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

June 1, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Jun-01 (PDF)

L127 - Wed 1 Jun 2011 / Mer 1er jun 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 June 2011 Mercredi 1 er juin 2011

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1518186 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

1518186 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

BIG A AMUSEMENTS LTD. ACT, 2011

BIG A AMUSEMENTS LTD. ACT, 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

TAXATION

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY POLICIES

INJURED WORKERS

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

CELLPHONES

MUNICIPALITIES

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

LEGISLATIVE USHERS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ATHLETIC THERAPY MONTH

INJURED WORKERS

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

JOSEPH BRANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

VISITOR

ROADS BOARDS

ST. MARY CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, BROCKVILLE

LABATT BREWERIES

MEMBER’S FAREWELL

ITALIAN REPUBLIC DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GRAND JURIES ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LES GRANDS JURYS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(PERMANENT PARTIAL

DISABILITY SUPPLEMENTS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(SUPPLÉMENT POUR

INVALIDITÉ PARTIELLE

À CARACTÈRE PERMANENT)

REDUCING AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE PREMIUMS

BY ELIMINATING FRAUD ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 VISANT À RÉDUIRE

LES PRIMES D’ASSURANCE-

AUTOMOBILE PAR L’ÉLIMINATION

DES ACTIVITÉS FRAUDULEUSES

WORKERS’ DEATH BENEFITS

PROTECTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PRESTATIONS DE DÉCÈS

DES TRAVAILLEURS

PROTECTING CONTRACTORS

THROUGH PROMPT

PAYMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 VISANT

À PROTÉGER LES ENTREPRENEURS

PAR DES PAIEMENTS RAPIDES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SENIORS’ MONTH

PARAMEDICS

SENIORS’ MONTH

PARAMEDICS

SENIORS’ MONTH

PARAMEDICS

PETITIONS

POWER PLANT

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF NIAGARA

CELLULAR TOWERS

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

IDENTITY THEFT

DOG OWNERSHIP

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

SICKLE CELL AND THALASSEMIC DISORDERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

CARTE D’IDENTIFICATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

917866 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

917866 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

ENSURING INTEGRITY IN ONTARIO

ELECTIONS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 ASSURANT L’INTÉGRITÉ

DES ÉLECTIONS EN ONTARIO

ENSURING INTEGRITY IN ONTARIO

ELECTIONS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 ASSURANT L’INTÉGRITÉ

DES ÉLECTIONS EN ONTARIO

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.

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the year 2010-11. The members can find these located in their desks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Ms. Aggelonitis, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I will be sharing my time this morning with the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: In our debates on Bill 186, we have covered a number of topics. I’d like to focus, in what is really our closing debate, on some of the impacts of smoking. We’re out here to try to prevent and stop people from smoking.

A very recently released report by the World Health Organization estimated that this year smoking will kill six million people, and that includes some 600,000 non-smokers. The World Health Organization also warns that governments worldwide are not doing enough to control smoking. In looking at the things that they’ve recommended, Ontario is doing many of the things that they’ve recommended. While the rest of the world is catching up, we cannot afford to be negligent and to be lax in trying to keep Ontarians from smoking.

Some 172 countries around the world, plus the European Union, have signed on to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. That study concludes by saying that some eight million people annually, by 2030, could die from tobacco-related causes if nothing is done.

While I’m in this, I’d also like to mention that we’ll be sharing some of our time as well with the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

It comes down, I think, to those of us who have lost our friends due to a cigarette. In some of my earlier remarks, I talked about some of the people whom I knew who—and I’ll mention some of them again. An old friend of mine from Regina called one day. I was sitting at my desk. I looked at the telephone, and it had the Saskatchewan 306 area code, and I thought, “I wonder who that is?” It was my friend Donna. I said, “This isn’t your normal home number. Where are you calling from?” She said, “I’m calling you from the hospital.” I said, “Oh, are you in the hospital?

What’s wrong?” She allowed that she was in the hospital and she had lung cancer. I said, “What is the outlook for you?” She said, “Not good.”

We spoke a few more times, and then the line went silent. I found out in an email some weeks later that she had died of lung cancer.

Another person I worked with in the 1980s, a very bright and energetic young woman, had her last cigarette in the early 1990s, and 20 years later she was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. She won’t make it.

I think what we’re trying to do here today is enact a series of measures that enable the province to cut off the supply of tobacco, to address contraband tobacco, to seize contraband tobacco. What it really comes down to, in the end, is that we won’t be burying our friends, and our parents won’t have to say to their children, “Don’t do that. Don’t do that.” “But, Mom, Dad, I can get it cheap.”

Death is death, whether it comes at a premium price in a package with a tobacco warning or whether it comes in a plain baggie that contains God only knows what inside. What it really comes down to, as I often tell students when I go and visit them in school—I’ll just relate the story in my last few seconds—“Take a coin out of your pocket and flip it. All of you who flipped it, if it’s heads, sit down. You didn’t get cancer. But if it’s tails, you did get cancer. Now flip the coin again. If it landed heads, you got cancer but you didn’t die of it. If it landed tails, you’re dead.”

Those are pretty much the odds you face if you decide to keep smoking today, and what this bill does is enable Ontario to stop killing people with tobacco.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the second-last day of this session, you got it right and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. I do have a bad allergy attack, so I would ask for water.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): It isn’t because you stayed up too late last night?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, at the tributes, which I do want to speak about.

I will say that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting this piece of legislation; however, we do have serious concerns. That is why illegal tobacco is addressed in our Changebook.

As you know, illegal tobacco has grown over the years—very seriously in the last eight years—and that’s why we think it’s very important. I agree with the member from Mississauga, who said that this is one way to combat smoking. However, that is not the only thing we’re fighting. It’s also the illegal drug trade and the underground economy, where criminals are actually making lots of money and making money off children as young as 11 and 12 years old across our province who are smoking illegal tobacco in schoolyards. That money is going, as Chief Blair told my colleague from Thornhill, directly into guns and gangs on our streets.

That’s why we think this bill does not go far enough. In fact, Tim Hudak has said that when he forms the government, the Changebook will aggressively tackle the problem—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member, we’ll start early by saying that we don’t use full names; positions, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That’s why the Ontario PC caucus believes we need to aggressively tackle this problem by increasing enforcement efforts, including at the US border. As we know, in eastern Ontario where I reside, about an hour from my community, there is increased drug traffic across the border.

We also believe that we need to reduce the authorized volume of unmarked tobacco products on reserves. We believe we have to work with reserve police agencies and band councils to close unauthorized cigarette manufacturing facilities and prevent delivery of manufacturing materials used by illicit factories.

Let me speak momentarily about this. While we had committee hearings, we did have two chiefs join us at committee who told us that they were not adequately consulted by this government, and I think that’s a real shame.

Finally, we believe in increasing police search-and-seizure authority related to tobacco products. This bill addresses a little bit of that, but we think it could go further.

I’m going to split my time with my colleague from York–Simcoe. But before I close, this is likely the last bill I will address in this Parliament, and I would like, in the few short moments I have, to say thank you to you and Speaker Peters, as well as the others who have held that chair, including my colleagues from York–Simcoe and Simcoe–Grey. I’d also like to thank all those members who are retiring for their public service. Last night was probably the most extraordinary evening that we’ve had in this chamber since I’ve been here, in my five and a half years of politics.

As my colleague from Oakville said, we spend four years here beating each other up; why not spend a night lifting one another up? And we were able to do that.

On our side, I want to just say thank you to my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, who has been a great mentor and friend to me. He wasn’t the first person to start talking about anti-smoking, but he was the first person in all of Canada to bring forward anti-smoking legislation. He did that in the 1980s, when it was not popular, and I think that speaks to the type of politician and public servant that my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills is. If you don’t mind, I beg your indulgence to use his name: Norm Sterling. Thank you, Speaker.

I’d also like to say thank you to my colleague from Cambridge, Gerry Martiniuk. Gerry has been a good friend to me. I call him Ger Bear. He sits beside me in caucus. I’m going to miss him, because ever since I’ve been here, he has spoken up on the rights of children. Whether that is diabetic children or children who are using an online computer at school, he has always stood up for their rights. Gerry, as a mother, I want to say thank you for everything that you’ve done.

My other colleague Bill Murdoch is something of a maverick, but I’ve got to tell you something: He’s a very loyal friend. As you know, I’m still the youngest member, and after the next election I probably won’t be. When I arrived here, I was 31 years old, and my dad was dying of cancer. He had not smoked for many years, probably 30 years. Bill was very good to me and from time to time would call my father, who was living in New Glasgow, because they both shared and loved hockey; they shared that passion. My father spent a lot of time in the hockey arena, organizing many national events. So Bill would call him from time to time to get a hockey sweater donated to Bill and signed.

I need to tell you a funny story about Bill Murdoch, and I’ll have to tell him this one day. In 2003, my husband ran for the Ontario PC Party under Ernie Eves. Bill decided he was going to speak his mind, as he often does, and it sort of derailed the campaign at the time. I remember calling up Bill, as the wife of a candidate, not the candidate myself, and saying, “What the hell are you doing?” I left a voice message, and who called me that evening after 5 o’clock? Well, it was Bill Murdoch, and I learned a thing or two about grassroots politics.

He is probably the best grassroots politician this province has ever seen. I salute Bill Murdoch, and I just want to say thank you to him for all the advice he’s given me over the years.

Of course, last night I did have an opportunity to talk about Joyce Savoline, the member from Burlington, who has become a bit of a parental figure to me in this Legislature. It’s obviously a very difficult time, to see people that you love go on and do other things, but what makes me happy is that Joyce will now have more time to spend with her grandkids, more time to spend with her husband, Ron, and of course, more time to spend with her kids, Natasha and Rob.

I know that these four individuals who are leaving the Progressive Conservative caucus, who are part of our family in the Ontario PC team, will stay in touch. They won’t leave us alone, and they’ll continue to provide us with sage advice. That’s why I think it’s important, in pieces of legislation like this, that we recognize the contributions of all members who, in these last days of this Parliament, have given so much and who have contributed so much of their time.

I do notice that there are a few other departing members in here today. I just want to acknowledge Jim Brownell, who is my next-door neighbour, who would understand a little bit about this illegal drug trade because it does impact his riding so much. Last night, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Parry Sound–Muskoka talk about the time you met with his family for one of your very important private member’s bills, and I salute you for that.

I note that Mr. Hoy is here, and I do appreciate all of the work he has done in this chamber. I only had a few occasions to work with him. However, I will say that he is one of the finest chairs of a committee that this Legislature has seen in my time here, and I thank you for that.

There are two other departing members. I’m going to go to Aileen Carroll first. I know she had quite a distinguished career in municipal and federal politics before joining us here as a cabinet minister. I appreciate that she has taken the time to give back to public service this one last time, and I wish her well in retirement.

Finally, my other next-door neighbour, Jean-Marc Lalonde: He’s a fine individual. Last night, he gave a tremendous speech when his family and his staff were here. Jean-Marc is known in eastern Ontario as a fighter for our community, and I want to recognize that. He is a fine gentleman who had a distinguished career in public life before he came to Queen’s Park, and I know he’ll continue to have a distinguished life after he decides to do whatever he wants to do in the future. I just want to say thank you to him for giving Franco-Ontarians a strong voice.

I’d like to thank all of these members for contributing so much.

Again, I would like to now cede the floor to my colleague from York Simcoe, who is not retiring, who will be back here in October. I just want to wish everyone well. Happy summer, and we’ll see you on the campaign trail.

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: In 2004, the McGuinty government embarked on a commitment that earned Ontario international recognition as a leader in the battle against smoking. I am pleased to speak today on this government’s commitment to build on that solid foundation with a renewed smoke-free Ontario strategy.

Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Ontario. As it was mentioned many times, it kills 13,000 people a year—three times the combined deaths caused by alcohol, drugs, suicides, homicides and car crashes.

Our government is taking a whole-of-government approach to supporting a renewed smoke-free Ontario. We are working with other ministries to take additional actions and make new investments, and we are addressing recommendations provided in the October 2010 report by the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group.

First on our agenda is working closely with the Ministry of Revenue to reduce the availability of cheap, illegal tobacco in Ontario. This legislation, if passed, would provide new tools to reduce the availability of illegal tobacco and help to keep it out of the hands of kids.

Specifically, it would do three things.

First, it would change the way tobacco growers are regulated and license importers to discourage all types of raw leaf tobacco from entering illegal markets.

Second, it would allow police officers to seize from individuals illegal cigarettes and other tobacco products found in plain view.

Third, it would set new fine levels for individuals caught possessing small amounts of illegal tobacco products.

In addition to this new legislation, we will continue to work with our partners to get their best advice as the government moves forward to help prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco, make it easier for smokers to get the help they need to quit, and reduce demand for all tobacco products, both legal and illegal.

I am very pleased to announce that our new investment of $5 million adds to the base funding for smoke-free Ontario. Preventing young people from ever taking up this deadly habit is the core of our approach. To help smokers quit, the government is providing more ways for smokers to get the help they need. We are also exploring ways to help employers and unions to assist workers in jobs and workplaces, where smoking increases health risk.

Our government is proud of what we have accomplished. Today, we are taking the next significant step toward our goal of a smoke-free Ontario. I am calling on all MPPs to join us in protecting our young people. Together we can help them make healthier choices that do not involve the use of tobacco of any kind. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important next steps toward a smoke-free Ontario.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to join the debate this morning on the contraband issue.

I think the first thing I want to say is that people in Ontario have been waiting almost eight years for the government to take action on this issue. What we see today, and from the point when the legislation was introduced, is what I think can generously be described as a rather tepid response. The issue has been on the table for several years, and it’s disappointing that the government has chosen the final days in the final session of this Parliament to introduce legislation.

Our party has demanded action for a long time. Various members of our caucus have championed this particular issue. Certainly, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk has asked you to close illegal smoke shacks more times, frankly, than I can count. Again, my colleague from Nepean–Carleton, who has already spoken this morning, asked you to take action. Clearly, the response of people such as them, and me as well, is that it’s disappointing to see how little action is being taken.

The issue of contraband tobacco is a problem created almost entirely by government action; specifically, the question of taxation on tobacco. In this country, taxation can range up to 72% of cost. When you look at the cost of legal tobacco today, $50 out of $80 is federal and provincial taxes. In contrast to that $80 average cost, the cheapest contraband can cost as little as $11 for the same 200 cigarettes.

We should remember that the last time contraband became a problem in the early 1990s, the response of the federal and provincial governments of the day was a huge tax cut. With that, of course, came a fall in the demand for contraband tobacco. It really is incumbent on the government to either significantly reduce the tax on tobacco, to discourage the proliferation of law-breaking, or properly enforce the law, neither of which is currently happening.

The other thing that I think people overlook is why it’s really, really important to understand how contraband is worse than legally sold tobacco products. First, of course, is the issue of crime. The sale of contraband is largely run through organized crime groups that use certain opportunities to smuggle, manufacture and sell their products, both on and off reserve.

The other thing about this is the fact that, of course, the sale of legal tobacco is age-restricted and the sale of illegal tobacco is not. I know that one thing that’s very clear—and the convenience store association has provided a demonstration of it—is that legal tobacco retailers are very conscious of their social responsibility in selling age-restricted items.

This week, we had the report provided to us on actually measuring the difference between the convenience stores, Brewers Retail and the LCBO. It’s a very clear demonstration of what we have already known: that the convenience stores, frankly, have been better stewards of age-restricted retail goods than the alcohol-related.

I think that you can see that this is just like trying to put out a fire with a little puff of wind. It’s not blowing out a candle; it’s an endemic problem across this province. One of the things that we know is that it constitutes almost 50% of the total market. Through analysis of cigarette butts, we’re able to identify the point of origin or manufacture of legal and illegal ones.

It’s very difficult to say to the public that they should pay $80 instead of $11. People feel that there’s an inherent injustice with that kind of disparity, and so they tend to take this on as a personal thing, as opposed to a law-breaking issue. They don’t think, because they feel the tax is so unfair, that they’re doing anything wrong,

whereas in fact, they are certainly doing things wrong on a number of fronts. The fact is the government loses close to $500 million of revenue annually—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Over.

Mrs. Julia Munro: It could easily be over that $500 million, because of the fact that we see a continual growth in that.

We see legitimate business threatened by the contraband sales. Certainly, as the critic for small business—to think that this is a government problem that they could fix, and instead, they’re prepared to allow illegal tobacco in the hands of youth. They are forfeiting significant revenue to the government. They are willing to watch legitimate business go bankrupt, go under. They are also willing to allow a significant part of the community to be involved in organized crime—and obviously only growing that particular area.

The question of all of the efforts made by health promotion on the sale of tobacco and the effect on young people makes it look pretty paltry, in the sense of the reality, when you can go to the high schools and see the consumption of illegal tobacco. It seems like a tremendous waste of money and, I would argue, even harassment on the part of convenience stores that are selling legal tobacco, that the government is spending money on making sure that these people sell age-restricted tobacco products appropriately and, at the same time, turning a blind eye while all of the illegal sales continue to flourish and grow.

I think that for us, we would view that the government has made an extremely tepid response to a very serious problem. It’s a serious problem in terms of revenue, it’s a serious problem in terms of youth and it’s a serious problem in terms of organized crime. It is, again, something that, with more vigorous interest in this file, the government could actually have had a much better handle on.

In summing up, I think that we have to continue to put pressure on the government. Certainly in our platform, which is Changebook, I know that we have committed to a much more vigorous effort in reducing contraband tobacco and the kinds of effects it has, quite frankly, throughout our community. People are becoming more and more conscious of the reality and the impact that contraband tobacco has. We are committed to using the resources of government to make sure that we do more than simply recognize the importance of reducing the number of smokers in our community.

We need to do a great deal more, and on October 6, we hope to have the opportunity to be able to, in fact, create legitimate tobacco sales and then look at reducing tobacco use.

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

M me France Gélinas: I will try to use my time wisely, as I know that I only have 20 minutes to talk about this most important issue, which is contraband tobacco. It has been said, but it is worth repeating, that tobacco is the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of its users. This makes no sense whatsoever.

What brought me here is really the desire to change health promotion in this province. I know that lots of good work can be done at the local level, but sometimes you need governments to change the laws to make it easier for people at the local level to effect change that will help keep people healthy; that will help create healthier societies and communities. That is one of the issues where it doesn’t matter where you go in Ontario; we all recognize it as a serious threat to our health, to the health of our youth and to the health of our community.

I’ve been here for close to four years now. After asking for work on the contraband tobacco file, at the eleventh hour the government comes out with Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act. This is their timid effort at trying to deal with something this important, that has such dramatic effects on so many people in Ontario, and we do this when there are only a few days left in the sitting. So here we have this most important bill that, to me, the way it is written now, the possibility that it will be successful in curbing contraband tobacco is slim, but the possibility that it will drive a wedge between our communities and will create more harm than good is real. It is immediate and it is serious.

What do we do with this? The government puts in a time allocation motion. This is a fancy term that means, first of all, that people found out on May 18 that there were going to be public hearings on May 19. To their credit, eight groups from Toronto managed to make it under the four-hour deadline that they had to submit their names and show up.

But this is not just a Toronto issue; there are people throughout Ontario who would have liked to come forward—there are best practices developing in every corner of this province when it has to do with contraband tobacco—but we never had a chance to hear from any of them. We never had a chance to hear from people in the northeast, in the northwest, in eastern Ontario; in the southwest, where the tobacco growers are, where most of the contraband trade takes place, because this thing was brought in at the eleventh hour, and then it was time-allocated. We had those truncated public hearings.

As I said, four hours to put your name on the list is not really conducive to people from northeastern Ontario being full participants in this debate. Here we are on third reading, where I have no illusion that any changes will be made to that bill.

Here we will have a bill whose sole purpose is a punitive approach to a problem that cannot be solved by punishing people. You don’t deal with tobacco addiction by punishing people; it is useless. As a health promotion strategy, it rates as minus 100. It won’t work. You don’t deal with addiction by punishing people. There are other ways, but none of those are in the bill. You cannot see any of this forthcoming. This is the day before the House rises. I’m not going to see a well-structured tobacco strategy coming forward that would include contraband tobacco. All I see is this Bill 186, the punitive approach to dealing with addiction, to dealing with contraband.

The minute this bill was out the door, it ran into problems. I think I will quote some of the headlines that came out when the bill was first released: “Proposed Amendments to Tobacco Tax Act More Punitive than Concerned with Health,” “Ontario’s New Illegal Cigarette Laws Not Enough to Curb Smuggling,” and the headlines keep going.

Everybody knows that, yes, this is a little step that could be perceived as going in the right direction. It’s easy to stand here and quote statistics as to the number of deaths and the damage that tobacco use does to our community. We all know it. We’ve all seen it on the ground. We’ve all read the statistics. Tobacco kills people. It kills them by giving them cancer and all sorts of other diseases: heart disease, major organ disease. None of those deaths are pleasant, and the rate of it keeps going through the roof. We’re looking at probably one billion deaths in this century alone. This is a lot of people.

Don’t you think that you would like your government to bring forward a well-thought-out strategy that will hold water, that will give the people who have the addiction the support they need, that will give the people who are supporting this trade the time to say that cigarettes are going to be harder and harder to get? Let’s get on with stopping smoking, and let’s make sure that we don’t encourage the next generation of smokers.

My colleague from Brant and I brought forward the cigarillo bill. Single-size flavoured cigarillos had one goal—that’s it; that’s all: to hook kids on tobacco so that we could grow the next generation of addicted smokers. That’s all they were there for. No smoker really wants to smoke cherry-flavoured and chocolate-flavoured cigarillos. They were there at a buck apiece for kids to get hooked. After the bill received royal assent, 18 months went by before we moved ahead—18 months.

Mr. Dave Levac: Shame.

M me France Gélinas: It is a shame. I don’t know how many kids got addicted to smoking and are now part of the ever-growing number of smokers in Ontario. Let’s not fool ourselves here: The rate of smokers in Ontario has flatlined; it has not gone down.

We can say that the government has put forward one of the most aggressive tobacco controls that we should all be proud of. Sure; if you like to be proud of your laws, go ahead. I’d like to be proud of the results. I would be proud if I could see that the number of smokers in Ontario is steadily declining, but we’re not seeing that. We’re seeing it flatline. Frankly, where I’m coming from, we’re seeing increases. What is there to be proud of?

We could have all the laws in the world, but if the results are that our kids are still picking up the habit and that more and more people in Ontario continue to smoke—which we all know will lead to more death and will lead to billions of dollars in health care spending, not to mention the human trauma, the human cost of those horrific diseases—there’s nothing to be proud of.

Does it require action? Absolutely it requires action—right here, right now. But what have I got? I’ve got Bill 186. I couldn’t be more disappointed if they had tried. Bill 186 is a finance bill that deals with the tax act, that basically brings in a new punitive approach to the act. Police officers will have the ability to seize tobacco products in plain view. People who buy contraband tobacco may end up going to court or may end up having to pay fines.

But let’s be clear here: Contraband tobacco has been normalized in our province. This government has allowed it to grow and flourish for so many years that, frankly, most of the people who go and buy contraband tobacco have no idea that they’re doing something illegal. They are law-abiding citizens who would never do something to break the law if they at least knew that it was illegal. But when you see half of the smokers from the Sudbury Regional Police lining up at the smoke shack, well, that must be fine. It must be a legal thing; otherwise, police officers wouldn’t be doing it.

It is now part of the norm. It is how you buy cigarettes in Nickel Belt. This is why, when I go home at night, I see this big line of traffic trying to hang a left on regional road 55 to go into Atikameksheng Anishnawbek to go to the smoke shack. It is part of life in northern Ontario. This is how people buy cigarettes, this is where they buy it, and this is how everybody does it. Why would anybody think that they were doing something illegal when it is in plain view and when it has been going on for such a long time?

When 80-year-old Aunt Lou drives to Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, she goes and buys her two packs a day of cigarettes like she’s done for the last 10 years. She doesn’t think she’s breaking the law. All of a sudden, she may be pulled over by the cops. She won’t get a ticket; apparently, she will have to go to court. I can just imagine how many people will be quite surprised by what happens to them. How could that be?

Yet none of the education that needs to happen and none of the health promotion that needs to be tied into this is part of the bill. When I tried to bring it forward in committee—at clause-by-clause, I tried to bring changes to that bill, to say you cannot just do this; you have to let people know that they’re buying illegal tobacco, that what they are doing is illegal, and there will be consequences to this—I was told that it will be published on e-Laws. I don’t even know what e-Laws is. I certainly don’t know how to access it. And I can tell you that Aunt Lou doesn’t know about it either, but she knows where to buy smokes.

This is not going to work. We have an opportunity to do things here. We have an opportunity to pass laws that will make our province better. Why do we let those opportunities go by? Why do we bring forward bills like Bill 186?

I have to quote from some of the First Nations. Two chiefs from the First Nations came to the committee hearings. One happened to be in Toronto; otherwise, he would never have made it. That’s the chief of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. He started his presentation by saying, “I have left our assembly to make this presentation, so I just want it noted that it’s on their good graces that I appear before you.”

The first thing he said when he came to the committee was that he opposed the bill. He opposed the bill because contraband tobacco is a complex issue. We all know its effects on health, but “the reality is that for First Nations engaged in the tobacco industry,” that now supports households and finances community development. There are also “legitimate, federally licensed and inspected businesses—a point that has gone ignored in this debate.” We must not forget that First Nations are under the control—very much so—of the federal government.

The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians has adamantly opposed Bill 186 as it is written, and they have opposed the process undertaken by Ontario to pass it through this Legislature. They oppose it because Bill 186 infringes upon the rights of First Nations people, straight and simple. First Nations have used and traded tobacco since time immemorial and have never surrendered this inherent right. It is an intrusion on First Nations jurisdiction and a violation of

section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. First Nations have the right and the ability to transport tobacco between First Nations land.

Their second issue with the bill was jurisdiction. Under

section 25 of Bill 186, we, the government of Ontario, would be introducing provincial regulation on to First Nations reserve land, which is something that has never been done and, from what this chief was saying, something that First Nations don’t want happening. They saw this as significant because under Canadian law, provincial jurisdiction on reserve land and its authority to make arrangements with First Nations is unsubstantiated, yet, in this bill, we take it as a given.

They also quoted

section 91 of the Constitution, which clearly established dealing with First Nations as a federal responsibility.

Wouldn’t it have been better to sit down with First Nations to have those collaborative agreements worked out? Make no mistake: First Nations care about their children. They don’t want them picking up the habit. They don’t want members of their community to smoke, not any more than any one of us does. Do they consider tobacco as a threat to their health? Absolutely. Used in ceremonies, no, but when you start to smoke it the way white people do, it certainly is a threat; they recognize this. They welcome health promotion strategies.

They welcome ways that will help First Nations to curb the habit and not pick up tobacco just as much as everybody else. Members of First Nations die of lung cancer at an alarming rate. They also have a greater rate of smokers within their communities than we do in Ontario at large. They recognize it as a serious problem and as a complex problem that needs a well-rounded strategy.

To impose legislation on to First Nations land, when they come and tell us clearly that we have no jurisdiction, to me is looking for problems. What was more offensive of it all is that they were notified the morning of, that the bill was coming forward.

If we want this to succeed, we need partnership; we need buy-in. This is what health promotion is all about: to bring about a level of education so that people rally in, to listen to each other, to see how we can move forward together. But that’s not what we did. We told the First Nations, “We’re going to impose laws on your land; we’re going to be able to seize tobacco in plain view; we’re going to be able to stop the transfer of the tobacco between First Nations,” all issues that they have raised already as saying that those are problematic.

Will there be problems with that bill? Well, it is written in black and white for anybody who cares to see. We know that it will bring divisiveness, we know that it will drive a wedge between communities, and we know that it will bring us more problems than solutions yet on an issue that we all agree needs action.

When the RNAO came and presented, when the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco came, when the chief medical officer of health came and when Toronto Public Health came, they all said the same thing: Sure, there is room for changes to taxation, but if we want to be successful in really achieving our goal, which is less and less people in Ontario smoking, then a punitive approach is not the way to go. A comprehensive health promotion strategy would be the way to go, but this is nowhere to be seen. We’ve seen good health promotion programs, youth peer programs, the funding being cut. This is very problematic. It is a timid step that will solve a few problems and create many more.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? Does any other member wish to speak?

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 17, 2011, I’m now required to put the question.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that the orders for second and third reading of the following private bills shall be called consecutively, and the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills put immediately without debate: Bill Pr32,

An Act to revive 1518186 Ontario Inc.; Bill Pr46,

An Act to revive Faradale Farms Ltd.; and Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive Big A Amusements Ltd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Do we have consent? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

1518186 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

Mr. Rinaldi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32,

An Act to revive 1518186 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

1518186 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2011

Mr. Rinaldi moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32,

An Act to revive 1518186 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be named as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

Mr. Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr46,

An Act to revive Faradale Farms Ltd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

FARADALE FARMS LTD. ACT, 2011

Mr. Martiniuk moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr46,

An Act to revive Faradale Farms Ltd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

BIG A AMUSEMENTS LTD. ACT, 2011

Mr. Delaney moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive Big A Amusements Ltd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

BIG A AMUSEMENTS LTD. ACT, 2011

Mr. Delaney moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive Big A Amusements Ltd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business this morning, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 0956 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like the House to give a warm welcome to a constituent of mine, Julie McLeod. She’s an actor from Oakville. She’s co-producing and starring in a film on Laura Secord and she is here today to study the portrait of Laura Secord that we have on the third floor. She’s in the members’ gallery with us today.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’d like members to join me in welcoming Annie Wang, who is a Queen’s University student and, to my delight, is a summer student in our constituency office in Aurora. Welcome, Annie.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’d like to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, Debbie Brown and Ted Rodd from Lindsay. Ted just recently celebrated his 65th birthday, and we welcome him to the Legislature.

Mr. Jeff Leal: In the members’ east gallery today, I’d like to welcome Brian Shury and his daughter, Lily. They won a silent auction item, having lunch with their MPP, and the fact is, it’s unique because they were flying from Peterborough international airport to the island airport to be with us today.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’d like to welcome to the House today two very good friends of mine from North Bay who, I’ve known since I was born. Ab and Betty Dennis are here today. They’re great supporters and good corporate citizens of the city of North Bay, and we welcome them.

I’d also like to take this chance, because this seems to be the hottest ticket in town—my staff didn’t get in yesterday, but they’re here today: Phia Sanchez, Adrienne Guthrie, Karen Berkeley, David Palmer and, of course, Krystina Ceccarelli is here again today, my chief of staff. Last night during my tribute, I was remiss in not naming the only staff member who was actually in the House, working hard, taking pictures: Paul Tye. They’re all here today with us, and we thank them.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome and ask all members to welcome some people from Hamilton with the Jobs Action Centre: Bob Sutton, Donna Muir, Louise Schmerega, Lynn Grant, David Chandler and Kevin Carey.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I’d like to welcome to the House Mike Frisina. He was my intern in my office last summer. He’s a graduate student from McMaster, and I want to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: This is a school group visiting us—not from my riding, but their teacher is a very good friend of mine, Mr. Joe Bush. The students here are from Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Elementary School in York. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to introduce Alex Millier, who is an intern here and who has come to observe question period. Welcome.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine from Ottawa–Orléans to the gallery today. Meghan Pugh has been a student of the professional ballet program at the National Ballet School here in Toronto since the fall of 2005, and graduates this June. She will be going to Stuttgart, Germany, to train for three weeks. She is here today with a friend, Ms. Alysha Pacheco, from the same program, and she’s from the riding of Kitchener–Waterloo. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: To the last folks: If you ever get over to the national ballet, you may get to meet my son, who is the principal trumpet over there.

But that wasn’t really what I stood up to say. I stood up to introduce Richard Francella, who is in the members’ east gallery. Richard is the president of the Young Liberals at the University of Guelph, and he’s my summer intern this year.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to introduce today from Thunder Bay, in the members’ west gallery, the chief of emergency medical services in Thunder Bay, Norm Gale. Norm is also the president of the Association of Municipal Emergency Medical Services of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to welcome Mr. Gale as well, but accompanying him is Mr. Neal Roberts, the director of emergency services for Middlesex county. Welcome, Neal and Norm.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am absolutely delighted that several members of my staff are here today. These are the people who make my job look easy. Megan Primeau, Meaghan Connolly, Sharon Navarro, Carly Foerster, Josie Verrilli, interns Brooke Auld and Yalda Paydar, and Paris Meilleur and Colin Le Fevre are all joining us today.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I would like to welcome a good group from the far east, from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell: My lovely wife, Gisèle, is here today again. Also, I have Madame Chenier, the lady who keeps sending me all the press clippings, every day, from all the 11 weekly papers and daily papers from my area; Rhéal Filion, my accompagnateur; Jean Simon Schoenhalz; Christine Pelletier, my legislative assistant; and Lyse Desforges, my EA.

Last night, during my tribute, I forgot to mention three employees of my own from the constituency office: Lise Clark from the Rockland office, Sylvie Labrosse from the Hawkesbury office, and Martine Nadeau from Hawkesbury.

Welcome to you all.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Welland, to welcome Michael Aziz to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, I’d like to welcome a group of political science graduates from McMaster University, who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome to the Legislature.

I’d like all members to join me in welcoming to the Speaker’s gallery today Ray and Gloria Bliss, parents of one of our press gallery members, Paul Bliss. They are visiting from Fort Erie. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I discovered that Ray is the ultimate question period junkie, and now he’s finally going to see it live. Enjoy.

I’d also like to welcome to the Speaker’s gallery today the Minister of Environment for British Columbia, Minister Terry Lake, and his executive assistant, Sabrina Loiacono. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. For generations, Ontario families who worked hard and played by the rules had a bright future ahead of them, and Ontario PCs believe they will once again, but something has to change in the province of Ontario and move our great province forward. Premier, our plan, Changebook, will give average families relief from the McGuinty Liberals’ skyrocketing hydro bills and surprise tax increases that are taking bigger and bigger bites out of the family budgets.

We will give average, middle-class families broad-based income tax relief to spend on their priorities, not the McGuinty Liberals’. Premier, why are you going the other way, with a carbon tax increase?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the energy—and perhaps it may be more properly categorized as histrionics and bombast—but I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it. Ultimately, I think Ontarians will be looking to our values to see who best represents their values: hard-working, “keep your sleeves rolled up, do what it takes to build a bright future for your kids and grandkids” kinds of values.

I’ll give you one example. Yesterday, I visited Chrysler with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. As a result of efforts that we made together, representing the values of Ontario families, we invested in supporting that sector. There are now 9,000 direct Chrysler jobs as a result of the support that we put in there. The leader of the official opposition called that corporate welfare.

We don’t believe that standing up for families and standing up for their jobs is corporate welfare; we call it doing the right thing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the Ontario Liberals’ tax-and-spend values are out of date. They’re out of touch, they’re way before their best-before date, and that’s why families want change in the province of Ontario.

The Ontario PCs are the only party to put out a fully costed plan. It is called Changebook. It will provide broad, meaningful relief that families are—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies. We had an amazing four and a half hours in this chamber last night, and you could have heard a pin drop. I’m finding it very difficult to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and I would ask all members to be respectful.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now I understand that New Democrats will put out their plan. Where is the McGuinty Liberals’ plan? Why are you keeping it secret from the province of Ontario and the taxpayers who pay the bills? I know: because the McGuinty Liberals are going to bring in a Liberal carbon tax and increase the HST. Families can’t afford it, Premier.

Will you state categorically that you will not increase taxes for the third time on hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to just take the opportunity to thank my honourable colleague for endorsing the Ontario health premium. I want to thank him for endorsing the HST as well. He railed against both of those for a long, long time, but now he has seen at least a little bit of the light and understands the value of keeping those here.

Yesterday, we did something positive in terms of working with families, representing their values and supporting thousands of jobs in the auto sector.

Today, we did something else on behalf of Ontario families. We’re absolutely committed to securing a bright future for their children and their grandchildren. We laid out the final two phases of our full-day kindergarten program. I want to say to Ontario families—because I know my honourable colleague opposite claims he stands for full-day kindergarten, but they voted against it. They called it a boondoggle; they called it a shiny new car; they called it a frill. I’d ask Ontarians to keep in mind who in their heart of hearts has stood up for this program from day one, who’s prepared to drive this all the way through.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The question, Premier, is: Who is going to raise taxes once again on Ontario families? Who is going to put hydro bills through the roof? Who is on track to doubling the provincial—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Infrastructure will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I withdraw, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Research and Innovation and the honourable member from Welland: If you want to have a discussion, take it outside.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can send somebody over Niagara Falls in a barrel.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: One thing is guaranteed, you can take it to the bank, a sure-fire bet, 100%: The McGuinty Liberals will increase taxes on Ontario families, send hydro bills through the roof and waste your money on secret backroom deals. That’s why families like Changebook and want to see change here in the province of Ontario.

Premier, Changebook includes doubling the caregiver tax credit. That’s compassion and relief for Ontario families struggling with McGuinty Liberal tax and hydro increases. And we will invest in 40,000 long-term-care beds: 5,000 new and 35,000 brought to modern standards. Those are our priorities. Why—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Apparently, they’re going to do it all and we don’t have to worry about anything ever again. I don’t believe that. I don’t think Ontario families are going to believe that. We’ve heard that before. We saw that movie before.

They have 229 promises so far, but their numbers don’t add up. We know it’s going to mean cuts for Ontario families. There are just a few ways the slick book doesn’t add up.

They’ve got a debt retirement charge, and they don’t include the cost of their debt retirement charge promise. That’s $1.4 billion missing from their plan. They know that 70% of all the money we invest in program spending goes into our schools and our health care. They have a multi-billion-dollar gaping hole. There’s only one way they can address that, only one way they can fill that: to cut our schools and cut our health—

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

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, just moments ago you said you haven’t even read our plan, Changebook. I encourage you to do so: relief for families, setting priorities like health care and education, and ending the waste, fraud and secret deals that have become the hallmark of the McGuinty Liberal government.

Premier, with all due respect, I’d love to read your plan, but you’re keeping it hidden until after the October 6 election campaign. Talk about secret deals, Premier: You have a well-worn reputation for secret, backroom deals—your Samsung deal, your 3% raise for OPSEU workers, paying prison guards bonuses to show up for work, merit pay bonuses for eHealth bureaucrats. Premier, isn’t it time to end—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A lot of negativity, a lot of anger, a lot of resentment, but I just don’t think that’s in keeping with the expectations Ontario families have of their leaders. I think they want us to put forward a positive and optimistic vision.

I want to remind my honourable colleague of what Ontario families have done so well by coming together and building together. In our schools, our test scores are up by 13%; our grad rates are up by 14%. If you take a look at our adult population, we have one of the highest rates of post-secondary education in the world, and when it comes to academic results, we’ve now cracked the top 10 globally. That’s what families—moms and dads and students—have done working with teachers in our schools alone.

In health care, because of the efforts of our doctors and nurses and everybody who is committed to our public health care system, wait times are down, we’ve got more hospitals, more MRIs are getting done faster, more CTs—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’ve really got to work on getting your story straight. You accuse us of negativity. You just practically accused us of everything from bringing locusts into the province of Ontario to taking away firstborns. Nobody believes you, Premier. Nobody believes you anymore, and that’s why they want change here in our province.

Our plan, Changebook, is there to give families the relief they need, to end your secret deals and waste like eHealth. Where is your plan? Where is Premier McGuinty’s tax book plan? One thing we know for sure: He’s going to keep that hidden from the province of Ontario because he’s going to bring in a carbon tax and he’s going to increase the HST.

Ontario families say, “Enough is enough.” They want change. They want to see Changebook. Won’t you agree, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we’re used to the railing and ranting and raving. You might call them the new three Rs of the Conservative Party. But again, when it comes to standing up for families and being informed by their values, I’ll give you three specific examples where they came up short.

We said we wanted to cut our drug costs by half a billion dollars. They took another side. They wouldn’t stand with families. Some 400,000 auto sector jobs were at risk and hung in the balance. They took another side; they wouldn’t stand up for our families. We’ve now got 50,000 new job opportunities as part of our clean energy plan. They’re taking another side once again.

They won’t stand up for our families, and they won’t stand up for our jobs. They still don’t understand Ontario families. They roll up their sleeves, they work hard and they do what it takes to build a bright future for their children and their grandchildren. Those are their values. Those are our values.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now we see the second change in Liberal talk—he puts “job opportunities” all of a sudden. Nobody believed your phony job numbers from the get-go, Premier.

Let’s talk about Liberal values. This is a Premier who said he would not increase taxes, and he increased taxes over and over again on Ontario families; a Premier who said that hydro bills would go up 1%, and that wasn’t true either; a Premier who said smart meters will save you money—not true either; a Premier who made sure that his Liberal friends got rich from the eHealth boondoggle. That says something about Liberal values and why people want to see change in Ontario: so our great province can lead again.

I’m asking the Premier: When will you put forward your tax book plan? Why won’t you be honest with the people of Ontario about your plan to increase the—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s an interesting approach. I think it’s already starting to wear thin, and we’re not anywhere near the election.

I do want to thank my honourable colleague once again for supporting the HST in Ontario. I also want to thank him for supporting the Ontario health premium; I know he has railed against that over and over again.

Most importantly, I want to thank Ontario families. We have come so far together. We have turned our province around. We are on the right track. We have better schools today, by any objective measure. We have better health care in the province of Ontario. We have a stronger economy. Jobs are coming back to Ontario. We are leading the country when it comes to emerging from that terrible recession. All of these things have happened.

We had a plan that we couldn’t possibly execute or deliver without the support of Ontario families. We’re going to continue working with them. They don’t want to go back. They don’t want to go off track. They want better schools, they want better health care and they want a strong economy, and that comes from working together—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. In uncertain times, people are hoping their government will make their needs a priority. Instead, the Premier has made life much more expensive and adopted Conservative priorities like a $1.8-billion corporate tax giveaway. With banks declaring record profits this week, how can the Premier say that they need any help at all?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague hopefully at some point will acknowledge some of the good things that we have done. Some of them have been informed in part by some of the thinking that has existed in that party for some time as well.

Let me just pick out the Ontario child benefit. It’s benefiting 1.3 million children who are growing up in struggling families. It’s the first benefit of its kind in the country. It is a considerable investment; it’s over $1 billion every year. We’re doing it because we think it’s in keeping with Ontario family values. They want to ensure that no family is left behind. They want to ensure that every child has the best possible start. We were informed by those values and we came up with that initiative, and I’d ask my honourable colleague to acknowledge that as an important, responsible, thoughtful, progressive and, in fact, necessary initiative to support our families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m talking about the big bank benefit. This week, Royal Bank and Scotiabank each said they made $1.5 billion last quarter. Profits at Bank of Montreal reached $800 million. CIBC didn’t fare too badly either at about $675 million, thank you very much. They don’t need any public help to succeed. They’re doing very, very well. In tough times, why has the Premier made it his priority to give them a tax cut?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I recommend to my honourable colleague that she take a look at a number of reports that have been put out by thought groups traditionally considered on the left, like Hugh Mackenzie. They talked about our package of tax reforms, and the title of the report says it all: Not a Tax Grab After All. He points out that if you divide the families into three groups, the lower-income families come out ahead as a result of our tax reforms, the middle-income families are about the same and the upper-income families come out a little bit behind.

One of the approaches that I would recommend to my honourable colleague is that she no longer pursue this whole notion that somehow you’ve got to get at big business to satisfy the needs of the poor. We have found a way to ensure that we support the growth of our economy at the same time that we support low-income families. We’ve increased the minimum wage. We’ve developed the Ontario child benefit. We’ve put in place full-day kindergarten to make sure all our kids from all socio-economic groups—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The financial sector alone will receive $500 million of the Premier’s corporate tax giveaway. That’s more than enough to take the HST off home heating or hire 5,000 nurses or fund over 10,000 new long-term-care beds for seniors who need help. Why has the Premier made this corporate tax cut—this corporate tax giveaway—his priority?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I would say to my honourable colleague that I want to recommend to her some of the stuff that has been said by folks who are traditionally on the left. This is what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study said. They said the HST “is virtually revenue neutral when viewed as part of a total tax package that includes … sales and property tax credits and a significant decrease in personal income tax rates.”

I’d ask my honourable colleague to acknowledge that we have cut income taxes permanently for 94% of Ontarians; nine out of 10 Ontarians are now getting a permanent income tax cut. If you add that to the fact that we’re reducing our electricity bills by 10%, if you add that to the fact that we keep increasing the minimum wage—we’ve increased it, I think, seven years out of seven—those are good examples of our commitment to ensuring that we bring fairness to our responsibilities as a government, making sure that we don’t compromise economic growth, at the same time that we support families, especially families who are struggling.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. After watching the HST drive up the cost of heating oil, hydro, gas, and diesel, Grace Jorgenson from Keewatin started a petition, on her own, that has been circulating across northwestern Ontario. On that petition she has gathered, just by herself, over 500 signatures. Why are the McGuinty Liberals putting tax giveaways to Canada’s richest corporations ahead of practical help to make Grace’s life more affordable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think one of the things that that particular individual who has taken this initiative on her own—and I commend her for that. I’m sorry; her name escapes me. But I’m sure my honourable colleague will want to bring to her attention the energy tax credit that we’ve put in place for northerners, to make sure that she’s aware of that.

Just so we’re clear about the numbers here, over the course of the next three years, families will benefit to the tune of $12 billion in terms of reduced taxation. For businesses, it’s about $5 billion. It’s $5 billion for businesses and $12 billion for families. That gives you some sense of the balance and the thoughtfulness that we’ve brought to this.

In addition to those income tax cuts that I have referenced, there’s the Ontario child benefit, and there’s a children’s activity tax credit, which is $50 each year to help pay for sports or art and music classes. We’re not saying it’s a huge deal, but it’s something that’s important.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in northern, eastern, rural and urban Ontario are really struggling. Sue Kelly from Ottawa writes this: “The cost of living is soaring and salaries are not increasing anywhere near the increased rate of basic necessities.” Do banks really need public dollars, or should we be focusing on making Sue’s life easier and more affordable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don’t think it has ever been out of fashion to attack banks, and I don’t intend to stand here and defend banks, but I can tell you that one of the fastest-growing job sectors that we’ve had in the province of Ontario is in financial services. They’re employing thousands and thousands more people every year. Beyond that, we’ve also established ourselves now as being without par globally in terms of our reputation, as offering a well-regulated banking industry that ensures that we get it right and that we continue to employ more and more people.

At some point, I’d ask my honourable colleague to in fact commend the financial services sector for its continuing growth and for the ever-increasing number of moms and dads it’s hiring on an almost daily basis.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s sad that the Premier doesn’t know that the banks and insurance companies laid off 25,000 workers in the past year.

Natalie Beneteau from the Essex area writes, “Due to downsizing, I was forced to take early retirement and was fortunate to find part-time work ... to make ends meet. The constant increases in energy costs, gasoline hikes and soaring cost of living are a great drain to the minimal income I receive.”

My question remains: Why is the Premier helping banks and insurance companies and ignoring women like Natalie?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

I would recommend to my honourable colleague an evolution that was presided over by Tony Blair, which I think was very helpful to the United Kingdom. He said, “The principles of the Labour Party are its values: the belief in a fair deal for ordinary people, social justice, progress. But the way to do that is not to tax a few more people at the top,” and, “In the past, social democrats became identified with high taxes, especially on business. Modern social democrats recognize that in the right circumstances, tax reform and tax cuts can play a critical

part in meeting their wider social objectives.

“For instance, corporate tax cuts raise profitability and strengthen the incentives to invest.”

I would recommend that evolution by a progressive labour party to my honourable colleague.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: For over a year now, the Ontario PC caucus has been raising with the Premier the concerns of Ontario families, who are squeezed financially and struggle to pay their hydro bills. They want to know that they have a Premier who understands them.

Sir, I ask you: How much did you pay for your hydro bill this month?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Frankly, I think what Ontario families want to know is, what is the difference between their scheme and our long-term plan? Their intention is to dismantle our clean energy programs, destroy our clean energy economy and put thousands of Ontarians out of work. I don’t think Ontario families want to go there.

I think Ontario families want to keep building a stronger economy. I think Ontario families want us to keep investing in those jobs that we’re providing for families right across this province. Their slick book has what I would call pretty warped priorities. We’re creating jobs for Ontario families; they’re creating jobs for Ontario inmates.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I asked the Premier how much he paid for his hydro last month. I checked my bill; it was $244. I am astonished that either you don’t know how much your bill is or the energy minister is paying your bill.

After eight years, Premier McGuinty is simply too tired and too out of touch with Ontario families. Every family in Ontario knows what their hydro bill is, because it’s the bill they dread the most.

Families need change, and we will offer change in Tim Hudak’s Changebook. Changebook shows how an Ontario PC government will help families save $275 when we take the HST and the debt retirement charge off those bills. It’s money they can spend to balance their own budget, put into their mortgage or spend on their own. But your crazy energy experiments are costing Ontario families $310.

How can you be so out of touch with Ontario families who need relief—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the numbers the member opposite should be checking should be the numbers in her slick book, because they’ve got 229 reckless promises in the slick book and they’ve left a huge, gaping multi-billion-dollar hole that can only be made up one way, and that’s by cutting things like education and health care.

Just to give you an example, they made a reckless promise to get rid of the debt retirement charge—which they created in the first place—by wishing it away. That’s simply reckless. They can’t wish away a $14.8-billion stranded debt that they stuck us with. It’s also reckless to hide from Ontario families their scheme to fire doctors, nurses and teachers.

Ontario families deserve better. They won’t be fooled by their shifty slick book; they won’t be fooled at all. They’ll stand by us as we’re creating jobs—

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. The news from Ontario schools just gets worse and worse. Last month, we learned of the continued decline in teacher librarians in our schools and the closing of school libraries, and today, we learned from People for Education that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please. My apologies.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Please continue.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Today, we learned from People for Education that there are deep inequities in the Ontario school system. For example, students at schools in lower-income neighbourhoods are more than twice as likely to be waiting for special education supports than students from wealthier areas.

Does the McGuinty government accept that students with special needs should wait longer for services if they are poor?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The honourable member has identified that, yes, People for Education has issued their report today. While I’ve had an opportunity to look at it very quickly—I read the executive

summary; I do look forward to getting into the detail—I will also say to the people of this House that the document—we very much value the input that we received from this group.

This group also recognizes that our students are—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Try this quote: “Since 2005, the per-pupil amount in the” learning opportunity grant “has been reduced by 9%.” According to them, “not all Ontario students have equal access either to the educational supports or to the enrichments that are vital components of a well-rounded education.”

Students in schools with a high proportion of low-income students are less likely to get special education supports and less likely to have access to arts, technology and physical education programming. When will the government finally do something to ensure that Ontario students don’t get a second-class education just because of their income level?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would also direct the honourable member and the members of this House to another quote in the report that says, “By international standards, Ontario can congratulate itself on being one of the jurisdictions where the effect of socio-economic status on achievement is less than in many other countries.” So we are doing some very good things. Teachers are doing very good things with students in our schools.

Our government has increased funding in our schools by 46%. In the most recent GSNs, we have spent $2.5 billion to support students with special needs. We consult every year with our education partners to understand how we can better deliver those dollars to students in classrooms. We have made changes every year. Always we will continue to strive for excellence—

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

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Northern ridings were overlooked for a very long time until our government came to power in 2003. Over the past eight years, we’ve seen record levels of investment in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan and ridings right across the north. Now the opposition would like to give northerners a stronger voice and would like to focus on bringing jobs and investment to the north—or at least that’s what it says in their slick book.

When our government brought forward a significant support package for forestry in northern Ontario and auto in southern Ontario, the opposition called it corporate welfare. When our government increased the northern Ontario heritage fund from $60 million to $100 million every year, in stark contrast to the NDP, which that took all $60 million away from the northern Ontario heritage fund—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdraw.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The interjection from the Minister of Community Safety is not helpful.

Please get to your question.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Our government increased the northern Ontario heritage fund from $60 million to $100 million every year, in stark contrast to the NDP, who took all $60 million away. They voted against it.

Minister, please outline some of the supports our government has brought forward for my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan and all northern ridings.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: It is important to note—especially today as we are walking away from a recession that none of us have seen before and recognizing the strength that is coming from the north, in particular because the Ontario government chose to partner with northern communities—when we increased that northern heritage fund from $60 million to $100 million, the opposition voted against that initiative. I find it pretty interesting that they are doing flip-flops of Herculean proportion now because they want to go and tell the people of the north that somehow they support them.

We know that a billion dollars to the forestry sector was necessary, as it was to the auto industry, and yet the opposition members opposed that.

Today, another flip-flop of epic proportion: They want to tell the north they’re in favour of all of these jobs—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: It’s important to remind northern Ontario residents how the PC Party has flip-flopped on job creation and economic growth not only in northern Ontario but right across the province.

We’ve seen the members opposite publicly declare their opposition to the green energy industry, including, I would suspect, opposition to the conversion of the two coal plants in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan—plants they have committed to closing. This represents 230 jobs saved, millions in tax base to the communities of Thunder Bay and Atikokan, and about $300 million in construction work for the building trade unions in my community. The members opposite have established the fact that they would get rid of the FIT programs and renege on a Samsung deal—$7 billion of private sector investment.

Minister, if these statements become reality, what would this mean for those people employed within Ontario’s green energy industry?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it is our job to let people know that when the Leader of the Opposition makes his statement in his slim book or slick book or whatever he’s calling it, he is killing jobs today in Ontario. We are meeting investors today whom he is having an impact on because he’s telling them that that FIT rate will no longer be, that he’s going to rip up contracts. We know that manufacturers who are busy making investments today need to know that there is a stable climate for investment—not what the opposition party or parties are offering.

This is important. These jobs matter. Is it the 230 affiliated with a northern community? Is it the thousands across the green industry jobs? The Leader of the Opposition is job-killing with his slim book, and it’s our job to make sure people know about it. We cannot trust the opposition parties—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. You presented farmers as being supporters of your expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills for Ontario families. In fact, you told this House, “Some of the strongest support we have for our wind turbine program comes from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.” You might have wanted to check with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture before you said that, because they’ve joined the push for a moratorium on wind turbines.

Will you apologize to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the members of this assembly for saying something that simply is not true?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s obvious that the member didn’t check with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He’s suggesting we check with them. Well, I did check with them. We spoke last night, indeed, to the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Once again, you didn’t check your facts, and you’re wrong.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s position has not changed; you’re absolutely incorrect. I would suggest that the next time that you raise an issue like this that really misconstrues the position of another party, you have the courtesy to check with them first.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Premier McGuinty has said a lot of things to sell his—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Premier McGuinty has said a lot of things to sell his expensive energy experiments that play fast and loose with the facts. He said his subsidies would only add—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need the assistance of any of the other armchair Speakers. I just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: He said his subsidies would only add 1% to hydro bills, but yesterday we learned that families will pay an extra $310 a year for the next 20 years. He said families would save money with the smart meter tax machines. He said the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was a big supporter of his industrial wind turbines when Wayne Black of the OFA is saying he is 100% in favour of the moratorium.

Ontario needs change—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: [ Inaudible ] that the member opposite got up and asked a question today on the Green Energy Act because, indeed, I think the people in Tillsonburg are waiting very eagerly to hear where he stands. Does he stand with the McGuinty government creating 900 jobs in Tillsonburg? Does he stand with the mayor of Tillsonburg, who calls the program indeed—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member from Oxford that you just asked the question, and you’ve been here long enough to understand the standing orders. If you’re not satisfied, you can call for a late show.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I guess my question is, does he stand with us in creating 900 jobs in Tillsonburg through the Siemens plant, through our Green Energy Act? Does he stand with his own mayor in Tillsonburg, who feels very strongly about what this project is doing for Tillsonburg and, indeed, for farmers right across this province? Does he stand with the farmers who are benefiting from our microFIT programs, who are benefiting from our feed-in tariff? Or does he stand with his leader, who opposes all of that? People in Tillsonburg—

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

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. At a time when employers have been paid $2 billion in experience rating rebates and have had their premiums for WSIB coverage reduced by 27%, while at the same time injured workers’ benefits have been cut by 20% compared to the cost of living, I’ve just received information that the WSIB’s unbelievably aptly named “aggravation” policy is being differently interpreted and applied. This appears to be another attempt to address the unfunded liability on the backs of injured workers.

Can this minister explain what possible justification his WSIB has for launching this new attack on injured workers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To all members of the House, today is a very important day. We have a number of injured workers on our front lawn telling us of some of the concerns and challenges they’ve faced over many years.

I’ve heard many stories personally. I’ve met with a number of organizations and individuals, and their stories are heart-wrenching. They look to us to commit to more dignity, more respect and fairness.

To members across the way, we recognize that more needs to be done, and indeed, more will be done. I’ll add more in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Workers who file a claim because of a workplace injury are suddenly found to have a pre-existing condition, like a degenerative disk, which they may not even have known existed. The alleged pre-existing condition may not have caused any problems until it was affected by workplace injury, but these injured workers are having their benefits and entitlements reduced because of the WSIB’s reinterpretation of the aggravation policy.

Will this minister commit to fixing this hateful new attack on injured workers rather than just showing up for a photo op today at the annual Injured Workers’ Day rally?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s compare what that side of the House has done in the past. It was the NDP that introduced the Friedland formula, the F-word, as made by the injured workers. The other side of the House introduced a modified Friedland formula, and what did that do over those 12 years? It increased a measly 2.9% of their costs.

Since we’ve come to power, we’ve increased and adjusted their benefits by almost 8%, and we will continue to support them. It is why we’ve introduced the Harry Arthurs review to ensure that we find a permanent replacement to the Friedland formula. We’ve introduced direct deposit to also assist those who are injured workers and require those funds.

But more importantly, in respect to those injured workers, they want us to do better in providing for prevention and protecting others who are working, and we will do our utmost to continue to do just that.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. The Perimeter Institute in Waterloo region is holding their Equinox Summit beginning tonight, and next week. It brings leading researchers and scientists to Waterloo region. They’ll be talking about clean technologies, drawing over 600 people. Tonight, Freeman Dyson will be speaking about quantum physics. It’s a collaboration between the University of Waterloo and the Perimeter Institute; Mike Lazaridis and his work.

My question is this: What is the government doing to create high-quality jobs in clean energy technologies in Waterloo region, Kitchener–Conestoga and across the province?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As you know, in our budget we committed an additional $50 million to the Perimeter Institute, which is our second investment.

We believe that the research cluster in Kitchener-Waterloo is one of the leading clusters right now in the world. It has attracted, arguably, the best set of scientists. There will be, I think, some good news about that tonight.

It’s unfortunate, though, because the Leader of the Opposition said he didn’t believe our Premier. Well, I do believe our Premier. I also, unfortunately, believe the Leader of the Opposition, because one of our most critical policies has been the HST; some $8.5 billion removed from these small-growth companies that are creating 50% of the jobs. I actually do believe that after two years of carping and complaining, the opposition party, if ever in power, would actually take that away and put $8.5 billion worth of costs back into the economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Thank you, Minister, for that. Definitely, supporting cutting-edge research is how we keep jobs in Ontario, and I’m proud that those many jobs are being created in Waterloo region thanks to this government’s long-term vision and support.

Tonight I will be at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo to recognize the great work of our researchers: advancements that will create jobs and prosperity in Ontario. My question for the minister is this: Will the minister affirm this government’s commitment to moving Ontario forward through innovation by joining me and Minister Milloy tonight at the Perimeter Institute? Will you be there, Minister?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You know, we are so different, to my friend over there. The opposition party wants to massively subsidize and sole-source iPads. The opposition party wants to cancel the Green Energy Act and the green FIT program. This clean tech summit that I’m going to tonight—let’s just go through this: That would damage 3,000 firms. It would undermine $8 billion in investment. It would start to see an erosion of 65,000 jobs. This is the equivalent of cancelling the auto pact. And by the way, in the auto sector, you folks want to end the subsidies that we did on the auto sector.

You want to tear apart the two largest, most successful sectors in Ontario. This is the equivalent of tearing apart—

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As you know, the proposed application for a quarry in the township of Melancthon involves over 2,300 acres. This application is the largest in Ontario’s history. Reviewing an application of this size and scope is going to take significant time and resources from your ministry. Minister, do you believe you have the staff and expertise available in MNR to review this proposed quarry application?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to answer the question again. I want to reassure the public, and especially the citizens of the township of Melancthon, that we’re only at the beginning of the licence application process. In fact, it’s my job as the Minister of Natural Resources—it’s my responsibility—to ensure that all concerns, whether they’re environmental concerns, health concerns or safety concerns, are addressed before any licence is issued. Let me make it clear: If these concerns are not addressed, no licence will be issued and no excavation shall commence.

I understand that there has been significant local concern expressed about this aggregate licence application. While I was not legally able to extend the objection period, I made it clear that I intended to consider comments outside the initial 45 days. As a result, I extended the comment period for the environmental registry. The additional 76 days will give the community a chance to provide their opinions—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, I do appreciate the extension—I think that’s an important part of the consultation process—but my question was very specific: Can you assure the residents in my riding that the Aggregate Resources Act will provide the same level of protection and scrutiny that an environmental assessment would?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I can tell you that I have been in contact with the member from Dufferin–Caledon and the Melancthon city council. I know they’re concerned; they’ve shared those concerns with me personally. I also spoke with Mayor Hill about this issue a number of weeks ago to let him know that my ministry was going to extend the EBR comment period.

Even before the application was submitted, I know that the proposed quarry was the subject of significant media attention. Residents are concerned about the preservation of agricultural land and the quarry’s effect on the water table.

The Aggregate Resources Act has a process that gives the applicant up to two years—until March 2013—to have resolved any objections to the application. If there are still unresolved objections to the licence after that two-year period, the Ministry of Resources can refer the application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

We’re still listening; we’re still in that process where people can provide comments.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Some 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost in this province under this Premier’s watch. In my hometown of Hamilton, 30% of the manufacturing jobs have been lost. For the past few years, Hamilton Jobs Action Centre has been doing an extraordinary job helping unemployed workers in the Hamilton area get back to work. But now the government has decided to shut down the centre by eliminating its funding on June 30.

My question is, will this government extend funding for this badly needed centre or will it once again turn its back on the workers of Hamilton?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: We’re very proud of the work that is done by Employment Ontario across the province in terms of supporting workers who have been laid off. Every year we invest over $1 billion through Employment Ontario in a series of agencies across this province that offer job assistance to Ontarians who are facing layoff situations, who are looking to enter the workforce for the first time or who are looking to enter the workforce after an absence of many, many years.

Over the past number of years we have worked very closely with the sector, following the transfer of services from the federal government, to put together a transformation which would see that each community would have a number of providers able to offer a full range of services to anyone who is looking for a job. We have worked to focus on those individuals who are looking for a job and make sure that they have—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The centre has widespread support from across Hamilton. Representatives from the centre, from the United Way of Burlington and Greater Hamilton and workers who have benefited from the centre are actually here today. I introduced them at the beginning of question period. A report just released praises the centre for the excellent work that it is doing with laid-off workers.

So I ask again, will the Premier commit right here and right now to extend funding past June 30 for the Hamilton Jobs Action Centre, or will this minister and this Premier stand by while the doors close on an organization that has provided assistance and hope to thousands of laid-off Hamiltonians?

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to remind the member that unemployment was 9.9% in September 2009, during the period of the recession. The economy is turning the corner and in the community it is now down to 5.5%. Despite the fact that it’s gone down, we are still anxious to make sure that people in the community of Hamilton have access to a full range of services. I want to give a list to the honourable member: the Hamilton Help Centre, Wesley Urban Ministries, the YMCA, Mohawk College, VPI—a variety of agencies within the community of Hamilton that are offering a full range of services.

We took a look at Employment Ontario and we took a look at it from the perspective of the individual who is looking for help, for a job. They need to go to a community centre which is going to offer them a full range—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, the opposition put out a document on how they think they can actually govern the province. Farmers in my riding were astonished and puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition managed to fit in all of his Timbits for agriculture on less than one page.

Inside of that mini bit on agriculture, I noted that they included risk management programs, but I thought our government had already taken care of that permanently in our last budget.

I’d like to ask the minister if that can be confirmed. Can you provide some clarity for my local farmers on exactly what the government is doing to support the farmers in my riding and those in Ontario?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I do thank you for the question. If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then the slick book gives high praise to the McGuinty government. Unfortunately, I can say to you that if you’re developing policy by looking in the rear-view mirror, it doesn’t move Ontario forward. It doesn’t move farmers forward. It doesn’t move food processors forward, our producers, our retailers, our communities or our families.

In the list of the 229 risky promises, we have a gaping hole of $10 billion. We’ve done our RMP, $2 billion in income stabilization, and a very successful buy-Ontario plan. But I say to you, in order to predict the future, we look to the past.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: It’s very clear to the constituents in my riding and those farmers across Ontario that we have come forward with a plan on risk management that they asked for and that they planned and organized. So I appreciate that. I know that you know that our farmers want and need that risk management at both levels of government, yet the federal government still refuses to participate in the program. It’s a shame that the opposition has given up on the federal government supporting it. It’s further an embarrassment that the opposition is taking credit for the risk management program. That’s like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising.

I want to know from you, Minister, what are we going to do to continue to have the federal government support the risk management program that all the farmers in Ontario want?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I really do believe that Bette Jean Crews, the president of the OFA, encapsulates the answer to that: Without support at the federal level, the remaining burden is left for the farmers.

We on this side of the House say, that’s not acceptable. The programs were developed by farmers for farmers. At the table we have the federal government, the provincial government and the farmers. There’s somebody missing from that table, and I ask the members from across the way, do you stand with Ontario farmers or do you stand with your federal cousins? The farmers know the answer to that and they recognize that by their risky slick book plan.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Natural Resources: On May 10, your ministry posted an application for a permit under

section 17 of the Endangered Species Act that would allow a wind turbine developer to “kill, harm and harass” two species at risk and destroy their habitat. When asked about this application, you responded, “For the most part, we can find ways to mitigate around endangered species reasonably.”

I’ve never heard those words from you or your ministry when talking about the forestry industry. Every time they look for relief from the Endangered Species Act that was foisted upon them without consultation, the wall goes up. When will you start treating the forestry industry with the same kind of respect?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to answer a question on our Endangered Species Act. We know that we are the North American leader in species protection and recovery, and our government includes strong provisions to support the protection of habitat and species.

The Endangered Species Act contains a permitting system which balances the sustainable use of resources with the protection of threatened or endangered species. Recently, we introduced a five-month service guarantee for a permit because we realize there needs to be a balance between economic development as well as protection. This five-month service guarantee will begin once a proponent has finalized a complete application with my ministry. It’s going to eliminate the need for developers and landowners to be held up in their process. In fact, if they are removing trees, they’re going to be—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’ve recently met with some forestry operators in my riding who told me that it has never been tougher to earn a living and operate in the province of Ontario.

Minister, your comments on this application suggest that you’re treating it cavalierly and have two standards. When it comes to forestry operators, you don’t consult or look to mitigate; you impose. In fact, you had promised to use the Crown Forest Sustainability Act when dealing with forestry and then you went back on your word. Why is it that you have two standards: one for developers trying to build unwanted wind turbines and another for the forest industry? Why do you continue to impose policies that are killing, harming and harassing good forestry jobs in this province?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to answer this question. Certainly, we acknowledge the work that the forestry sector has done to help conserve and protect species at risk in Ontario, but we don’t need to take any lessons from the opposition. You have opposed any work that we’ve ever done to protect endangered species. You are not the protector of this sector. You’ve done nothing to be helpful. In fact, you have a reckless plan to jeopardize our economic recovery and take Ontario off track. You essentially have voted against endangered species protection at every turn, and you can give us no lessons on this front.

We have worked very hard to get the Open for Business initiative to work on our regulatory burdens. We’re proud of our record. We have a gold standard that’s recognized across Canada and across Ontario. We’re happy to work with our partners and we appreciate their support.

CELLPHONES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé. Given that the World Health Organization has now classified electromagnetic fields from cellphones as a possible carcinogen—that is, that it could cause cancer—will the government require cellphone companies to put warnings on cellphones sold in Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member for her question. First of all, let me assure you that our government continues to be committed to the health of Ontarians. We have worked diligently to address the dangers associated with cigarette smoking, unhealthy eating and inactivity.

We certainly welcome the World Health Organization’s report. We will continue to review all evidence, including this report, in consultation with our experts. Let me just say that the one thing that the member says—and I agree with what she says—is that they said there is “possible”—and I think that is a very key word for her to keep in mind. I continue to talk with our Chief Medical Officer of Health, Health Canada and all our experts in monitoring the new scientific evidence that has come to us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: This is an issue that I have addressed with this minister before in a number of ways. In rejecting our call to inform Ontarians about the health risk of cellphones, the minister said, “Based on reviews of available scientific evidence by credible public health agencies such as the World Health Organization, the RF energy from cellphones has not been demonstrated to be causally linked to adverse health effects, including cancer.” That is what she said.

Now that the World Health Organization has linked cellphones to cancer and is calling for pragmatic measures to reduce exposure, won’t the minister support the pragmatic measures by putting warning labels on cellphones, or will she do nothing at all to educate Ontarians about the possible health risks for cellphone use?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Let me reiterate for the member, in case she didn’t hear me the first time: We have worked diligently to address the dangers of cigarette smoking, unhealthy eating and inactivity. As the member said before, the World Health Organization has said that there is a possible, and I quote, “possible,” and I underline that—that is why we have experts that we speak to. I do not make decisions on my own without listening to the experts. What I will do, upon reviewing this evidence and talking with our Chief Medical Officer of Health and Health Canada, is that we will continue to monitor the new scientific evidence—

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

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question this morning is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Minister, in my riding of Peterborough, there has been a lot of discussion of the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook’s schemes, tabled in a so-called slick book promise pamphlet. While the Ontario PC Party makes some mention of municipalities several times in the glorified PowerPoint presentation, they haven’t made one solitary mention of the provincial-municipal service delivery review our government did a few years back.

This program reversed what was considered a tax nightmare on Ontario families. The downloading undertaken by the PC Party 10 years ago literally jacked up property taxes for seniors right across the province of Ontario. That party downloaded millions of dollars in extra costs on the tax base—and claimed it was revenue-neutral.

Minister, could you please explain to this House where the current government stands on the uploading of social services?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me make it abundantly clear to the member who asked the question, to you, Speaker, and to every municipality in the province of Ontario: We have made a commitment to protect the uploading which we’ve started in partnership, working together with our municipalities. Contrast that against the slick book promises, which simply say a lot of hot air, but not much in between.

In fact, the slick book is a slippery slope for municipalities. What it will cause is more downloading, higher taxes, less money for municipalities, more burden on municipalities and more burden on the taxpayers. On this side of the House, we’re all about protecting services; on that side of the House, they’re all about downloading services.

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Extend question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ll honour that request.

VISITORS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’m sure that it is a point of order that there are other people in the gallery: James Berry, Meysa Maleki, Jason Lagerquist and Lauren Ramey are here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, that’s not a point of order, but James just happening to be from St. Thomas—and I’m good friends with his mother—I’ll allow it.

Lost and found time: a woman’s earring.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): How’s it look?

Well, I’ll leave it with the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s yours, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ve never had an earring.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 196,

An Act to amend the Election Act with respect to certain electoral practices.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1143 to 1148.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

On May 31, Ms. Smith moved government notice of motion number 81. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Carroll, Aileen

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murray, Glen R.

Orazietti, David

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Elliott, Christine

Gélinas, France

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 58; the nays are 24.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1151 to 1152.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 186. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Carroll, Aileen

Chiarelli, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Murray, Glen R.

Orazietti, David

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Savoline, Joyce

Sergio, Mario

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 82; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1155 to 1500.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good afternoon. I would like the House to come to order. I want to thank the pages for giving me this wonderful little puppet with these Nike Chuck Taylor Converse.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yes, I know it’s a prop, but the Speaker can get away with it. Isn’t that cute? Thanks to the pages. I really appreciate that.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Monique M. Smith: If I could ask my colleagues to rise, I have a message from the Honourable David C. Onley, the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2012, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, dated May 31, 2011, Toronto.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I have a number of guests to welcome: Peter Kiatipis, Esma Trejic and Esther Levy from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services; Will Falk, the co-chair of the adoption working group of the Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption; Adam Diamond and Jade Maitland, both from YouthCan; Emily MacKenzie Strowger, Sophia Kolaroff and Sheela Sharma from the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies; and Shanna Allen and James McGuirk from the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. They are all here today in anticipation of third reading debate of Bill 179. Welcome.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also have a number of people I’d like to introduce. I’d like to introduce Wayne and Clara Patterson, who are the parents of the late Paul Patterson, who was a paramedic; Laura Sanders, who was twin sister to Paul; Bruce Krauter, who is operations manager, Sun Parlour Emergency Services, Chatham-Kent; Tom Millard, Lambton EMS; Dwayne Purdy, Chatham-Kent EMS; Dave Desmarais, Essex-Kent EMS; Jim Sinclair, who is from Elgin-St.

Thomas EMS; also Norm Gale, who is chief of EMS, Superior North Emergency Medical Services, and president of the Association of Municipal Emergency Medical Services of Ontario; Neal Roberts, who’s the director of the EMS department in Middlesex; David Ralph, who’s with the Toronto EMS; and last but not least, my own husband, René Van Bommel.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to ask all members to join me as we welcome former member Ron Johnson, who represented Brantford in the 36th Parliament. Welcome back to the Legislature today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As we all know, since the last days of a session can be notoriously hectic and unpredictable around this place, I beg the indulgence of the House today to allow me—and I’d ask all members to join me—to thank the pages for their wonderful service to us here at the Legislature.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker will entertain a motion for unanimous consent.

LEGISLATIVE USHERS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I also want to take this opportunity to thank the student ushers. They were particularly helpful last night.

I’d ask all members to join me in congratulating the group of legislative student ushers who have performed their duties admirably and provided excellent service to this House: the team leader, Jordan Paolucci; Andrew Do; Claire Glossop; Teshini Harrison; Natalie Orellana; Janette Piasecki; Natasia Kalajdziovski; Maria Chung; Ryan Ko; Tracy Chen; Kristian Mandarano; Harlan Tufford; Natalija Micic; Osman Akhtar; Bedour Alagraa; Nader Mohamed; Wesley Parker; Madalina Sontrop; Tim Toong; and Cindy Yi.

Some of these ushers will return for the next parliamentary session, while many are graduating and are going to be pursuing their careers or graduate studies. We wish all of them success.

Further introductions?

Mr. Dave Levac: We’ve already done Ron Johnson from Brant, a friend of mine?

Interjections.

Mr. Dave Levac: Oh, I see. I just wanted to make sure that it got covered off. Unfortunately, I was held up.

Interjection: Do you mean the former MPP?

Mr. Dave Levac: The former MPP for Brant.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ATHLETIC THERAPY MONTH

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m pleased to announce that June is Athletic Therapy Month. There are over 700 certified athletic therapists in Ontario who help to assist with and prevent musculoskeletal injuries and provide immediate care.

When attending or participating in an organized sports event, chances are an athletic therapist is on the sidelines to help if someone gets hurt. Athletic therapists are in our communities, helping Ontarians in their rehabilitation after an injury, post-surgery, or simply to help keep Ontarians active.

Canadian teams competing in international competitions such as the Olympics, the Pan Am Games and the Commonwealth Games will usually have at least one athletic therapist on staff to help ensure the well-being of our athletes.

I’m also pleased to announce that the athletic therapists’ association of Ontario is holding its second annual golf tournament at Carlisle Golf and Country Club in my riding—or almost in my riding—on June 17. I look forward to participating. Part of the proceeds will go to the Canadian Paralympic Foundation to honour Dr. Robert Jackson, a strong and vocal supporter of athletic therapy and a pioneer in the field of sports medicine.

As Athletic Therapy Month commences, I would like to thank athletic therapists across Ontario for their support of our families and our athletes, and for helping to ensure that we live active and healthy lives.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: Today there is yet another Injured Workers’ Day rally at Queen’s Park. We should be celebrating a system that protects and supports all injured workers, not the system we have now that leaves them with broken homes, lost family, very reduced income, and often destitute and lonely.

Of that group, a significant number are women. This happens because non-covered areas such as office work, health care, social assistance and education are employment areas where women workers are a majority. The reason for excluding so many occupations traditionally associated with women is clear: false notions of men as breadwinners and the workplace as a man’s world. All workers need compensation coverage now.

The Ontario Federation of Labour’s position is that the continued failure of the government to correct this injustice cannot be justified or tolerated. The OFL also states that the long-term stability of the system depends on protecting the board’s revenue base from shrinkage due to inadequate coverage, and that full coverage would increase the board’s revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year, with a substantial portion available to enhance the board’s reserves.

In short, extend full WSIB coverage to every Ontarian, ensuring all workers a minimum safety net; make the worker the focus of the system; and make the changes to the WSIB to become a workers’ compensation system, not a refuse-at-first-sight insurance system.

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Samedi dernier, j’ai eu l’honneur de remplacer l’honorable Carol Mitchell, ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, à la 29 e remise des diplômes au campus d’Alfred de l’Université de Guelph.

Parmi les dignitaires de marque présents : la D re Renée Bergeron, directrice du campus d’Alfred; le D r Robert Gordon, doyen du Collège agricole de l’Ontario, Université de Guelph; M me Chantal Théorêt, directrice du campus de New Liskeard du Collège Boréal; et M me Chan, du ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation.

Soixante et onze étudiants ont reçu des diplômes : 18 étudiants en technologie agricole; 24 étudiants en techniques de soins vétérinaires du Collège Boréal; 12 étudiants en nutrition et salubrité des aliments; six étudiants ont reçu des certificats