobbyists to lobby their own government—Liberals to lobby Liberals. They’re only going to allow a couple of hours of committee time for hearings, and then they’re going to bring it back to the House for only an hour of debate at third reading.

The question, of course, that should be coming to the minds of all Ontarians: Why does the government want to put the lid on this already pretty anemic bill? I’m going to talk about how anemic this bill is in a minute.

Suffice to say that to bring in a closure motion—one might ask the Liberals across the aisle and some to the left of me here, why they are acting so illiberally on this? This is shutting down debate in an area where the government actually is showing, I would profess, its true colours.

Its true colours are a government that is unresponsive, that will not answer the phone for hospitals or the MUSH sector generally and that forces hospitals and others to go to lobbyists, paying tax dollars so that they can get even a soupçon of, in this particular case more than any other, the Minister of Health’s time. Now they want to shut down debate on it, and they want to limit hearing time.

I would think that a lot of private sector lobbyists would love to speak to the government about this. It might cost them their job, of course—not too soon, not for 15 months, not until after the next election. But still, a lot of Liberals are going to be out of work. I would think that they would have a large line around Queen’s Park wanting to depute at the hearings about why their own team is putting them out of work all of a sudden—in 15 months—when the system has worked so seamlessly up until now.

What better job if you lose your seat here or somewhere else, what better job if you’re a party backroom boy or girl than to be a lobbyist speaking to your own folk on behalf of the MUSH sector?

The fact that the government professes such shock at this process is hilarious. It’s hilarious. I mean, did not the Minister of Health know who was sitting across the desk from her with the shiny shoes and the briefcase? Did she not know this was a lobbyist? Do we not know, as MPPs, that lobbyists come and go in this place all the time? This is a shock to the government, that hospitals, LHINs and universities are forced to hire lobbyists just to get some of their time? This is a shock? Please. My goodness.

It’s interesting that Bill 122 comes out the very same day as the auditor’s report. It’s as if they knew. It’s as if they had maybe some advance warning. They table it the very same day.

What a bill it is that we are not allowed to debate here for more than a couple of hours and have only a couple of hours of hearings. “Get it out,” the government says. “We don’t want to talk about this issue anymore.”

It’s embarrassing to the government. Of course it is. If I were a Liberal, I would be embarrassed that hospitals had to hire lobbyists to speak to the health minister. The health minister stands up in this House, and she says, “Why didn’t they just give me a call?”

I’ve yet to hear it, and I would ask anybody to bring forward the Hansard that gives her cell number, because, my goodness, it’s hard enough to get time with any of the ministers even for MPPs on this side of the House, never mind those out there trying to do good work for Ontarians who are being told that the cheque is in the mail—unless, of course, you hire somebody who’s going to facilitate that. Please.

I’ve talked to my hospitals. We’ve talked to our universities. We know what they’re up against. They’re fighting for every dollar from this government, and anything that will give them a slight edge with a minister, they will use. Of course they will; they’re trying to do that on behalf of their constituents.

There was a particularly egregious comment, I thought, from the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan—an insinuation more than a comment—the other day in debate, when he insinuated that some MPPs may have better access to ministers than other MPPs, I suppose depending on what political party they come from. This is an affront to the voters of Ontario.

This is an affront to all of our constituents, that there is not equal access to the ministers for all sides of the House; that there is not access, open and easy access, to the ministers by hospitals, if it’s the Ministry of Health, or universities, if it’s the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. I mean, these are the bodies, the institutions, that deliver what this government mandates. The very least Ontarians should expect is that they have easy and open access to the ministers. That has clearly not been the case. They’ve had to hire lobbyists. Government shouldn’t be shocked by that.

They know who the lobbyists are. They probably even recommended them. They’re sitting across the desk from them, often, in their offices. To feign shock is ludicrous, and I think voters and people in Ontario know how ludicrous it is. In fact, most of the folks from my constituency who contacted me about this thought it should be illegal.

It should be illegal. Unfortunately, it’s not illegal. It’s barely legal, but it’s legal. You can do this. You can use taxpayers’ dollars to lobby the government. Hey, if you’re a municipal utility, you can even use taxpayers’ dollars to contribute to the Liberal Party. My goodness. And the government doesn’t quite understand the difference between public and private; I get that. Clearly their practices show that. They don’t get that there is a difference.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Is Five Nations not-for-profit?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I hear a heckle from the Ottawa Centre member, who is clearly quoted, I think in Christina Blizzard’s column, as not knowing the difference between private and public utilities and what’s appropriate in terms of donations. Private, okay; public, not okay. Ontarians get that. The Liberal Party of Ontario doesn’t get it. The McGuinty government doesn’t get it. Everybody else gets it.

As the member from Burlington said, 22 agencies are covered by this bill, out of a possible 630. My goodness, what a weak bill. My goodness, what an anemic attempt at correcting a pervasive problem—and remember, not for 15 months, not until after the next election. I guess this is the first of many election promises we’ll see roll out from the government: the promise that the use of lobbyists paid for by tax dollars will stop.

Of course it won’t, even when the bill presumably is passed, and of course it’s going to be passed pretty swiftly, given the fact that we’ve got an hour left to debate it after today and there are only a few hours of hearings coming up in a couple of weeks. So hurry up, lobbyists; get your time. Say something, do something, because there’s not a lot of time. You only have a few minutes each to depute, and then this debate will be shut down.

The bill, of course, at the centre of this, Bill 122: What does it promise? It asks, in the nicest of possible language—it doesn’t compel; it simply asks—that those people who are in the habit of using lobbyists with the public purse who are hired privately, outside the institution, stop. “We wish they would,” says the bill. “We hope they do, and we hope they do and wish they would in 15 months.” That’s some hard-hitting legislation. Boy.

Of course, we all know what will happen and they know what will happen, too. We’re not naive in this place. We know that the same hospitals and universities that now hire outside lobbyists will simply hire those lobbyists and make them part of the staff, so they’ll now become inside lobbyists. They’ll be called “government relations officers” and they’ll be on staff.

Of course, as the member from Burlington pointed out, all of this is merely speculation, because this is a bill that won’t take effect until probably some other government is in place. This is a bill that, let’s face it, may never take effect. Let’s say it: It probably won’t take effect ever. And yet we’re still not allowed to debate it. Why aren’t we allowed to debate it? Because, guess what, Ontarians who are listening, it’s embarrassing to the government.

It’s horrific to Ontarians that their tax dollars that are supposed to be used for front-line care, the education of their children and all sorts of other activities that are worthwhile are instead diverted to pay for lobbyists so that they can get time with ministers, when we all thought they should be accorded time with ministers by the very nature of who they are. Not so, we discover from the auditor’s report. We discover that it takes a Liberal to talk to a Liberal. You have to pay a Liberal to talk to a Liberal. That’s what we’ve discovered. Ontarians are horrified.

This followed closely on the heels of another scandal; of course, we all remember eHealth. Now we have the municipal utilities scandal, where they are donating directly to the Liberal Party. Why bother with niceties? Just give it directly to the Liberal Party—your tax dollars.

Really, what we’re speaking about here is a government that has lost track, lost touch with what people in the constituencies are actually feeling and thinking.

I can tell you that what the people in my constituency are feeling and thinking is that they’re barely scraping by, that they are, many of them—seniors, single mums, people on fixed incomes of all sorts, including salaries, those who are lucky enough to still have jobs—barely paying their bills. And many of them can’t pay their bills. Many of them are struggling with their hydro bills, struggling with their utility bills, struggling, since the HST has been imposed, to simply get by.

When they see that their precious tax dollars—and their tax rate has gone up significantly under this government—aren’t going to front-line services, aren’t going to protect the environment, to look after the sick, to educate the children—no; their precious tax dollars are going to pay well-connected—i.e., Liberal—lobbyists and lobby firms to speak to the government on behalf of the institutions where the dollars should be spent on the front-line activities those institutions are warranted to provide.

This bill at best is a soupçon, as I said; it’s a nod in the direction of doing something. It doesn’t actually do anything. It’s a nod in the direction of possibly doing something. But even this is too much for the McGuinty government to bear, even debating this. Because one knows the answer: Unfortunately for my friends across the aisle, this is embarrassing; this will cost votes.

People know. They’re not idiots out there. They know what’s going on. They know where their tax dollars are going, and they’re not going to provide what people thought they were going to provide. They’re going into the pockets of Liberals. This isn’t okay. This is not okay. This is not, as I said at the outset, very liberal of them. This is illiberal of this government.

I’ve even had Liberal supporters who have phoned my office, saying they’re outraged by this latest round of revelations. They thought it all ended with eHealth; they thought it ended with OLG; they thought it ended with the imposition of the HST—this kind of grab on their wallets for yet more dollars to go who knows where. Sadly, that’s not so.

I remember that one of the first things that happened after my election was—and I think we all remember it in this House; that was in the days before the $21-billion deficit—when $35 million just went out the back door, $1 million of it to a cricket club. That was my introduction to the McGuinty government and the way that they handle money.

Since then we’ve seen eHealth, we’ve seen the scandals at OLG—government agency after government agency. Now we’re seeing lobbyists and municipal utilities. It continues; it’s clearly the way they do business.

I would say to Ontarians: If you had any doubt about the way this government operates, that doubt should be put to rest because it’s clear month in, month out, no matter what anemic bill is passed or foreclosed, as is happening here today, the government continues to do business as usual, and business as usual is, as my friend from Welland said, a kind of grantism: some people are in and some people are out. If you’re connected, you’re in, that is, in the minister’s office sitting across from her or his chair or his desk; if you’re out, you don’t have access unless you connect with somebody who’s in.

That is the way this province is being run. It has been run that way for the last seven years. This is simply more grist for that mill. This is simply pulling back the curtain, seeing the wizard at work, yet again; he never left, always at work, doing the same things that he’s done before.

I think for voters out there who expect that somehow this government can be expected to change, that this government can somehow be expected to change the very nature of what it is overnight with an anemic bill like Bill 122 or a closure motion that forces us not to speak about embarrassing subjects like lobbyists paid on the public purse—the voting public gets it, finally, judging from the polls: what, 76% want a change?

I think the voting public finally gets that this government isn’t going to change; that, in fact, this is the very nature of the beast of the McGuinty government; that they are a grantist government. They’re a government that prefers to deal with people who are well connected; it doesn’t want to hear from those who are out—real working families. It doesn’t want to hear from them. They might want to hear from an advertising firm purporting to be them, but don’t want to hear from them.

No trust—their own little cabal of insiders, connected insiders, and that’s who’s running this government; not you—if you’re watching at home—not you. Your tax dollars are being used but your input is not being listened to. The input that’s being listened to is the input of the lobbyist, the lobbyist that’s become a necessity in this province to get anything done. To get anything done, a lobbyist is now necessary. This is the way this government is structured.

It’s quite sad that the best that the government can come back with—

Hon. James J. Bradley: They’ll be banned from the Palais Royale.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I have to check the ministry here because the McGuinty cabinet changes so often, I tend to forget; is this his fourth or fifth portfolio? The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services used to be the Minister of Housing; he used to be the minister of something else, now the minister of that. In his heckles, he clearly doesn’t understand the difference between public and private donations. This is how confused this government is, that they will come back at the opposition—

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You took a donation. No kidding; we all take donations and we all have fundraising dinners. Surprise; it costs money to run political campaigns. What the voters get that the Liberal Party doesn’t quite get is that there is a difference between using their tax dollars to support the Liberal Party and using private donations to support your party. That’s a confusion—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Send the money back, if you’re so holier than thou. Send it back.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: And the member from Peterborough—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We really don’t need to yell in this place. The sound system is very good. Order.

The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The member from Peterborough seems to be taking umbrage at some of my comments. I too would be somewhat embarrassed to be associated with this latest scandal. I too would be upset. I don’t fault my friends opposite for being upset.

I think it’s rather sad. The member from Peterborough is an excellent member; he’s here all the time. He’s the government whip, I understand. It’s sad that, with the shuffle of the cabinet seats, somehow he has been left out. If I were him, I would be upset at that as well. Certainly a lot of people who are sitting in government seats who should be represented in cabinet are not. Again, it’s not my political party, not my issue, but I certainly understand the upset and the division in the ranks across the aisle. I certainly understand that many, many people with lots of experience are not reflected in the cabinet; that’s true.

But to get back to the closure motion at hand, because that is what we are dealing with, a closure motion, something this government, when they were in opposition, used to rail against the Progressive Conservatives for when Mike Harris was in. I remember it well. I was not sitting here then. I was one of the voters out there, though, and I remember it well: the closure motions, the horrendous closure motions of the Harris government. And guess who now, of course, repeats that process when they want to conveniently get something embarrassing off the desk of this particular Legislature?

For those who are listening in right now, who are forgoing perhaps some more entertaining programs, you should know that what you’re listening to is a debate on a closure motion of a bill. The closure motion an attempt to shut down debate—that’s what it does; that’s its legislative function—and not only close down the debate but to limit the committee hours to two committee periods, literally hours, in a couple of weeks, so not a lot of notice if you want to depute to the bill that they’re trying to shut down debate on, and then come back to the House for only one hour of debate after that.

Then the next question of viewers, I know, is, “What are they trying to shut down? Why don’t they want to hear about the bill?” That brings us to Bill 122. The reason the McGuinty government doesn’t want to hear more about this bill is because it’s embarrassing. It’s about the use of public dollars, tax dollars, to hire lobbyists from hospitals, LHINs and other institutions to this government.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Are they banned from the Palais Royale?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You know, it’s astounding. I hear the heckle again from the minister of whatever his portfolio is this week, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, about a fundraising dinner we are having for our leader—no kidding. I ask the Liberal Party where their fundraising dinners are held; I’m sure they are held at backwater inns. Come on. This is a company that has fundraising dinners—and it’s a company for sure—at the Sheraton. Oh, my goodness. Would that we could afford such venues. And this is a government that uses your tax dollars to pay for the Sheraton. My goodness. Now we know those tax dollars go right to the Liberal Party from the utility companies.

It would be nice, voters—the next time the Liberals come to your neck of the woods to have a fundraising dinner, I would suggest that you have paid for your seat already and that you should get in free. You’ve certainly paid for your seat already with the amount of money flowing to lobbyists, the amount of money flowing from utilities to the Liberal Party directly for their campaigns. You’ve paid for your seat. Knock on the door of that Sheraton—the Four Seasons Sheraton or wherever they’re having it next; an expensive hotel, needless to say—and you should get the dinner gratis.

But to get back to what voters actually want to focus on, which is the use of taxpayers’ dollars to hire lobbyists to lobby a government that presumably, supposedly, already had access, the Minister of Health says, “Just pick up the phone,” but refuses to give her cellphone number. So I suggest to hospitals and institutions of all sorts, if you want to get your minister on the phone, it should be as easy as picking up the phone and phoning them. I would certainly ask that the ministers table their cellphone numbers so that people can.

I warrant the reason they don’t is that they would fill up with cries of outrage from their own constituents. Something that we don’t hear a lot of from this side are the cries of outrage from their constituents, which we know are there. One of the cries I hear is about the use of public dollars, public trust, to hire private, well-connected consultants. One of the cries of outrage I hear is about a government that is too frightened to debate their own bills and that shuts down debate and limits committee hearing time on a bill that is embarrassing to them. Other bills that are not so embarrassing, oh, we can debate them for a long time.

In fact, the bills that are the most embarrassing, we don’t even see in this House, like the G20. Might I remind the voters of all of those thousands of letters I got about the G20 that we never saw that in this House, that in fact the democratic process was completely circumvented by this government over the G20 weekend. And that was when the House was in session.

But here we have a bill brought in at the same time as the auditor’s report, as if they sort of knew what was coming—interesting. How did they know what was coming if they were so shocked and appalled at the use of lobbyists? Anyway, they knew it was coming, tabled the bill very quickly, in fact, the same day; it was already written up. Anemic bill that it is, it doesn’t take effect for 15 months—after the next election. It doesn’t make it compulsory that folk not hire outside lobbyists. In fact, it opens the doors for inside, in-house government relations lobbyists. It only purports to cover 22 out of 630 agencies.

This is the anemic response, but still, it’s a chance for us in opposition to—

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It would be nice to actually hear from some of the Liberal backbenchers—not simply from the cabinet members, who are good at heckling—about what they feel, what they’re hearing from their constituents about the use of lobbyists and the use of utility dollars going to Liberal fundraising, because I know they hear.

I know they hear from their constituents about the HST. I know they’ve heard about hydro rates from their constituents. I know they’ve heard about the stupid meters that are being installed that are going to be yet another tax grab. I hear that from my constituents, and I know that they send petitions to this government, many of which they wish their members would read in the House, as is their duty, even if they don’t agree with their constituents.

It would be nice to hear all of that from the other side. But instead, we get a seamlessness from the other side of the aisle, a battening down of the hatches and a kind of coming together over what, I think, people should admit is a very embarrassing moment in the life of this government, a very embarrassing, dark moment, just like the $35-million slush fund was—$1 million going to a cricket club etc.—just like eHealth was, just like the OLG scandals were. All of these are embarrassing moments, and I think Ontarian voters would like to hear an explanation for why this continues to happen over and over again. If this is not the culture of this government, then one would wonder what is.

I’m going to leave some time for my benchmate from Timmins–James Bay, who, I’m sure, will share with you some of what his constituents are saying about how they feel about the use of taxpayers’ dollars for connected Liberal lobbyists.

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m sure that he will want to respond to—his ministry of this week is the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services—those heckles about fundraising venues when they, in fact, have the most expensive venues. As I suggested to those Ontario voters at home, they’ve already paid for their seat at the next Liberal fundraiser; they should get in for free and have a free meal at Four Points Sheraton or wherever they are.

I’m going to leave some time. It was a pleasure to bring the voice of people I hear from all the time in my constituency and other stakeholders’ groups about this embarrassing issue. It’s a dark, dark day in the dark life of the McGuinty government. It’s been a scandal-plagued government for seven years. This is yet the latest scandal—sadly. I wish it were not so.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I find it particularly instructive that not one member of the government chose to stand up in two opportunities to speak to this legislation and to shut down debate on an accountability bill.

Let’s be very clear: The Liberals want to pretend that they stand for accountability and transparency, yet when there is an opportunity to debate an accountability and transparency bill, they shut down debate. They then not only wish to shut down the debate, but as they do it they refuse to debate even members of the opposition, whether it is the Progressive Conservative caucus or the New Democrats. I find that that is probably the most troubling scenario for legislators when we are discussing something as important as taxpayer dollars intended for health care, which, by the way, is why we are here.

We are here because the Liberal government reacted to an auditor’s report of two weeks ago, on October 20, 2010. At that time, the Auditor General revealed that despite Mr. McGuinty’s promise to stop spending the hard-earned money of Ontario families on Liberal-friendly consultants in Ontario, the same problems that plagued eHealth continued to plague the Ministry of Health, the local health integration networks—which we have heard so much about through the Ombudsman reports and through our own party’s efforts—and, of course, Ontario hospitals.

Let me be very clear: We are debating a Liberal motion to shut down debate on how to better spend health care dollars in the province of Ontario. That is what we are doing right now. The Liberals have taken away the opportunity for members in the third party and in my party, the Progressive Conservative Party, to debate how to best spend health care dollars in the health care system, whether that is in the troubled LHINs, at our hospitals or even in the ministry, and they have reduced us to debating time allocation.

They have reduced us in this chamber to debating the amount of time we are able to spend on a very important bill, one that could improve the way our health care dollars are spent. Instead, they want to shut that down. They want to shut down debate and they want to hide from Ontarians the real issues at hand.

I want to go through a little bit of background on the bill and why this particular bill, this transparency bill, was put forward. The ministry spent $223 million on consultants in the last three years. The ministry ran a competitive tendering process in August 2009 for a contract; however, they chose to negotiate solely with the highest bidder of the 12 projects received because the company had done the first two stages of the project. Well, the auditor found problems with that.

The McKinsey and Co. contract for review of the pharmaceutical sector is specifically cited by the Auditor General for not being properly justified. This company was also cited for failing to provide enough details on its invoices for $1.7 million in contracts with hospitals.

So this bill that they now want to force closure on, where they actually want us to talk about time allocation rather than the bill, was designed to respond to the Auditor General’s report. The auditor found, and I want to repeat this, that $223 million of health care money that could have been intended for MRIs, for hip replacements, for cancer treatments, instead went to consultants, and one company in particular was cited for failing to provide enough details on its invoices for $1.7 million in contracts with hospitals. There are a lot of large numbers. But at the end of the day, we all know that that money, those health care dollars, were intended for health care.

Our party, the Progressive Conservative caucus, under the leadership of Tim Hudak, has been very clear that as we move forward, the local health integration networks will be scrapped under a Progressive Conservative administration beginning next October. We’ve done this because we’ve found that they have become the middle manager, the bloated bureaucracy of the health care system, where front-line health care dollars are taken away from the front line and put into administration.

The Ombudsman found some troubling and startling issues with the local health integration networks. But not only has our Ombudsman found issues, so too has the Auditor General. In the Auditor General’s report on consulting in hospitals, the ministry and LHINs, this is what he found, and this is what the Liberals don’t want people at home and in our communities to know: 75% of the sole-sourced contracts at the LHINs did not meet the requirements allowing for the exemptions.

One of the other reasons the Liberals want to shut down the debate today is because the auditor also found at the LHINs that two thirds of the consulting contracts had follow-on agreements and most were awarded without a competitive process or justification for the additional work. The Liberal government, under Dalton McGuinty, does not want anyone to know about that. That’s why they’re forcing us to close debate today.

And our friends at the LHINs, where even though it’s become very clear that they’re troubled—the Ombudsman and the auditor have said there are challenges there. The public has lost confidence in the LHINs. Our political party, the Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of Tim Hudak, has said very explicitly that we will scrap the LHINs. The Liberal government continues to appoint people to these bureaucratic institutions. As we continue to hear horror stories coming out of these bureaucracies, the Liberals continue to try to legitimize them.

What the auditor also found: There was insufficient information on invoices to support the amount paid in 40% of the contracts examined. Of all the contracts examined by the Auditor General in his recent report on consultants at hospitals, the ministry and LHINs, 40% of those examined had insufficient information. I guess that’s also why this Liberal government would want to shut down debate on a bill that presumably would have corrected this.

Finally, let’s talk about the hospitals. Patients across Ontario go to our local hospitals because they expect to get the best care that they can receive in Canada’s greatest province. But what we’ve found through the auditor’s report is that the previous procurement policies at hospitals were neither as robust or comprehensive as those in the directives.

If I might just talk a little bit about this bill, this bill has nothing to do with transparency and accountability as we would like to see it in the Progressive Conservative Party. We put forward five robust measures in the Truth in Government Act last spring that would have eliminated any possibility of breaches or waste in government. This Liberal government refused to support it. Instead, they’ve given us this watered-down, weak, facile version of a transparency bill, that they’re now trying to shut down, that is littered with directives that don’t need to be followed. If you’re reading what Mr.

McCarter wrote in his auditor’s report, you would see that people were not putting forward procurement policies in hospitals that were as robust or as comprehensive as in ministry directives.

You failed. This Liberal government has failed, and they have continued to fail when it comes to putting health care dollars where they are intended.

Let’s go back, though, to the hospitals and what Mr. McCarter found. Many of the contracts were single-sourced and allowed to grow from small assignments to projects over several million dollars. Let me give you an example. This would mean that a small contract for maybe several thousands of dollars would be extended, rather than going back out to tender. Then, multi-millions of dollars later, Liberal consultants were getting rich because they were able to bypass the tendering program.

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can tell that my colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party are chatty now. It’s unfortunate they didn’t take the opportunity to stand in their place to debate this closure motion. They don’t have the courage to do it; they don’t have the conviction to do it. They want to shut down debate. They don’t want to hear what they have done.

Again, every minute they’re here, they lose points in the polls because people have lost confidence in this Liberal government, particularly when it comes to how they are spending our health care dollars. Time and again, we find out, whether it’s through the LHINs, through eHealth, through Cancer Care Ontario or through this most recent report, they are squandering our health care dollars and they’re going to consultants.

Let me get back to the hospitals, because this is important. Many consultants, as we found out from the auditor, charged for expensive meals, alcohol, accommodations, conferences and unauthorized fees without questioning by hospital staff.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Sounds like the old Tory cabinet.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I hear from the chatterbox there in the front row. If he wants to go back 10 years, go back 10 years, but the people of this province want to move forward. They’re tired of hearing from you. They’re going to defeat you in the next election, because the people of this province want to move forward.

My colleague from Burlington points out that in 336 days, the people of this province will adjudicate on whether they want to move backward with the Liberal Party or forward with the Progressive Conservatives under Tim Hudak.

Let me also explain something else that came out of the auditor’s report of two weeks ago. In some cases, the highest bidder was awarded contracts when a tendering process was done. There was a reliance on the same group of consultants—you should know this—who have done work previously for hospitals. Once they got their foot in the door, they received large, untendered contracts. That’s what the Liberal Party doesn’t want you—and they don’t want you and they don’t want Mr. Bisson from Timmins–James Bay—to know. They want to shut down debate because they don’t want the public to listen to some of these egregious examples.

Similar to eHealth, consultants filled senior management positions at hospitals. One such consultant serving as a senior executive was paid $275,000 each year and claimed $97,000 in fees and a further $50,000 in administrative support services. This same consultant billed for a bonus, a foreign exchange fee, a Christmas luncheon, a $400-a-night hotel in Chicago, $500 for hotel phone charges and a $300 dinner. If that’s not hitting the jackpot off the back of the Ontario patient, what is?

I can tell you something: This is clearly unacceptable. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party stands opposed to this Liberal government and that is why, with the absence of any strong legislation, we will oppose this bill unless they adopt the Truth in Government Act that we put forward that would have prevented these exact abuses. We put that forward. The Liberals opposed it until they got caught. Make no mistake: This recent auditor’s report has ensured that they have been caught.

Let’s go to another consultant, who took a personal vacation to Japan while on a business trip to Hong Kong. The hospital paid his expenses to go to Japan and his billing fees while he was on vacation. The consultant did later reimburse half of the airfare but not the full airfare.

To further this example of abuse in our health care system, hospitals often paid for consulting contracts that were contracted by the ministry or the LHIN.

But again, we are debating shutting down debate here because this Liberal government does not want the public to know.

They want it to be their dirty little secret, but let me assure you that it’s not going to be, because this Progressive Conservative caucus, under the leadership of Tim Hudak, will continue to expose the flagrant abuses of taxpayer dollars, particularly in the health care system, each and every day in the leadup to the next election, which is, by the way, in 336 days, when Ontarians are given the opportunity to say, “No more closure, no more time allocation, no more spending scandals and no more.” Ladies and gentlemen, they’re going to have an opportunity to tell this government, “Time is up. The jig is up.

Your waste, your mismanagement are up.”

I want to just point out one further point on the auditor’s report before I start to talk a little bit more about the bill that the Liberals don’t want us to talk about. They’ve given me the opportunity to point out that eight of the 16 hospitals the AG looked at had lobbyists. These hospitals spent a combined $1.6 million on those lobbyists. The Auditor General questioned whether that was appropriate.

The question many of us have is: Why do our local hospitals even have to pay a high-priced lobbyist? Many of us in this chamber consider ourselves to be the lobbyist-in-chief in our communities, to defend the interests of our constituents, our public institutions, and to bring them to the floor of this chamber. But this Liberal government has changed all that. They have created a culture of entitlement, a culture in which people in the public sector feel that they must go over the heads of their local politician and pay for a high-priced consultant in order to get access to the Minister of Health or her advisers.

I consider that an embarrassment. I consider that a fundamental break in the system that we rely on in a democracy. We’ve forgotten, or at least the Liberals have forgotten, that what their job is to do is to come to this chamber, to debate the ideas of the day, and to express the interests, the concerns and the problems in their communities.

That’s how things are supposed to be done. This crowd here have forgotten that or they never really knew it. That is the question. Which is it? We’re not quite sure.

As we move forward and this bill goes to committee, the Progressive Conservative caucus will be putting forward reasoned and sound amendments, many of which have information that we already obtained today as a government and many of which can be acted upon with little or no cost. Again, it will be the basis and the foundation of the Truth in Government Act that has five robust measures that would protect taxpayer dollars.

The Liberals refused to support that bill until they were caught; then they created with this bill a watered-down version, a watered-down, weak piece of legislation that is chock full of directives and a law that they probably won’t even follow, because we’ve seen this before where they have promised us legislation, they have told us they were going to improve things, they have said we can do better—which has become the government’s new mantra. You can hear the Premier speak every day, saying, “We can do better.” You’re darned right we can do better, with the Truth in Government Act, which was better than this bill.

This is a bill, by the way, that, as I mentioned, is chock full of directives that aren’t law.

Mr. Phil McNeely: You didn’t cover lobbyists.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The reality is, and you know this, member from Ottawa–Orléans, that your government could have done better, but you chose not to until you got caught, so you put this bill forward. And in reality, many of the bills they put forward, they break anyway. When you look at the boards, agencies and commissions that they were supposed to put online so that we could monitor their expenses, they broke that. Ministers were supposed to put their expenses online; not all of them have.

They put forward a piece of legislation that would have called for a review of the local health integration networks, and they broke their own law; they chose not to do it. Yet they, in this piece of legislation, put forward a very weak line that says the minister may call for a review of the LHINs. Well, whoop-de-doo. They already broke their own law. They’ve betrayed the trust of the public; they’ve mismanaged health care dollars. What more can they do?

I have to tell you, I have people asking if there’s a way to get this government out early, if there’s a way we can call for an early election. Can we recall them? That’s the number one issue, outside of the hydro rate increases. Then every single time they come out with a new auditor’s report or an Ombudsman’s report, the people get more frustrated. The people of this province are tired; they’re fed up with this Liberal sense of entitlement.

Warren Kinsella once said, “A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.” Well, I can tell you something: If the sponsorship scandal showed us anything, it’s that this group used the Gomery inquiry as a textbook. It’s embarrassing, but particularly when it’s our health care dollars. Have you people no shame? It’s unbelievable. The Toronto Star disclosed many of these issues, and I think that was what set the auditor off.

Just to recapitulate the issue here, we have a government that voted down the transparency and accountability bill, the Truth in Government Act, in the spring. The auditor came out in October with a damning report that would have gone to the minister weeks before so she would have been able to see what was in it. And the report was so damning that instead of actually standing and defending the record, because the record is so bad that they didn’t want to defend it, they put forward this transparency and accountability bill which now they don’t want to even debate. They don’t want to be transparent or accountable about the bill, so they’re forcing us to close down the bill.

So we’ve got multiple issues here: one, the utter failure of the Liberal government to cut off and prevent this type of abuse. We have them steadfastly denying support to a piece of legislation earlier in the year that would have prevented the types of abuses in the auditor’s report. We have an auditor’s report that went back and looked at the Liberal government’s mismanagement of taxpayer dollars intended for health care, and it was awful. And then we have a bill that’s now supposed to save everybody’s day, but is so weak that unless it has substantive amendments, no one can support it because it is another piece of legislation that they’ll probably repeal or ignore.

Then we have the fact that they’re closing down debate on that bill which was a result of the exposé by the Auditor General, which came as a result of the research done by the opposition that showed the abuses, which would have been prevented by a bill we put forward. The timeline, when you compare it to what we’re dealing with today, is just unbelievable. It’s unfortunate too, because we’ve got taxpayers across the province who expect and demand better.

But this crowd here, they’ve gotten so comfortable in their nice chairs and their nice limousines and their nice dinners out—they’ve gotten so comfortable in the big chairs that they have forgotten what it means.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Does Tim have a limousine?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My good colleague there, the chatterbox from St. Catharines, has continually tried to disrupt me, but I can assure him that the leader of the official opposition drives a minivan, just like I do because—guess what?—that’s what happens when you’re raising a family. But you know what? It’s also one of the important things—

Hon. James J. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition has a government car.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The leader of the official opposition drives a minivan, just as I do, but the reality is that the minister responsible for whatever he is now—because he keeps changing—doesn’t want to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I think, member from Nepean–Carleton, it’s getting just a little personal, and we don’t like to do that in this place.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, but let’s be totally honest here. The reality of why they want to shout me out and not allow me to continue to talk is exactly the same reason they put forward this closure motion: They don’t want the sunlight on their books. They don’t want the public to know what they’ve done, and they certainly don’t want them to know in the leadup to the next election, which is—what?—336 days away.

I will continue to bring to this House my concerns. The Progressive Conservative caucus will continue to bring to this House our concerns. And our leader, Tim Hudak, will certainly travel this province and speak to the taxpayers of this province, and he will work with them to ensure that there is value for money, particularly where our health care dollars are at work.

Again, the people of this province are losing confidence, and they’re losing confidence because this is a government that is now in its second term and feels so secure that they think they can tell taxpayers what to do. They think they are immune to any type of criticism, and they believe what they are doing is right. But we can tell them—and I’m sure my colleagues from the third party will tell them as well—that the people of this province are tired of them. They’re tired; they’re tired; they’re tired. They wish they could find an alternative, and they’ve found it, I believe, in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

But this government still has 11 months to make good and make right, and all they have to do when this bill finally goes to committee—and it will now, because they’re forcing us to close down debate even though half of our caucus still wants to speak to this bill. They have an opportunity, when this bill goes to committee, to social policy: They can put forward and adopt reasoned amendments or they can adopt our own amendments, which will strengthen trust in government, which will strengthen truth in government and which will strengthen the rules on how our tax dollars are governed.

They’re not interested, because for them a band-aid is a band-aid, the way a Liberal is a Liberal. The reality of this crowd—they just want to skip from this crisis because I’m sure there’s going to be another crisis down the road. Well, we’re already dealing with it. As my colleague from the third party said earlier—from Parkdale–High Park—they’re now dealing with their smart meters. Our party calls them tax machines; her party calls them the stupid meters. Whichever way you slice or dice it, it’s a new scandal; it’s another scandal.

This government is unwilling to talk to the people of the province about the challenges that they’re faced with because they’re so comfortable. In the comfort of their own seats and their nice offices across the way, they’ve forgotten to listen to the very people who have sent them to this place. How else can you explain this bill, the circumstances that led to the bill and now the closure of this debate? They’ve embarrassed themselves and they have embarrassed the rest of us by doing this.

I would urge the Liberal backbenchers in that caucus to stand up to the minister and the House leader and demand that we have the opportunity to complete debate on this bill, to get to the root of the problem so we can best prevent further abuses of our tax dollars, particularly when they are in our health care system.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John Yakabuski: In the west members’ gallery today we have Paul Brown, who visits with government officials on a regular basis, and on Take Our Kids to Work Day he has with him his daughter Danielle.

Mr. Michael Prue: I’d like to introduce to the Legislature today Lavie Cymbalist, who is here visiting all the way from Israel.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Avtar Singh Khangura. He is head of a village municipal council and also head of a regional council in the state of Punjab. Visiting with him also is Lakveer Singh Khangura. They are both from my wife’s paternal village.

I would also like to welcome Jonelle Dholah-Davis, a grade 9 student from The Woodlands high school, who is here as part of the Take Our Kids to Work program along with her grandmother Simone Dholah. Both are from my riding of Mississauga–Erindale.

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s with pleasure that I welcome Mr. Bruce Annan, managing director of AIM Group, as well as Mr. Rod Urquhart, journalist and editor of the Voice of the Farmer. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Paul Miller: In the west gallery, I would like to welcome Anthony Passaretti, who has been working in my constituency office. He’s brought his sister Vanessa Passaretti to Queen’s Park today for Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Today is Take Our Kids to Work Day. I’d like to welcome to question period the 46 children and their parents, friends and relatives who work at the Ministries of Finance and Revenue, who will be attending today.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I’d like to introduce two young ladies from Mississauga South. They’re in grade 9 at Lorne Park high school. Joining us today is Kaasha Babiash, and she’s joined by the youngest of my three children, Jessica Elizabeth Sousa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I too want to introduce one of our people here today for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Danielle Collier, who is a grade 9 student at Leaside, is here somewhere. She is the niece of Melissa Thomson, who is one of our valued public servants.

I also want to introduce the father, mother, grandmother, grandfather and another grandmother of the page from Markham–Unionville, Soumiya Suresh. As I say, her father, mother, grandmother from India, grandfather and grandmother are here with us today.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I, too, have a number of visitors today. I’d like to welcome our page Nicholas Waltenbury’s parents, Dawn and Al, and his brother Spencer, who are here today with us. We’re very excited to have them here.

As well, it being bring your grade 9 to work day, my good friend Karen Pitre asked me to take Sean Pitre with us, and he’s with us here today. We’re very excited to have him. He’s having a great day.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Shadi Mousavi of Richmond Hill. She is visiting Queen’s Park for the Take Our Kids to Work Day program. Welcome.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I have two welcomes. First of all, I want to welcome to the Legislature the executive officers of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. They represent 29 local associations and over 4,000 members. And I’d like to offer a special welcome to Mr. David Horton, executive director of the home builders, and thank him for his 25 years of dedication and service to the association.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I would like to welcome to the House Matthew Gledhill from Sherwood high school in Hamilton. Matthew is here with his father for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Matthew is the son of Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN chair Juanita Gledhill. I also understand that Matthew is quite the hockey player. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Dave Levac: I know that all the members are aware of this group that is here today in the Legislature, and I would like them to welcome the members who are here for the Campaign to Control Cancer. We appreciate their presence here and the information that they’re going to share with all of the members in this place. I wish them all well.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to introduce Kim Fairhall and the grade 10 civics class from Huntsville High School, who are down here at Queen’s Park today in the east visitors’ gallery.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome John Cary, the founding member of Trees Ontario. He’s in the members’ gallery. For those of you unaware of their good work, Trees Ontario is a not-for-profit organization that helps bring together partners and volunteers from across Ontario to implement tree planting programs, and Trees Ontario is helping our government deliver on our goal of planting 50 million trees in southern Ontario. Welcome, John.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Welcome to the kids from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I am very, very proud that these fine young citizens are here today with their parents viewing what government is all about.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: On Take Our Kids to Work Day, I’d like to welcome Jason, the son of Christine Innes, my chief of staff, who will soon be joining us in the east gallery.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The clock has expired. The government made [ inaudible ] let them live by it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is a point of order, but the Speaker is about to overrule that point of order because he has a number of introductions that he has to make as well.

On behalf of the member for Markham–Unionville and page Soumiya Suresh, we’d like to welcome her mother, Chitra Suresh; her father, Suresh Muthulingam; her grandmother Gowri Sabapathy; grandmother Sathimalar Muthulingam; and grandfather Palaniyappan Muthulingam, to the members’ gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to welcome the grade 9 students seated in the Speaker’s gallery, who are taking

part in the Ontario Legislative Assembly’s take your grade 9 student to work day. They are Kasia Babiarz, Clarise Bunsee, Megan Fernandez, Christian Sziraky, Derek Kleperis, Jensen Chadee, Keegan MacInnis, Jhenelle Christopher, Zoe Lofft, Patrick Farnan, Bryn Martin, Rizelle Menzano, Kayla Mullner, Alexander Theriault and Jessica Sousa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Grade 9 students who are here today for Take Our Kids to Work Day in the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat are seated in the public galleries.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery from my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome a former student employee in my constituency office, Kirk Perrin. Kirk is visiting Queen’s Park today with some of his fellow brothers from Delta Upsilon Fraternity, University of Guelph chapter. They are Lane Gambta, Dan Konieczny, Scott Sickle and Rajiv Aeri. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

BIRTHDAY OF DEPUTY CLERK

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like all members to join me in congratulating our Deputy Clerk, Todd Decker, as he celebrates his 50th birthday today.

REPORT, CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2008-09 annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer.

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to wish the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, Toby Barrett, a happy birthday today as well.

VISITOR

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to welcome in the House today Celeste Yim, who is a grade 9 student. She is following me today from the Toronto French School. Merci.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): For anyone who has not been introduced, welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: To the Acting Premier: November 3 is an historic and sad day in Ontario history because it is the second anniversary of Premier McGuinty turning Ontario into a have-not province and, quite frankly, as a consequence turning Ontario families into have-not households.

When Premier McGuinty looked for the welfare of the federal government for the first time, he took in $347 million in equalization payments. This year, he has now taken in $972 million in equalization payments. The bottom line: Our dependency on the welfare rolls of Confederation has tripled.

Minister, doesn’t this show it’s time for a change here in Ontario when we’re getting deeper and deeper on the welfare rolls?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s time for a change in the equalization formula that penalizes Ontario.

Instead of standing up for Ontario, he chooses to trash our economy, in spite of the fact that it’s growing faster than any other provincial economy, in spite of the fact that 90% of our jobs are back. Instead of defending an equation that takes $5 billion from us and gives us back $900 million, why doesn’t he speak to Harper, why doesn’t he speak to Flaherty, get that formula changed and stand up for Ontario instead of trashing this great province that we’re putting back on its feet?

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Only the Ontario Liberal Party would give themselves a standing ovation for turning Ontario into a have-not province.

Let me put this into perspective, Minister: Never in the history of our great country has Ontario been on the receiving end of equalization payments. Premier McGuinty’s policies, his failed economic policies, have put us on the welfare rolls of Confederation, and now our welfare cheque has tripled under your watch. But you continue with your reckless spending, your failed McGuinty economic policies, and you’re digging Ontario families deeper and deeper into debt and chasing jobs out of our province. The reality is, our welfare payments from the federal government have tripled.

Minister, I ask you: Why are the other provinces doing better and Ontario falling further and further behind?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, factually, the member opposite’s wrong: Ontario qualified in 1977, 1978 and 1981. It’s just that the federal government of the day and the Davis provincial government agreed that the formula was so out of whack that it ought to be changed, and they changed it.

When we speak of equalization, Ontario has contributed some $50 billion over the last 10 years. We are getting some of our money back. But it is time that the federal government look at that formula. That’s something that has been called upon by many leading economists because they understand what it does: It takes money from Ontario, redistributes it to the rest of the country and gives us a few crumbs back.

It’s about standing up for Ontario. It is about building a stronger country. When a formula prejudices an economy like this, it’s bad for Canada. We want to work together for a better—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think Ontario families rightly would expect a Premier and a finance minister to say that it’s not acceptable that Ontario is on the welfare rolls of Confederation, to come up with a plan to grow our economy, to move us forward as a lead province in Confederation again. But all we get from the minister is more excuses, and he puts his hand out for more and more welfare payments from the federal government. It’s time for a change in Ontario to grow jobs and move our province forward.

Minister, your greedy HST tax grab is killing jobs, not creating them. You’ve made us more dependent on federal welfare, and you still cannot make ends meet. You’ve taken the over billion dollars in federal handouts and washed them down the drain in the eHealth scandal alone.

I ask the minister: Where did the money go? What have you done with the federal transfer payments now that we’re further and further in debt?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What needs to be changed is a formula that penalizes the people of Ontario. The member opposite asked where the money goes. The money goes to 10,000 new nurses. It goes to five million Ontarians who now have electronic health records. It goes to 20,000 new spaces in post-secondary education.

We look forward to the day when that formula is changed, because Ontario contributes mightily to this Confederation; Ontario is vital to this Confederation. And just to show you how crazy this formula is, more than 80% of Ontarians aren’t receiving. It makes no sense; most economists say that. The only people that don’t get it are them, and that’s because they’d rather protect the Harper government than protect the people of Ontario.

I challenge you: Stand up for Ontario. Stand up for fairness in transfers among and between all of the provinces in this Confederation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East does not need to encourage the government side.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier, on the same topic: The minister reminds me of the student who gets a failed report card and blames the report card instead of pulling up his socks and working harder. You seem satisfied that Ontario is a laggard in Confederation. Ontario families, the Ontario PCs, want Ontario to be a leader in Canada again, and number one in job creation.

Minister, you know what you did with the federal welfare payments: You blew it. You flushed it down the drain in your failed economic plan. Expenses and sweetheart deals handed out at eHealth, eHealth 2.0, Cancer Care Ontario, the LHINs—I could go on and on—one OLG scandal after another: all told, some $3.7 billion in waste that is now saddled on the backs of Ontario families.

Minister, why have you turned Ontario families into have-not households when you made Ontario a have-not province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Royal Bank of Canada published the following in June of this year: “Ontario’s economy entered 2010 with renewed vigour, carrying its strongest momentum in almost six years.... This impresssive start to 2010 implies greater strength overall this year than earlier believed....”

The Conference Board of Canada says the recovery is definitely under way in Ontario, and Ontario’s economic rebound will be supported by the public fiscal stimulus spending of its government.

I agree that we need to change the equalization formula. I believe that it’s wrong for Ontario, as do a range of economists. I believe there has to be a better formula for Confederation. Ontario wants to continue to contribute, as we do today.

But I’ll tell you something: The people of Ontario expect their Legislature and their legislators to stand up for the interests of Ontario against the federal government, which refuses to change that formula.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Ontario PCs each and every day are standing up for Ontario families to fight back against your HST, to fight back against your hydro increases, to fight back against your eco taxes.

Minister, do some quick math. If you take your $3.7 billion in McGuinty government waste, that works out to $822 for each and every home in our province.

Minister, you took the federal transfers, you wasted them, and now our welfare payments have tripled. If you’d taken control of your reckless spending at the first sign of trouble, when then-Minister Colle handed out those grants based on who was closest to the Liberal Party and made the world’s richest cricket club, if you’d stopped it then, you could have stopped eHealth. You could have stopped the OLG scandals. You could have stopped the MPAC scandals. You could have stopped the scandals at the LHIN. Why don’t you understand that Ontario families are saying, “Enough is enough”—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We on this side of the House believe that investments in health care, education and a cleaner environment are in fact the right investments to make.

That member and his party compared nurses to hula hoop workers; we think they’re vital to a healthy and vibrant society.

That member and his party want dirty air for our kids and will reopen coal plants, raise the price of electricity and not invest what we need in transmission. We disagree. We think those are important investments.

We believe that there were far too many kids out of school for far too long when that member and his party were in power. We believe in investing in schools, in full-day learning, in a better and brighter future for our children.

The people of Ontario believe in those principles as well, sir, and we’ll continue to defend those public services against people who want to cut, cut, cut.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Frankly, with that kind of answer from the finance minister, no wonder Ontario is falling further and further onto the welfare rolls of Confederation.

The failed economic policies of the McGuinty government have plunged Ontario into have-not status. Your $3.7 billion of wasteful spending on the backs of Ontario households—$822 on each and every home and apartment in our province—means you’ve turned households into have-not households. You’ve tried to force down the eco taxes. You brought forward your greedy HST tax grab. Hydro bills are going through the roof.

Families are rightly saying, “Enough is enough.” They want to see change here in the province of Ontario, but instead, you’re putting us deeper on the welfare rolls of Confederation.

Why don’t you put a stop to your sweetheart deals? Give Ontario families the break that they deserve and make Ontario once again a leader, not a laggard, in Confederation.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition just said he thinks Ontario is falling apart. We don’t believe that at all.

We don’t believe that investing in public services, the jobs that are being created, that a plus-3%—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members from Simcoe–Grey, Halton, Nepean–Carleton and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We believe that investments in our communities, in our schools, in our health care and in a cleaner environment are appropriate investments. We have cut the province’s deficit from its high in just one year, which is more than I can say for other governments.

On a final point, since we’re talking about fairness in Confederation, why wouldn’t that member and his party explain why unemployed Ontarians don’t get anywhere near the benefits that other unemployed Canadians do? Instead of accusing Ontarians and saying that Ontario is falling apart, stand up for Ontario, for a better future for our children and for fairness from our federal government.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Acting Premier. Should publicly owned utilities or, for that matter, any other publicly run organization be forced to make a political donation to gain access to their provincial government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No, and I don’t think anybody is.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Paying for access is exactly what has been happening. In a letter sent yesterday to a concerned hydro ratepayer, the president of Newmarket Hydro wrote: “Newmarket Hydro does not intentionally support any political party through donations or otherwise....

“The cost of these tickets was treated as a donation by the government of the day....

“But ... attendance at these functions was viewed as essential to best understand the government’s policy objectives in this regard.”

Why were public utilities forced to pay the Liberal Party to find out what this government is up to?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I might ask the member, then—because, you know, the more we dig, the more we find, and it’s always very interesting.

I wonder why the member opposite wouldn’t have disclosed what I’m about to disclose. That party took from Wasaya Airways, according to their own website, 100% owned by several First Nations bands, $6,000 to the NDP central party coffers and $1,000 to the Kenora–Rainy River riding association.

It’s unfortunate that they continue to insist on a double standard, one where they try to hold us to account for things they do. Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Those kinds of donations are questionable and draw into question the integrity of all of these questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: They’re not telling the truth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, I withdraw. He’s not telling the truth; he’s stretching it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment.

Mr. Paul Miller: I withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker can read lips.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: I think the only thing the finance minister doesn’t understand is what he is in fact doing and how he is perpetrating this on the people of this province.

The CEO of Sudbury hydro said he didn’t even know his utility had made a political donation. In fact, he says they have a policy against it. He explains, “The total cost of the ticket for the dinner ... was considered, we know now, to be a political donation.”

Why were public utilities forced to fork over public money to Ontario Liberal fundraisers just to find out about the McGuinty government’s policy plans?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Why would the NDP have taken $1,200 from Five Nations Energy Inc., a non-profit utility?

They can pretend that this isn’t on the public record. They can pretend that none of this has happened to them, but we know it; it’s on the public record.

This government has brought forward more initiatives on transparency and accountability, which I will recount in later questions. I challenge that member and his party, if they feel that strongly, to give back that money they received.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Michael Prue: Again to the Acting Premier: The president of Essex Power didn’t know about his utility’s donation, either. He told the press, “We are not aware of that donation ... we did attend what they call the heritage dinner. We were there to ensure ... that there was a long-term commitment” for those projects that they were working on locally.

Why do the people running our public utilities think the only way they can get things done is by giving money to the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, they give money to the NDP and they give money to the Conservatives. It is a matter of public record.

We have brought forward a number of amendments over time to strengthen the accountability, including online disclosure in real time of contributions, which we think makes a really important contribution to more accountability and more transparency. The only people who haven’t been accountable and transparent in this are the NDP, who have refused to disclose their own donations that have been received over the years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: This minister’s answers are flimsy, absolutely flimsy at best. Public utilities are supposed to be owned by the people and accountable to those people, and so is this government. When public bodies feel they have to pay tribute to the ruling party just to get things done, there is something terribly wrong in Ontario.

Does the minister really think it’s okay for the Liberal Party to collect money from publicly owned utilities that have a policy against political donations?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would ask the same of the third party, because they’ve been doing it. There are all kinds of opportunities for us to provide for enhanced transparency and accountability, which we’ve done. It’s important that all members and all parties in the Legislature speak fully and frankly about their own fundraising activities. It’s important, I think, that all of us continue to focus on improved transparency and accountability to move forward.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The Liberal Party has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar, and the minister is desperately trying to rationalize what is happening here. But people across this province are losing faith in the political system and especially with this government.

Instead of defending this as politics as usual, the government can fix the problem. Will the McGuinty government commit to real political finance reform, follow the lead of other provinces and the federal government, and ban corporate and union donations entirely so you’ll have nothing more to explain?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, then, maybe the member opposite would like to explain this invitation that was received by all kinds of people across Ontario to the NDP Leaders’ Levee, where a leader event sponsor has to pay $9,300, and you can be a friend of the leader if you pay $4,500. Now, that’s probably a good deal, because they get both Andrea Horwath and Jack Layton. The member opposite pontificates about the welfare diet; you should see the menu on here. I don’t think it’s part of the welfare diet: beef carpaccio, walnut toast gorgonzola, tomato coulis, panko-crusted fried brie.

It’s hard to say any more. They say one thing; they do another. Start living the creed over there and stop being so phony.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Acting Premier. The $822 per household that Premier McGuinty made Ontario families pay for his expensive experiments, waste and scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. Since Premier McGuinty turned Ontario into a have-not province two years ago, he has failed to deliver public sector wage restraint as promised. He shut down development of half of northern Ontario’s land base. He has failed to fix the problems at eHealth. He is turning Ontario families into have-not households that pay billions of dollars for his reckless spending and boondoggles.

What makes you think Ontario families have an unlimited ability to pay for your wasteful scandals and expensive experiments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The people of Ontario wanted us to invest in health care; they wanted more nurses in their hospitals; they wanted more doctors. They wanted us to undo the damage that that party left in our health care system. They wanted us to invest in education because, unlike the Conservatives who think that full-day learning is a frill, we think it’s essential for a vibrant future of this province and our children.

This party has invested in a cleaner environment and a safer environment, as well as investing in leaving a legacy around our public forests and our public lands that our children and grandchildren will thank us for. It’s about having a balanced view, it’s about fixing the things that went wrong when that party was in power, and most importantly, it’s about a better future for our children and grandchildren.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Acting Premier: Premier McGuinty leaves no stone unturned in looking for families to pay for his reckless spending on sweetheart deals and waste at eHealth and OLG scandals and subsidies to Ubisoft, Samsung and the Chevy Volt. It’s bad enough that Premier McGuinty’s HST, health tax, and income and property tax hikes turn Ontario families into have-not households. With equalization, he has found a way for families in Newfoundland and British Columbia to foot the bill too. What makes you think families in St. John’s and Victoria have an unlimited ability to pay for your reckless spending?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We don’t think investing in a better education system for our children is reckless. What is reckless is his party promising to cut $2,300 per Ontarian from health care with their $3-billion health care cut. That’s what they’re about. They want to go back to the days of Premier Mike Harris. They want to go back to a time that all Ontarians rejected in 2003 and 2007. It’s about building a better and brighter future for our kids. That involves the prudent management of finances, as well as investing in health care and education and a cleaner environment. That’s what the people of Ontario want, that’s what they voted for in 2007, and that’s what we will continue to deliver.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Ontario Power Generation is wholly owned by the government of Ontario. The Minister of Energy meets regularly with the OPG board. Is the minister aware that OPG transferred ownership of 32 radioactive steam generators to Bruce Power last year, and can he please tell us why this transfer of ownership took place?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question. Once again, I guess we have the NDP up here trying to raise concerns about nuclear power here in this province. I think the problem is that they don’t realize just how important nuclear power is to this province.

Every transaction that takes place in that industry is highly regulated by the federal government. Every decision that is made in the nuclear industry is subject to the utmost of scrutiny to ensure that public safety is being taken into full consideration. It’s time for the NDP to recognize that this province requires nuclear power; it’s the backbone of our energy sector. Instead of constantly trying to dump on it and suggest that somehow or another they can come up with another alternative, they should recognize the importance of the nuclear industry in Ontario and the hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country that—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, it’s very clear that the minister doesn’t like this question at all. OPG was responsible for the management of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste in Ontario until last October, when, according to this report, OPG transferred possession and title of the Bruce A radioactive steam generators to Bruce Power.

Now, could the minister tell us, did OPG transfer ownership to Bruce Power because OPG is not allowed to export radioactive waste—maybe you are familiar with that—or is it because the McGuinty government wanted to distance itself from the dangerous and now widely opposed decision to ship the generators across the Great Lakes? Which was it?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m really getting tired of the NDP trying to have it both ways on nuclear power. The fact of the matter is, this is the backbone of our energy system. The NDP pretends that somehow or another we can run an energy system in this province that provides power to Ontario families and provides reliable power to our businesses without this industry. This is a highly regulated industry. Everything from nuclear waste to radiation issues to safety issues are all highly regulated and administered through the federal government.

We can always provide assurances to Ontarians. I will not for a second entertain the suggestion that in any way people are at risk as a result of the work that goes on in this industry. There are thousands of Ontarians who depend on their jobs in the nuclear industry. It’s safe, it’s clean, it’s reliable and it’s an important part of our energy mix.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, as you and many members know, November is Adoption Awareness Month. It is a welcome opportunity to recognize families that have adopted children and given them permanent, loving families. It is also a time to think of the children who are in need of permanent, loving families and the families that are ready and willing to welcome those children.

Minister, we know children’s aid societies across the province currently have children in care who are looking for loving and stable permanent homes. Can you please explain what our government is doing to support these children as they look for families in our communities?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his advocacy on behalf of families in his community, because that’s exactly what this is about. This is about best outcomes for kids and helping kids find families. It’s a privilege in my role to have been able to sit down with many of our youth in care who talk about their dream and aspiration of finding a forever family.

I’m very pleased to share with the House much of the work that’s been done in the sector to find permanency options for kids in the last year.

Under our government, the number of adoptions has increased by 62%. Completed adoptions through children’s aid societies have increased in the last year by 21%.

I recently had the chance to attend the Adoption Resource Exchange, where CASs from around the province came together to demonstrate and show the kids who would be available, to encourage families to think perhaps beyond the—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It’s heartening to hear that there is an improvement in adoption numbers and that children’s aid societies are working together to find homes for kids. The minister mentioned improvements to the child welfare system through the work of the Commission to Promote Sustainable Child Welfare. Members have been hearing that some children’s aid societies are facing financial challenges, while many children’s aid societies have balanced budgets and are taking innovative steps to make sure money is best spent on supporting children and families.

I know that the Ottawa children’s aid society has a balanced budget and I’m very pleased to have a productive and positive relationship with them. Could the minister share with the House some of the innovative practices taking place at the Ottawa children’s aid society that her ministry has observed?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The Ottawa CAS is doing great work. They are developing innovative solutions to find approaches to spend less time on paperwork and more time on kids, to find families, to reach out, to recruit families that might like to adopt kids.

Innovation is all about finding a pathway to sustainability. We’re looking at a range of permanency options—legal custody, customary care, supporting families to be able to look after their own children. There are so many pathways to find permanent families and permanent homes for kids. The Commission to Promote Sustainable Child Welfare is doing much of this work.

We look forward to working with CASs like the Ottawa CAS to learn from their best practices and continue to do this important work to find families for Ontario’s kids and give them the very best outcomes that they can have. It’s all of our collective aspirations and it’s good work being done in Ottawa.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. This government is so out of touch that even a lob ball question from the member from Willowdale went unanswered and was bungled last week.

Last Thursday, the member from Willowdale—and I’ll refresh your memory—asked the minister to clarify how HST affects Ontarians when they’re purchasing a home. The minister, in response, did not say a word about how Ontario families are being forced to pay more for real estate commissions, legal fees, home inspections, movers, leases, high-ratio mortgages, natural gas, hydro and Internet access fees that now apply to them.

The question is very simple to this minister: Was your omission of all of the ways Premier McGuinty’s greedy HST tax grab affects Ontarians deliberate or were you negligent?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’m so glad to be able to answer a question about the HST. But there was something that was said in the House that gives me great concern. In fact, it was our Minister of Finance who said that this party is going to cut $2,300 per person in the province of Ontario. Why are you going to be cutting that much in health care? That’s the real question today.

When we talk about the HST, we’re talking about $47 billion in investment in our province. We’re talking about 600,000 jobs for Ontarians—

Interjection.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: It really is.

I wonder if she’s had an opportunity to speak to the MP in Nepean–Carleton and why he voted for the HST.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to invite Alice out of Wonderland to come over here to the real world, because that was actually embarrassing. She has no grasp of her file.

But poor member from Willowdale, when he was co-opted for a staged softball question last week—how could the minister do a bait-and-switch on him? I’m not sure how the minister can even call that an answer to a question.

The reality is, we want to know what the broad impact of the HST is, and that’s what the member from Willowdale wanted. It’s the kind of treatment, quite frankly, he received that we would expect on this side of the House. It’s usually meant that a backbencher is going to get an answer to his lob ball question.

The question we have now: Was the minister punishing the member from Willowdale for pulling a Sarah Palin and going rogue with his HST question or is it now that the McGuinty Liberals don’t want to answer anyone’s questions in the leadup to the next election because they have no answers?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: First, let me say that the member from Willowdale is doing an incredible job for the people of Ontario—absolutely. He’s such a great member.

Here’s the answer to her question: I really think that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean, you just asked the question. You know the rules: If you’re not satisfied with the answer, you can call for a late show.

Minister.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I just would really ask the member if she’s had the opportunity to thank her former boss, Mr. John Baird, who in fact supports the HST.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Peter Kormos: Once again, to the Deputy Premier: Yesterday, Ontario’s insurance brokers joined a chorus of consumer and anti-poverty groups in demanding an end to the use of credit scores in the home insurance industry. They cited numerous examples of premium increases of 50%, 75% and even 100% because of the use of this profoundly unfair practice.

Why won’t this government listen to the insurance brokers, to the consumers’ groups, to the anti-poverty groups, and ban the use of credit scores in the home insurance industry?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the member opposite that this government has, in fact, banned the use of credit scores in areas where we have complete jurisdiction. In 2005, we took action: We banned the use of credit scores on auto insurance. In our most recent reforms, we have strengthened that prohibition.

We eliminated backdoor uses of credit scores when it comes to quoting rates for a consumer. Going forward, we’ll continue to monitor the use of credit scores in other areas of insurance, such as personal property. FSCO is engaged in discussions with other insurance regulators across Canada, and it’s important, just like our five-year review, that we maintain a balanced approach.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: If the use of credit scores for determining premiums is unfair for drivers, why isn’t it unfair for homeowners? It’s not just brokers, consumers’ groups and anti-poverty groups that want credit scores banned; even The Dominion and Wawanesa have said that it’s time for credit scores to go. Other provinces have banned them, and the minister acknowledges that they’ve banned in Ontario the use of credit scores for auto insurance.

People in Ontario are hurting. Why does this government continue to side with the most reactionary elements of the insurance industry by refusing to ban credit scores in the home insurance industry?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have worked with other regulators across the country on this important issue. What I would remind the people of Ontario, that the member opposite neglects to tell them, is that by following this policy, in fact people with good credit scores would see their premiums go up.

So in terms of implementation, we have to be very careful how we do it. We have to make sure we get it right. That’s why we’re working with other jurisdictions, because we’re not the sole regulator in this matter.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, as I’m sure you’re aware, most of our colleges were built 20 to 35 years ago. Since then, of course, not only has the labour market changed, but so have the technical requirements for the jobs which have emerged. College graduates are now expected to have a good understanding and practical knowledge of control software and high-tech equipment so that they can enter the job market confident that they have the skills and knowledge that employers are looking for.

Can you please tell me what colleges are doing to prepare our students with the relevant skills to make them excellent candidates in today’s competitive economy?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question. She raises a very, very important point. We can’t train our college students for the jobs of tomorrow on yesterday’s equipment. That’s why our government has made updating the equipment in our college system a priority. We announced a three-year, $60-million fund, of which $10 million was flowed this year to help Ontario’s 24 publicly funded colleges upgrade equipment and purchase new technology.

The types of things colleges can use this funding for include computers for classroom use, software for teaching purposes, books or electronic materials for libraries, specialized equipment or machinery for use in labs and classrooms, tools for use in shops, such as plumbing or electrical, materials to support additional classroom space or new programs, and equipment to help accommodate students with disabilities.

This is an important part of our Open Ontario plan and an important investment for—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’ve noticed a significant difference within the last 10 to 15 years, as most students I speak to now talk about how much technology is part of their everyday learning. I’m happy to hear that our government recognizes that this is where our economy is going. Investments in new technology and equipment not only make good business sense, but ensure that the next generation of workers is qualified to participate in the new world economy.

Being from southwestern Ontario, I’d be curious to know exactly what this funding was used for at Conestoga College and other area colleges. So Minister, could you please provide me with the details on how the CERF funding was used at colleges in my region?

Hon. John Milloy: Members may not be aware that Conestoga College has a vibrant presence in the Guelph area, and I’m happy to report on some of the investments at Conestoga. Some of the funding that flowed is helping to upgrade equipment, such as the SIM training dummies for the paramedic program, audiovisual projects for the computer engineering technology program, various woodworking equipment, and new computers for various programs in student labs, including mechanical engineering, civil engineering, architecture, journalism, and welding and broadcasting.

At Mohawk College, which is near Guelph, Ontario’s investment is helping to upgrade equipment for the aircraft technician and maintenance programs, new e-learning tools for Web-based program delivery, new high-definition equipment for the television control room of the broadcasting program, and new lab equipment for various engineering programs.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Acting Premier: Over a thousand steelworkers in my area have just come out of a 10-month US Steel lockout down at the Nanticoke Lake Erie Works. And now another 1,000 steelworkers at Hamilton’s Hilton Works are reading, in “US Steel Lockout Countdown,” this report: “The blast furnace in Hamilton will never reopen.”

Ontario taxpayers doled out $150 million during Stelco’s bankruptcy protection before US Steel received federal approval for a takeover—a takeover based on job and steel production commitments that have not been met. Acting Premier, what steps have you taken to ensure these commitments and the Ontario jobs that they protect are maintained?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I agree with the member citing the challenges associated for those families that are faced with this. That’s why, in 2006, we came forward with a package to protect their pensions; that member and his party voted against it. Our government continues to be in touch with the appropriate people in this situation, and we will continue to work to find the solution.

This is a troubled industry. We’re seeing closures in the United States, in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

We will continue to work with the federal government and others who have an interest in ensuring that as many of these jobs as possible are protected in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Acting Premier, this game has gone on too long. The lockout down at Nanticoke’s Heckett has gone on for 18 months. I don’t think your government has done anything. A lockout may permanently close the Hilton works’ blast furnace and end 100 years of steelmaking. Families will again be split, as you’ve recognized. Steelworkers will again lose their homes.

Primary industry has historically provided tens of thousands of jobs in Ontario. Are you preparing to wave goodbye to yet another industrial heavyweight? Do you have any plan at all for primary industry, or are you just making this up, crisis by crisis?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We all feel that it is very unfortunate when these types of situations disrupt the lives of those workers, their families and the communities. But I can say that this government has been working 100%, rolling up its sleeves, through the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, through the Minister of Finance, through our Premier, through leadership and through the Ministry of Labour. We have our most seasoned, skilled, professional mediators there, working with the parties.

When the member says it’s all over, we don’t agree. We don’t agree with that. We continue to be there at the table, continuing to assist, to keep the dialogue open. If there is any chance or hope of keeping the plant going, of assisting those workers, we will be there for those workers.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you would know that under the Conservative government, we went the way of privatizing winter road maintenance. We know that it’s more expensive to do so, and we know that the standard when it comes to winter road maintenance has been lessened.

We now learn that another contract has been issued by MTO to privatize winter road maintenance in the northeast. Why are you going forward with the privatization initiative that was started by the Conservatives if you know it doesn’t save money and that the standards are less?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In fact, the standards are not lessened. In fact, the standards are kept high. As I have said many times in this House, we have among the safest roads in North America, and that’s a standard that we will continue to uphold.

We obviously work with the regional offices to make sure that the oversight of those contracts is in place. I have visited the regional offices and I know that it’s a real concern of theirs.

The fact is that road maintenance can be done in a variety of ways. This method is what’s in place in the province, and we’ve kept the standards very high, using it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, it’s quite interesting, because you were opposed to the privatization of winter road maintenance when you were in opposition. Now that you’re the government, you’ve put the pedal to the metal and you’ve accelerated it.

In the case of this particular contract in the northeast, we’re also, at the Ministry of Transport, going to lose the ability to do what are called patrols; in other words, the people who dispatch where the plows have got to be on the highway at various times of the day, depending on the conditions. It’s not going to be done by MTO but by the contractor.

I ask you again: Why would you do something like this when you know, at the end of the day, that you’re not going to save money, quality is going to go down and safety is in question?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We wouldn’t be doing this if safety were at question. We wouldn’t be doing it if quality was going to go down.

One of the first visits I made was to the northern regional office. I had a conversation with folks about the oversight of these maintenance contracts. That oversight is in place. We monitor it very carefully.

I think the other thing that the member opposite needs to know is that we have made record investments in northern highways. In 2010-11, we are investing $774 million in northern highways. That is an unforeseen amount. There is construction and work and maintenance going on all over the north.

I take the member’s concern seriously that we have to make sure that oversight is in place. We’re doing that. We have to make sure that the MTO offices know what’s going on in road maintenance. We’re doing that. The standards are high. We will keep them high and we will keep the quality in place.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Pat Hoy: My question is for the Minister of Labour. November 12 will mark the anniversary of a terrible tragedy that no one wants to see repeated again. Lori Dupont, a nurse, was stabbed to death while on the job. Although five years have passed since her death, Lori Dupont’s legacy is still strong in the hearts of her family and co-workers.

Everyone has the right to a safe workplace, free from fear or violence. Minister, can you please explain what your ministry has done to help make Ontario workplaces safer?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I know how deeply affected the member and his community have been by the murder of Lori Dupont. That murder of Lori Dupont focused our attention yet again on the effects of workplace violence on the individual, on the family, on the community, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Dupont family today.

Our government takes violence and harassment in the workplace very seriously. That’s why we amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address workplace violence and harassment. Employers are now required by law to develop policies and programs to help prevent things like what happened to Lori Dupont from happening again. Today, workers have the right to refuse work if they feel that they are physically at risk of violence in the workplace.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Pat Hoy: Like so many others, in 1996, my community lost Theresa Vince, a wife, a mother and grandmother, to a tragedy at the hands of her workplace supervisor.

Workplace violence is a complicated matter, one that deserves attention and action. Minister, I know that your ministry has undertaken a number of proactive initiatives to educate workers and employers about these new requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Can you speak to these many initiatives?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member for allowing me to address some of the resources that have been developed by our health and safety partners for violence and harassment in the workplace. We’re getting the message out. Workers and employers can find resources and materials on the ministry’s website, and this includes an informational video. I’ll let you know that this informational video we have on our website—we have a number of them—is the video that is most sought after, is most viewed, and was posted just this past June.

I said before and I’ll say it again: Violence and harassment have no place in Ontario’s workplaces. We want to make sure that all workers go home safe and sound to their families at the end of the day, and this is exactly what this legislation does.

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: The owners of the Buttonville Airport in York region announced operations will cease within five years. The airport hosts more than 170,000 flights annually, mostly corporate flights essential to the economy of the GTA. Can the minister tell us what involvement her ministry has had in the discussions that led up to the shutting down of this regional airport, and what role her ministry will have in planning for an alternative regional airport to serve the needs of the GTA?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My understanding of the way the air network in the country works is that this is a federal issue, and this is a private operation. Having said that, I do have an air advisory panel, and I have spoken with people from around the province who are involved in the small—particularly the remote and rural—airports in the province. I know we’ve been involved in a pavement study on those runways and there has been a lot of work that has been done as a result of that study. I am concerned about the overall quality of the airports in the province, but on this particular issue, I believe it’s the jurisdiction of another government and it’s a private organization.

Mr. Frank Klees: The jurisdiction of the province of Ontario is to ensure that we have a proper transportation plan in place. That, surely, is the mandate that was given to Metrolinx. It’s disconcerting to me that this issue of air transportation is to be seen nowhere in the ministry’s transportation planning. In fact, one of the directors of Metrolinx, at the standing committee, admitted when I put the question to him that air transportation should, in fact, be an integral part of the intermodal and integrated transportation system in the province.

I will then put it to the minister: Will she undertake to ensure that air transportation becomes an integral part of the transportation planning process for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said in my first answer, we have—in fact, a former Minister of Transportation, the member for Etobicoke Centre—set up an air advisory panel in our ministry. The member for St. Catharines kept that going.

There was, in the Ministry of Transportation, a robust air department, air unit. It was the party opposite that got rid of that unit. It was the people on the other side of the House. It seems to me that the member opposite was a Minister of Transportation, and it was under his watch that provincial involvement in air traffic and air transportation was diminished.

We have reinstated the conversation. I understand that air travel is an important part of the network, which is why I’m working with the folks who are involved in those airports around the province. But the member opposite has to take responsibility for reducing the capacity for us to do that.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Education: Parent councils were created to enable parents to help their kids, but a study by People for Education shows that parent councils have turned into fundraising machines. The money they raise goes to basic fundamental items like textbooks and computers, things we all thought the government of Ontario should be paying for.

The Ministry of Education has pledged to craft fundraising guidelines since 2005, and we were expecting guidelines in 2010. Now they say no policy will be implemented until 2012-13.

I had no idea that writing a single set of guidelines was so onerous for the minister. Is it really that complicated?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s important that I correct the honourable member that it’s not about the minister writing guidelines. In fact, the ministry leads robust consultation with all of the people who are going to be impacted by fundraising activities. So I think yes, in fact, it is very important that we take the time to do this right, that we make sure that we consult and provide opportunities for families and for people in our communities to provide feedback.

I would also like to clarify that when it comes to dollars that are raised within school communities, the first issue that we have focused on is student fees, and right now the honourable member and all people in Ontario can go to the ministry website and see what we have proposed for guidelines on student fees in our schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Clearly, I wasn’t talking about user fees, although that’s an important issue too. Given the eco fee fiasco, you might not want to bring that up.

You talk about