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

October 7, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-07 (PDF)

L054 - Thu 7 Oct 2010 / Jeu 7 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 October 2010 Jeudi 7 octobre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

LOBBYISTS

LOBBYISTS

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

HYDRO RATES

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

TAXATION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

FIRE SAFETY

WATER QUALITY

HOME CARE

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

CORRECTION OF RECORD

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PENSION PLANS

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

FOOD BANKS

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

NORWAY CHURCH

THE KNIGHTS TABLE

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

MAURICE FOSTER

OKTOBERFEST

MEHREGAN

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE DES ENFANTS

PREGNANCY AND INFANT LOSS AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE SENSIBILISATION À LA PERTE

D’UNE GROSSESSE OU D’UN BÉBÉ

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PUBLIC ENTITIES), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ENREGISTREMENT

DES LOBBYISTES (ENTITÉS PUBLIQUES)

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

TAXATION

RECYCLING

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

VISUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D’ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

ITALIAN HERITAGE

MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE ITALIEN

DEFENDING EMPLOYEES’

RIGHTS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA DÉFENSE

DES DROITS DES EMPLOYÉS

VISUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D’ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

ITALIAN HERITAGE

MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE ITALIEN

ITALIAN HERITAGE

MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE ITALIEN

DEFENDING EMPLOYEES’

RIGHTS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA DÉFENSE

DES DROITS DES EMPLOYÉS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 6, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the Ontario energy and property tax credit and to make consequential amendments / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt de l’Ontario pour les coûts d’énergie et les impôts fonciers et apporter des modifications corrélatives.

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

Seeing none, Ms. Smith has moved second reading of Bill 109. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjection: No

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister without portfolio?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I guess I had anticipated a vote on this particular bill. I’m not sure whether the House leaders are ordering this for committee or not. Was it the intent to—

Interjections.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I think this is going to finance and economic affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

CORPORATIONS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES ORGANISATIONS

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Mr. Gerretsen moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to revise the law in respect of not-for-profit corporations / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les organisations sans but lucratif.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Since the member from Welland asked a question, I pay full tribute to my predecessors in this post, who include the Minister of Revenue, the member from Hamilton Mountain, as well as her predecessor, the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Mr. Ted McMeekin. Both of them were intricately involved in trying to update the not-for-profit corporations law.

As well, I would like to pay tribute to my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Jim Brownell, the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and Mr. Rick Johnson, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who did a yeoman’s work in making sure that this bill got through committee and really shepherded it to where it is today.

As a practising lawyer, I had the opportunity to probably incorporate over the years at least 12 not-for-profit corporations. Let me tell you, under the old system, it was burdensome and tough, much tougher than to incorporate a for-profit corporation. I think the bill we have in front of us, which is at least 50 years in coming, I would say, is a great improvement to the large not-for-profit sector that we have in Ontario.

We have approximately 46,000 not-for-profit corporations in Ontario and we simply want to make it easier for them to operate and to do business in today’s world, in today’s marketplace. We want to ensure that they have the legal certainties that they need to operate effectively in today’s world.

We’ve heard from the not-for-profit sector on all of these concerns, and we are convinced that the existing legislation no longer meets the needs of Ontario’s dynamic, diverse and growing not-for-profit sector. It’s for that reason that our government has introduced the proposed Not-for-Profit Corporations Act as a modern legal framework and effective response to the sector’s concerns.

The not-for-profit corporations in operation across Ontario are our museums, art galleries, trade associations, social clubs, sports clubs and environmental groups—just about any organization that you can think of in the not-for-profit sector.

Almost eight million people volunteer their valuable time for not-for-profits—eight million people in a province of some 13 million to 14 million people. Every second person in this province is in some way or another involved with a not-for-profit organization.

These diverse corporations and their army of volunteers benefit the people in our province in countless ways. They work to relieve poverty, to advance education, to strengthen medical research and to share faiths. They promote awareness of good causes and engage Ontarians in their communities. They build community spirit and truly make Ontario the tremendous place to live in that it is today.

Just as important, they generate approximately $50 billion each year in annual revenues and employ about one million people in this province in one way or another. Our goal as a government is to support and strengthen this vital sector.

If the bill is passed, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act would be far simpler to understand than the legislation that currently governs the not-for-profit corporations sector. It would make it easier for organizations to conduct business in today’s marketplace and would allow them to respond better to the diverse needs of their clients. It would enable Ontario to leap to the forefront as a leader in the not-for-profit corporations law sector, and it would help build a stronger province for all of us.

Let me just address some of the key reforms that are contained in this act. I will begin with the incorporation process.

The current incorporation system is complex, cumbersome and lengthy, much more so in the not-for-profit sector than it is in the for-profit sector. For example, it takes approximately six to eight weeks to complete the process. The complicated and time-consuming process results in errors and applications being returned to applicants for revision, which slows the process even further. I can certainly personally attest to that in my former life as a lawyer in this province.

Under our proposed act, incorporation would be streamlined and faster. Our goal is to bring the time to incorporate down to seven working days or less—seven working days or less from the current time period of anywhere from six to eight weeks or, in many cases, even longer than that. Moreover, the proposed new act would allow for electronic incorporation. In the future, when fully implemented, incorporation could be completed in just a few days.

Another benefit of the proposed new act would be the ability for not-for-profits to generate their own revenues with a clear understanding of what is and what is not a permissible profit-generating activity. We have heard that the not-for-profit corporations are uncertain about what kinds of profit-generating activities are permitted. The new proposed act would provide much-needed clarity that not-for-profit corporations would be allowed to engage in commercial activities as a means of generating revenue. This might include, for example, operating a restaurant or a clothing store in order to provide people who are otherwise unemployable with job skills and a basic income.

Another area where the bill would provide new benefits to not-for-profits is in the area of transparency. This bill, if passed, will generate greater transparency around financial information. Currently, directors must present financial statements to members during the annual meeting. There is no requirement for these financial statements to be distributed to members in advance of the annual meeting. I think we’ve all been to not-for-profit annual meetings where this happens on a regular basis.

The proposed new act would ensure that members, upon request, are entitled to receive financial statements in advance of the annual general meeting. This would obviously allow members to better assess the financial state of the not-for-profit corporation, and it would facilitate greater accountability for directors and the management of the corporation.

In addition, our proposed bill would give members of not-for-profit organizations more tools to ensure that their directors and officers meet their obligations as set out in the corporation’s governing documents or in the proposed new act. For example, members would be able to ask a court to order that directors give members reasons for terminations of membership, had they failed to do so. That’s currently not the case.

The current act does not provide directors and officers with a clear statement about their duties and obligations to the corporation. Our proposed new act states that directors and officers must act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation and that they must exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonable, prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances.

We have heard from stakeholders that finding qualified directors to serve on boards is and can be challenging, and this is partly due to the fact that under the current act, there’s no limitation on the liability of directors and officers. This is a significant disincentive to find directors who would serve under those circumstances. Our bill would increase liability protection by providing a broad due-diligence defence to allow directors to rely on the good faith of professional advisers and skilled managers.

This improved protection from personal liability would encourage more qualified people to serve on boards. Now, I understand that some of the not-for-profit sectors feel that we haven’t gone far enough, but we feel there are certain protections in the new act that weren’t there before that will be extremely helpful in finding new individuals who may want to serve on boards of directors.

Another key benefit of the proposed new act would relate to increased financial accountability. Today, it is costly to meet the audit requirements of the act unless the not-for-profit corporations meet onerous exemption requirements. The proposed new act would allow not-for-profit corporations to choose a less-expensive financial review instead of a full audit, in appropriate circumstances, and this obviously would reduce the expenses of many smaller not-for-profit corporations.

Stakeholders have identified the lack of a provision in the existing Corporations Act that permits a resolution in lieu of a directors’ meeting as an unnecessary burden in conducting the affairs of the business of that not-for-profit organization. Our proposed new act allows that a unanimous resolution would be permitted in place of a directors’ meeting. This would provide an important degree of flexibility and help corporations save the cost and expense of holding a meeting when all directors agree on a particular matter.

In another step towards greater flexibility, the proposed new act allows that a member who wishes to participate in decision-making, but who is not physically present at a meeting, would have more options to vote. Proxy voting and voting by mailed-in ballots or by telephone or electronic means would be permitted. It is bringing the situation into the 21st century.

Often, there are serious questions as to the validity of many of the activities of the not-for-profit corporations. This is because many of the not-for-profit corporations have deficient bylaws or none at all. Under the proposed new act, corporations would be able to adopt what we call default organizational bylaws, rather than draft their own bylaws, which would save them the cost of hiring a lawyer.

For instance, if a corporation fails to adopt an organizational bylaw within a specific period of time after incorporation, the corporation would be deemed to have adopted a standard-form bylaw approved by the ministry. In many cases, a lawyer would not be required to prepare the organizational bylaw, which could benefit the not-for-profit organization with significant cost savings.

Our reforms, as proposed in the new legislation, would create a modern statute that would be transparent, flexible, efficient and fair. It would, indeed, strengthen the sector, and it’s a huge sector in Ontario, as I’ve already indicated, of more than 46,000 organizations in which over a million people are involved.

Much of the proposed new legislative strength comes from the extensive consultations we undertook—and that my predecessors undertook—over a long period of time, and the contributions that our stakeholders have made in helping to develop it. Over two years, our government released three discussion papers to solicit comments and suggestions on the reform of the Corporations Act. We listened to the feedback on the proposed new act from our partners, representing more than 200 organizations, during workshops in Ottawa, London, Toronto and Thunder Bay.

Our ministry established a Web advisory panel to consult with key partners on preliminary policy recommendations. We also formed an interministerial working group, representing 15 ministries, in order to reach as broad a stakeholder base as possible. This proposed act that we are debating today reflects this feedback.

Most recently, the Standing Committee on Social Policy made a number of amendments to Bill 65 to respond to the presentations that were made at public hearings held here in Toronto on August 23 of this year. As a result, the bill, amongst others, provides for an alternative to the use of proxy voting. It removes the requirement that at least two thirds of directors must be members and it also removes the requirement that no more than one third of the directors may be officers of a public benefit corporation.

Once again, I would like to thank all my the colleagues on both sides of the House, the parliamentary assistant and the previous Ministers of Consumer Services for supporting our efforts and for ensuring comprehensive input to the legislation from the broader government perspective. I’d also, of course, like to thank all of those organizations that provided very valuable input in this process.

Reaction to our proposed Not-for-Profit Corporations Act has been and continues to be positive. It doesn’t do everything that some people wanted us to do, but I think that as a general approach, it is a milestone ahead—

Mr. Peter Kormos: It didn’t change the polling, did it, John? It didn’t change that 76% who don’t live down in Toronto.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, you know, it’s always interesting to listen to the interjections from the member from Welland. But of course, as he well knows, I think everybody in this House supports this bill, as do the people of Ontario and as does the not-for-profit sector in Ontario.

Let me just tell you a little bit about some of the people and some of the organizations that support this effort to modernize the situation that existed in Ontario over the last 50 years. The United Way has indicated its support of Bill 65—and let me also just encourage everyone at this time of the year to support the United Way in your local community. They do a tremendous amount of good work with a lot of charitable and not-for-profit organizations. The Ontario Bar Association applauds the ministry for its initiative in bringing Bill 65 forward. We have heard from not-for-profit organizations across the province. They are eager for a simpler, more relevant and clearer act.

As you know, our government has committed to modernizing Ontario’s business laws. It’s necessary to meet all the challenges and opportunities that are there for us in the 21st century, and it’s our responsibility as leaders to ensure that Ontario attracts investments and jobs, remains an efficient place to do business and is able to effectively compete in the global economy. Modernizing the Corporations Act and the laws that govern the not-for-profit sector is an important part of this process. It would further enhance the efficiency of Ontario’s business laws and it would also support our government’s Open for Business initiative.

Let me just sum up: Our bill, the bill that’s currently before the House and that has broad support, reduces burdens on organizations. We want not-for-profit organizations to be concerned and to be involved in the kind of activities that they’re involved in rather than to worry about whether or not their governance structure is up to date.

This bill reduces the burdens on those organizations. It ensures government services such as the processing of applications are delivered in a faster and smarter way: from the six to eight weeks that it would normally take to what we hope to have in place very soon, one or two days through electronic registration. It would streamline operational and administrative requirements, facilitate the effective operations of our not-for-profit organizations and help them do more of the good work that they do so well in this province.

Finally, the approximately 46,000 not-for-profit corporations across Ontario deserve a modern statute that reflects their unique characteristics and complexity. They deserve to have certainty and clarity in their operations as they work to benefit Ontarians and contribute to the economic strength of this province. They deserve to be able to grow in the best way possible, and by moving forward on the proposed bill that’s before the House today, this Legislature and this province will be supporting their strength and their success.

We would be providing this vibrant and innovative sector with the legislation that it needs in order to progress in the 21st century, and we will be taking another step forward in modernizing corporate and commercial statutes for the benefit of Ontario’s businesses as well as for the not-for-profit communities. Quite simply, this bill will enhance and help us build a stronger Ontario.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to take a few minutes to offer a few comments on this bill.

I think everyone agrees that it is an important initiative and that the role of not-for-profits in our communities is very significant. There have been several economic studies demonstrating the kind of value that volunteers provide in our community—that is, economic value in terms of hours provided, never mind the social benefit of not-for-profit organizations—and the army of people who stand behind those organizations.

So I don’t think that there’s anyone who disputes the importance of a bill such as this which, I would argue, has a very worthy goal—that of helping the not-for-profit organizations organize themselves and operate in a better fashion. So certainly we will be supporting the bill.

But there are a few things that I think need to be pointed out about the bill, and one of those is the process this bill has taken through the Legislature. The government has certainly used, to be the most generous, a variable speed in dealing with this bill. By their own admission, the government started consultations three years ago and produced a bill to be introduced last spring. One would think that after this kind of a lengthy consultation process, you’d have virtually a perfect bill before this.

But after these three years of consultation, then we get a very, very speeded-up part of the process where we’re actually discussing third reading in the confines of a time allocation motion for this bill.

On the one hand, we have three years of sort of snail-like consultation. Then the guillotine comes down, and we are to debate the bill and put it through very, very quickly. We had one day of hearings.

In my discussions with members of not-for-profits, both in my own riding and province-wide organizations, they don’t even know about this bill. Some of these organizations that I spoke to are certainly ones that have a provincial component, a provincial area of jurisdiction, and are very credible organizations. I was very surprised, and by the way, so were they, that they knew nothing about the bill.

A couple of people in my casual conversations about this bill have said that, yes, they’ve heard about it and they’ve heard about the changes in directors’ liability. One mentioned that they were aware of the changes with regard to the presentation of treasurer’s materials prior to an annual general meeting. But it’s pretty sketchy, or there’s downright total ignorance about this bill.

So while the minister, and I appreciate that he would, wants to emphasize the three years of consultation, it just strikes me as rather surprising that these province-wide organizations certainly were never part of the consultation and were quite surprised and were eager to learn more about it, given that they would be the “beneficiaries” of this legislation.

The final

chapter on the question of the manner in which this bill has been consulted on and presented in the House, and now the guillotine brought down—we learned in committee that, due to the negligent way in which the government approached this bill, even if it is passed in the days coming, it can’t be proclaimed for two years. This is just astounding. It’s like somebody has to make a career out of this, because this will mean five years of basically behind-the-scenes consultation.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the consultation for publicly elected people like me was one day, but we’re going to have five years of closed-door work on this bill—three that the minister explains have taken place, and now two more after we’ve debated it. It’s quite a remarkable thing.

I want to just reiterate what I mentioned a moment ago, the fact that I will be voting in favour of the bill because I do think it is important that not-for-profits can get ready for change. But I must say that the process raises more questions than answers in my mind.

Bill 65 replaces legislation governing non-profits that, in fact, has changed little in 50 years, and at the same time the responsibility of the non-profits and the charitable organizations has grown immensely over a number of years. Much more complex services are provided by not-for-profits. There’s also the fact that there’s a very big difference between non-profit organizations like private clubs or organizations that are simply providing an umbrella for a group of people engaged in a particular interest or activity and those which provide services to the community—very complex services, in some cases.

I think of the kind of training that volunteers undertake to participate. Whether it’s something like the York Region Abuse Program or something like hospice, these organizations have quite extensive training for volunteers, as do many others. So it seems to me that it’s appropriate that the government should be looking at these kinds of complex organizations that exist throughout the province because, quite frankly, we couldn’t do without them.

One of the most important things about this bill is the creation of a new concept for Ontarians: the public benefit corporation. I think we need to understand that this is perhaps, in broad terms, the most important part of this piece of legislation, so much so that I want to take a moment just to give you the definition according to the bill itself. It says: “‘public benefit corporation’ means:

“(

a) a charitable corporation, or

“(

b) a non-charitable corporation that receives more than $10,000 in a financial year,

“(

i) in the form of donations or gifts from persons who are not members, directors, officers or employees of the corporation, or

“(ii) in the form of grants or similar financial assistance from the federal government or a provincial or municipal government or an agency of any such government....”

I think it’s really important to understand this creation of a public benefit corporation. In committee, the government amended the definition of a charitable corporation under the act to include “other charitable purpose” as part of the definition. At the committee hearing, the legal counsel from the Ministry of Consumer Services stated, “Over the years, the courts have expanded the category of types of activities that are considered charitable. For example, many years ago, environmental activities would not have been considered charitable, and they are now. So it’s flexible enough to accommodate future judicial decisions as to what constitutes a charitable activity or not.”

This means that the definition of a not-for-profit corporation is now out of the government’s hands and in the hands of the courts. I found that extremely unusual and certainly, I think, somewhat disturbing, because obviously what this tells us is that you now have the power in the courts to determine what is charitable. When I think about the vast range of not-for-profits that operate in our community—in the arts, in sports and in so many fields—are they going to have to line up and go to court to find out whether they are, in fact, legally able to create this public benefit corporation? Maybe that’s why they need another two years.

But it certainly has great impact, the creation of the public benefit corporation, because the advantage of the public benefit corporation is that it can have a sort of sister or companion entity that would operate as a for-profit and support the activities of the not-for-profit. I think that we need to look at that, because this could have a great effect, obviously, on one of the concerns I have with the bill: the ability of non-profits to compete with the private sector without a level playing field. Obviously, this could apply to many more areas of activity than currently depend on court judgments in the future.

This bill raises another area, and that is the growing field of social entrepreneurship. The Ontario Nonprofit Network told the committee: “Social enterprise is a growing component of our sector. The ability to earn funds and to try and make our own way, as government funding decreases and as charitable donations stagnate, is critical, especially for the small and medium-sized organizations—that they are able to forge their enterprises in local communities.”

This is a significant departure from what we have today, and again, it raises a number of questions in terms of the role that this entity would play and how it might affect not only the question of government funding, the question of the role of the voluntary sector and the donations—all of that obviously has serious implications. It also raises issues with regard to the private sector.

I think that the best picture of this was presented in the committee for us and to us by the Ontario Funeral Service Association. They explained the risk that allowing social entrepreneurship to compete on an uneven playing field poses to the private sector: “This act has significant impact on our business”—that is the funeral service association. “We are concerned about the blurring of lines between not-for-profits and for-profits as it relates specifically to the bereavement sector and specifically funeral services. Unlike in the past, funeral homes and cemeteries will soon be permitted to operate in combination.

“To explain further, the bereavement sector includes funeral homes and cemeteries. The problem that follows is that the cemetery industry is dominated by not-for-profits and charitable organizations. These cemetery operators are looking to increase their revenues by entering into the commercial funeral service businesses. As operators under not-for-profit or charitable status, these entities have significant tax advantages over the for-profit funeral operators. We are concerned and we need you to be aware of the unintended consequences of this decision and this” bill.

“When not-for-profit enterprises and for-profit enterprises compete, not-for-profit enterprises act more like for-profit enterprises....

“A heightened revenue focus and the new-found ability to sell funeral services have forced several not-for-profit cemeteries to adopt aggressive marketing practices. Most large charitable and non-profit cemeteries in Ontario now require all families to attend their cemetery offices in person in order to authorize prepaid opening of graves.

Upon entering the cemetery offices, families are required to meet with family services counsellors, who are commissioned sales agents charged with the responsibility of selling, upselling and cross-selling families on cemetery properties, vaults, crypts, visitation services, urns, flowers and the like. Traditionally, these at-need cemetery arrangements were arranged by fax or by phone.

“Further, the recent implementation of the HST has resulted in religious cemeteries with charitable status having a 13% advantage over their not-for-profit and for-profit competitors on cemetery services. This 13% advantage will spill over to funeral services when regulation permits these same cemeteries to enter into the funeral service industry.

“Pricing at these cemeteries is in line with their for-profit competitors. However, they benefit from tax advantages—income tax, property tax and, in the case of charities, also HST. The cost savings from their preferred tax status is not passed on to consumers, but used for large-scale marketing campaigns. We’ve circulated some of those marketing materials. They also use billboards and so forth in many of the communities.

“Clearly, if the not-for-profit and charitable cemetery service providers continue to enter the funeral service industry under an unfair taxation regime, a significant shift will occur in Ontario’s funeral service industry within just a few years. Main Street funeral homes will not be able to compete.”

I quote this because I think it gives people an idea of how something that has the good intentions of updating the not-for-profit sector, of updating the question of charitable status, of being able to provide an entity such as the public benefit corporation—all of which people, I think, appreciate in its intent.

But when you start looking at the potentially devastating impact these kinds of ideas have on legitimate service industries or other for-profit activities, then we have a concern, because then we’re looking at a bill that is going to pick winners and losers; that’s going to have issues for the viability of legitimate industry. We have concerns about that, and certainly, I wish that in the three years of consultation that the government undertook, it included not only those agencies that I referenced at the beginning but also the private sector. Where is the ground upon which everyone can benefit?

At this particular point, I’m very much in favour of the two years the government needs before they proclaim the bill. It’s really hard to imagine that they have not done a consultation in those three years that would have included such issues as this.

I should also say that I did, in the clause-by-clause, suggest some amendments to the bill that were suggested by the funeral service industry, which obviously appreciates, I think as we do, the intent of having a public benefit corporation but wants to see a level playing field. Their suggestions included things like:

—a requirement that the dominant purpose of a not-for-profit or charitable corporation be non-commercial;

—a requirement that the business activity of a not-for-profit or charitable corporation be exclusively limited to those business activities that are incidental or ancillary to its objective;

—any incidental or ancillary business activity should be subject to an express cap of $500,000, in keeping with the audit requirements already set out in the act;

—revenue over and above the $500,000 cap should be taxed on par with regular commercial income;

—all commercial activities not incidental and ancillary to the dominant purpose of the not-for-profit or charitable corporation should not receive beneficial tax treatment and should be subject to regulations appropriate to such activities. This could involve the mandatory use of subsidiary or affiliate corporations; and finally

—a requirement of full public financial reporting in keeping with the public interest in the use and preservation of publicly subsidized assets.

These amendments were presented by me in the clause-by-clause, and I had hoped that the government might see fit to look at some of these, particularly the question of providing transparency in financial dealings. Unfortunately, the government chose not to pass any of these.

I think that it’s really important that the government, by its own admission, is looking at another two years for this bill. They’ve got to look at and have to ask about what other private sector industries will find themselves in competition with untaxed non-profits in the future. This is why it’s unfortunate that this conversation didn’t take place in the three years preceding, but given that they are looking at another two years, it would be my hope that they will consider those things that we have brought to the public eye and will use the time.

The reason that the ministry gave to the committee: “There have been discussions with just about every ministry in the Ontario government about working together to do a comprehensive review of all the statutes that contain cross-references to the current Corporations Act.” The senior counsel then went on to explain the fact that this cross-referencing process will take approximately two years.

He also went on to say, “Each ministry will review its own statutes and regulations that contain such cross-references and consult with appropriate stakeholders with a view to recommending that all these changes be made prior to proclamation of the bill, which, as the parliamentary assistant mentioned, will take approximately two years.”

As I conclude my remarks, I’m still left with the question of why the government didn’t figure this out beforehand. What did they do for those three years? Clearly, it’s a demonstration of a very sloppy approach to what I believe is not only an appropriate move, in terms of bringing this legislation up to date, but also one that has to be done in consultation with everybody. You can’t have people affected adversely by this. I do believe that the intent is appropriate, but it behooves government to answer the question of unintended consequences. Clearly, this bill demonstrates that there has been little, if no regard, to the issue of unintended consequences.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: This is, at the end of the day, a pretty benign bit of legislation—hardly the second coming of Christ, as was suggested in its introduction. New Democrats are going to support it.

I wonder if the member from York–Simcoe would please lend me her references to the comments made by the Ontario Funeral Service Association, because I do want to speak to those.

I do note that the bill, when it was first introduced—I should mention that when it was first introduced, of course, it was in the name of the member for Hamilton Mountain, who was then the Minister of Consumer Services and who, as Minister of Revenue, is in the House. She does more House duty than any other member of that cabinet. She does. There’s some slackers in that cabinet and the Minister of Revenue has to pick up their slack.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, the slackers are the ones who are never here, Mr. Delaney. It’s just mind-boggling—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. Two things: One is that we don’t refer to whether other members are here or not—they could be in committee or in their offices, working hard; secondly, please use the honourable member’s title or riding name.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You’re as astute a Speaker as this chamber has ever had. You’re quick on your feet; that’s why we like you. We need you to keep that up.

Here we’ve got the Minister of Revenue who does far more than her share of House duty, while other members of the Premier McGuinty cabinet are slackers. She’s here. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill would like to hear the comments during third reading. Here’s the Minister of Revenue, who introduced the bill, and I know for a fact that in her heart she thought this bill—because that’s what she had been told by her bureaucrats. That’s what she had been told by her political staffers, that this bill was as complete and perfect a package as could ever be presented to any assembly.

I note that on third reading it’s no longer the member for Hamilton Mountain who is identified as the sponsor of the bill, but the current Minister of Consumer Services, who became the Minister of Consumer Services after the member for Hamilton Mountain was promoted to Minister of Revenue from Minister of Consumer Services. Then the member from Kingston moved from the Ministry of the Environment, after the fiasco around those fees, to the Ministry of Consumer Services. His name is now on the bill.

It suggests the sort of tension that takes place in Hollywood from time to time, where a scriptwriter or a director or a producer is so disgusted at the final product that they insist that their name no longer be on the movie titles; where they literally sue to have their name taken off the end of the movie where it shows producer, scriptwriter and so on, because they say, “I don’t want my name associated with that anymore. It’s a dog’s breakfast after that film editor got finished with it. It’s not what I envisioned.”

I can’t speak for her; she will speak for herself in a capable way. But I suspect the Minister of Revenue is as pleased as anybody could be that it’s no longer her name on this bill but rather, it’s the name of the new Minister of Consumer Services. This was a most inelegant process that we witnessed in committee.

Let’s put it in context. You’ll recall we were just about wrapping up for the summer break, and the government was bungling the Marin affair, the matter of the appointment of a new Ombudsman here in the province of Ontario. The government was engaged in a smear campaign of Mr. Marin. And Mr. Marin was being subjected to some of the most scurrilous and libellous accusations imaginable from government sources and Liberal insiders—

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, that’s the problem. The interjection will be noted on Hansard.

These sources didn’t name their own names. They were gutless Liberal insiders and gutless government sources. They didn’t have the courage of their convictions, although most of them should have been convicted for what they attempted to do to Mr. Marin. At the end of the day, the government was engaged in this rather futile effort to block the reappointment of outstandingly and eminently capable André Marin as Ombudsman. In the course of that, the government House leader had engaged in some of the public discourse in the media about Mr.

Marin and purported to indicate what had happened in the course of the hiring process in the Speaker’s committee. That was the tripartite committee that was charged with interviewing candidates and recommending the next Ombudsman.

At some point, a point of privilege was made in the House which alleged that the government House leader had breached parliamentary convention, that it demonstrated contempt of Parliament by her public proclamation of what she purported to be events within the committee. At the same time, the official opposition got into a real kicking, biting, gouging tussle with the government House leader over an opposition day—the proverbial all Hades broke loose. The government House leader was fit to be tied. She wasn’t in good humour at all and I understand that.

This bill that everybody supported, this Bill 65, got time allocated. Whacko, isn’t it? It’s nuts. It got time allocated. Time allocate, fine, but then the government in its—I say sarcastically—wisdom, not only time allocated it, but said that during the peak of the summer months, the committee was to go out to Kingston, as I recall, and Kitchener. I think Sudbury was on the list and one other city that I can’t even remember.

We got notice, of course, of the time allocation motion. I went over to the government House leader, who was barely speaking to me at the time. The smoke was coming out of her ears. She was really ticked off. She was upset. I understand. She was under a lot of pressure because of the Marin affair and the fight with the official opposition and her inability—because the official opposition was digging in its heels—that’s the Tories—and not letting her bills pass smoothly. People had to stay here into the evening, as I recall.

People get cranky in the evening, and sometimes they have inappropriate suppers, and all that does is fuel—I use that word advisably—the temperament or ill temper of the chamber.

I suggested to her, “Look, why don’t you let the committee decide where it’s going to go. Let’s see what the response is.” I mean, I don’t mind Kitchener. I don’t mind Kingston. I don’t mind Sudbury. Heck, I don’t mind Cochrane. I don’t mind Timmins. I don’t mind anywhere in Ontario. I’ve been to darned near most of it. Far be it for me to badmouth any part of it. I mean, I think I’m blessed to be from probably one of the nicest parts of Ontario, the Niagara region, but, heck, those other places are nice too.

The government House leader snorted and was very curt in saying, “No,” or words to that effect. “No.” Okay, fine. God bless.

We have a subcommittee meeting. Of course, the government advertises. The government spends a huge amount of money advertising in each one of these communities—taxpayers’ money—this government that insists it’s so frugal. Well, hell’s bells. At the end of the day, there was nobody who wanted to meet with the committee in Kitchener, and I think one person from Sudbury; I don’t know if there were any from Kingston. At the end of the day, the committee didn’t go anywhere but sit in Toronto.

It could have been so much more effective. I was enthusiastic about public hearings. I thought there would be a whole lot of organizations that would have an interest in this bill, because they’re these non-profit organizations that the bill is designed to accommodate.

Let me tell you about the decidedly inelegant process that we witnessed in committee. But before I do that, first of all, let me thank the member from York–Simcoe, who just spoke on behalf of the Conservatives, who was a delight to work with on the committee. Let me thank the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who had to fill in for the parliamentary assistant with short notice, and he did a very good job. It was a pleasure to work with him on the committee.

He was a gentleman, he was co-operative and he made the process work far better than it would have, had there been any other number of people, who I will not name, because everybody knows who they are. Of course, it would be unparliamentary for me to name Rick Johnson as the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, so I won’t. But I do appreciate the cordial way in which—and he’s not in. Somebody can refer him to the Hansard, and he can feel free to use it in a householder if he wishes.

So here we are: We had this committee process and we had a Chair—I’ve got to tell you about the Chair. The Chair had his stopwatch and he was going to use military precision. He was very anal about the whole thing, to the point of stopping—I don’t mind if somebody’s telling me my time’s up. Good for them, and fine for me. But we’d have public presenters, and mid-sentence he’d say, “Oh, that’s it,” almost Mussoliniesque—except the day when he showed up late. Of course, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Apparently, his stopwatch wasn’t working that day.

People who want to be so anally timely have got to be careful, because, like Bob Dylan said, if you live outside the law, you must be honest.

What we learned in committee, though, were some interesting things, not so much about what was in the bill, but about what wasn’t in the bill.

But before I get to that, let’s talk a little bit about the Ontario Funeral Service Association presentation. I thought this was going to be pretty bland stuff, pretty mediocre. I thought it was going to be unlikely to generate any excitement on my part, because I’m not a particularly excitable kind of guy. But the Ontario Funeral Service Association provided one of the more bizarre presentations. It was very, very interesting.

I think that industry is interesting in and of itself: all the feigned interest in the welfare of families of dead people, when in fact the interest is to sell them the most expensive package available, and a coffin that costs far more than most families can afford and will be buried in the vault and will rot away, just like the body does.

So here’s the Ontario Funeral Service Association worried about the blurring of lines between not-for-profits and for-profits and then moaning and groaning and whinging about not-for-profits being in the industry, and then actually explaining how these charitable and non-profit cemeteries require families to attend their cemetery offices in person in order to authorize prepaid opening of graves and require them to meet with family services counsellors—the industry creates these labels. “Family services counsellor” sounds very benign and supportive.

You know the demeanour—I don’t know the exact gesture, but sort of hands like this—in the funeral industry, the sotto voce, soft-spoken, and the light touches on the shoulder.

Look, car salesmen have their gig; people in the funeral industry have their gig. I understand it.

But then, the shock and horror of the Ontario Funeral Service Association in saying that these family services counsellors, who are really commissioned sales agents—oh, my—they’re charged with the responsibility of upselling and cross-selling families on cemetery properties, vaults, crypts, visitation services, urns, flowers and the like. Well, when it came time to question this presenter on behalf of the Ontario Funeral Service Association, I said, “But isn’t that what the private sector does?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, why is it so cheesy for the non-profit to do it, but it’s not cheesy when you guys do it? Cut it out.” It is cheesy across the board.

This presenter gave us—and again, he was selective in what he gave us—a couple of the glossy, multicoloured brochures that are used by the Catholic cemeteries in Toronto. They’re not the best-prepared pamphlets. They breached some of the basic copyrighting rules in terms of how you prepare a brochure or a pamphlet. One of them was this hard text, and you cut the postcard out and mail it in—because, of course, they want your name on a mailing list. Politicians know that. We do that all the time. We send out a householder or a pamphlet that has a tear-off on it. We want to collect the names.

And increasingly valuable are the email addresses, because it’s far less expensive to contact people by email than by post. A posted letter ends up costing as much as a buck a pop,

whereas email is almost free, other than the cost of the service. You build up these—I know there are people here who can help me with the language—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Databases.

Mr. Peter Kormos: —databases, my mentor on IT tells me. You can gang-email or you can blast—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Broadcast.

Mr. Peter Kormos: —broadcast—thank you—1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Obama used it very successfully in the United States during his presidential campaign, and it’s obviously going to become au courant increasingly in Ontario and Canada.

So they want you to clip out the card. It says, “Please send me your free DVD, Holy Ground, and Catholic cemetery planning package with information” about any number of cemeteries. The postcard isn’t so that they can send you a DVD; it’s so that they can get your name, address and—oh, yes—email. This isn’t about offering you the service of a free DVD; it’s about adding you to their database.

Interjection: It’s the same thing your party does.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But you get the free DVD.

This is very much like those early Sunday mornings on the high channels of UHF—there used to be UHF; everybody’s got cable now—with the obscure southern preachers who are going to send you some holy water in a little vial that came from Jerusalem, like Ernest Angley. He’s got a wig now. He’s the guy who whacks you on the forehead. You put your forehead against the TV screen; he’s going to heal you. People watch this stuff. These shysters milk people out of thousands and thousands of millions of dollars. From time to time, they appropriately go to jail, like Jim Bakker did.

Jim Bakker went to jail and did a little bit of cell time. Tammy Bakker walked—but she’s dead. Let’s not speak ill of the dead. She collapsed under all that makeup, I suppose.

So you get a free DVD, and basically all they want is your death.

But take a look at this: “If you make prearrangements with Catholic Cemeteries, we will enter both of your names in a draw to receive a pilgrimage to Rome in 2010.” This is incredible. I guess the goal is that they want you to make the prearrangements early enough so that you live long enough to do the pilgrimage. This was cheesy. There are better words, but they’re probably unparliamentary. This is cheesy stuff. This guy is whining but he’s acknowledging that the private sector does this, too.

“Our mausoleums offer sacred ground that is consecrated by the Catholic church.” I don’t know what the heck that means. I don’t know what that means.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: If you were a Catholic, you would.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I am a Catholic, and I don’t know what difference it makes when you’re rotting in the ground. I have no idea how it makes a difference that the ground is consecrated or not, especially if you’ve been—when you’re burned, when you go in—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Cremation.

Mr. Peter Kormos: When you’re cremated. And I’m not even convinced that in a cremation it’s really grandma’s dust. It’s like a shovelful for this urn and a shovelful for that urn.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: How are they going to tell the difference?

And then the closing line: “At the end of life, the church makes one last act of love by providing holy ground for us to rest and await the resurrection.” Does anybody really believe that you’re resting at that point? You’re dead, and I think fair-minded and enlightened Ontarians, when they die, expect their bodies to be opened up so you can retrieve any organs that are useful. Maybe you consider whether or not that body or cadaver is of any use to a medical school like McMaster University medical school.

And then, when push comes to shove—and I can’t speak for other people—take my organs, take my 1995 Chev S10 pickup truck. It’s running far better than I am. Then cremate me and spread my dust or whoever’s ashes they happen to be over, I don’t know, the bush down in Cooks Mills. It would be fine by me.

But I found it remarkable that the private funeral service association would take offence at the Catholic Cemeteries for their pitch, when their pitch is no different from what the Ontario Funeral Service Association admittedly do in their own right in the for-profit sector.

I would hope that if you have non-profit funeral services, they would help reduce the cost. I understand that these promotions are for prearranged funerals, but families are suffering. They’re mourning when somebody dies in the family, and they go to a funeral service arranger, a funeral service whatever, and with all the feigned sympathy and comforting—“because we’re counsellors; we help you through your grief”—the goal of the agenda is to take as much of your money as they can. I find that offensive. Send letters if you want, but don’t bother. It’s not going to change my mind. I believe this.

I’ve witnessed, sadly, families who have been lured into spending far more on a funeral. Funerals are expensive to begin with. For me, a funeral has this function: It’s all about public safety. You don’t want to bury bodies in the ground—that’s why we have regulations around cemeteries and funerals, because presumably it causes and spreads disease and death and so on.

Time is fleeting. I wanted to talk about the inelegance of this legislation. The government was forced into making numerous amendments to the bill, amendments that were demanded by parties like the architects of Ontario; certified general accountants; certified management accountants; chartered accountants; the Law Society of Upper Canada; the professional engineers; parties affected by the Public Accounting Act, which are all those previous accountants; and by veterinarians.

I don’t know who drafted this legislation. I suspect it has been floating around that ministry for a good chunk of time in various forms. Heck, it could even go back to Ernie Eves’s day for all I know, because the whole business of updating this Corporations Act is not a particularly new one. But they overlooked the fact that the act could well override the corporate structures of those various bodies.

It was interesting, because here we had second reading of the bill already and we were in committee. Now, first I asked the law society, “Where the heck have you guys been? You’ve been sitting on your hands? Don’t you take a look at this stuff after it receives first reading? What’s the matter with you?” You’ve got all that money that they take from lawyers—I pay mine every year—and they hadn’t taken a look at the act.

The government had to move amendments, but I said, “Aha. The problem is that those amendments will probably be out of order because they amend legislation”—because, you see, they amend what was necessary to amend the Law Society Act, the Chartered Accountants Act, the Certified Management Accountants Act or the Architects Act. They were amendments to those acts that had to be incorporated into this act, Bill 65, by way of amendment, but they would be out of order because it would be introducing new areas that Bill 65 hadn’t contemplated.

Sure enough, when the government came with the amendments, they were out of order. But, being the kind of accommodating guy I am—because that’s my style. You know my style is not confrontational or adversarial; my style is collaborative. It has been that way as long as I can remember. Being the kind of accommodating guy I am, I gave unanimous consent for the government to move those amendments and cleared the path. I’m here to serve, Speaker. Please don’t ever misconstrue me as an obstructionist.

I find myself with time left. I’ll resume this at the next occasion when this bill is called for the balance of my 13 minutes and 45 seconds.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome John Chan, who is joining us today in the members’ gallery. John is here to watch his nephew, page Brandon Chan, who is from my riding of St. Paul’s. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I’d like to welcome, in the east gallery, Kathleen Rempel, the mother of page Emily Rempel, here from Wilmot township. Welcome today, Kathleen.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m pleased to introduce Elly Vandenberg, who is on her way in at any moment, together with her mum, Margo Vandenberg. They are the mum and grandma of our page Tom Davidson, who is celebrating his last day with us today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I would like to welcome Rowena Ramos, who is the mother of page Rodney Ramos. Since I have met Rodney on a number of occasions, I can tell his mother, you can be extremely proud of your son Rodney Ramos. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Windsor West and page Ioana Crant, we’d like to welcome her mother, Aurelia Crant, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Premier, Ontario families want to know who handed out sweetheart deals to Liberal-friendly consultants in the eHealth scandal. Today, the Ontario PC leader announced that, if elected Premier, he will call a public inquiry into the consultant contract spending spree and rot at eHealth. Why won’t Premier McGuinty do the same thing today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m delighted, again, to speak to the issue of eHealth and to take the opportunity to impress upon my honourable colleagues opposite why it is we are working so hard to move forward to put in place an electronic record system for health care in the province of Ontario.

What we’re talking about is ensuring that your health care provider, whether that’s your family doctor, the emergency department doctor, your home care nurse or your pharmacist, has access to the right information at the right time so we can give you the best possible care.

All thoughtful people when it comes to these matters tell us that this is the very foundation for a modern, reliable, efficient, effective health care system. So I would ask my honourable colleague to stand up and say that they will reverse their position; they will now in fact support an electronic health records system in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The choice Ontario families face is clear, and that’s what we’re really talking about here: They can choose Ontario PCs, who say we need legislation to stop money for front-line care being used by hospitals to lobby government, or Premier McGuinty, who said all week that he deplores the practice, only to have his caucus vote against bringing forward legislation. Ontarians can choose a PC leader, who will call a public inquiry into eHealth, or Premier McGuinty, who will not do so.

Ministers on the Management Board of Cabinet waived competitive bidding rules and paved the way for eHealth to hand out sweetheart deals to consulting firms with ties to the McGuinty Liberals. Premier, how much did you make Ontario families pay to the Liberal family for sweetheart deals exempted by Management Board?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know my honourable colleague is not prepared to accept the report put out by the Provincial Auditor, but we are. We’ve accepted that advice, those recommendations, those findings, and we’re acting on all of them.

Let me again tell you why it’s so important that we move ahead with an eHealth system in the province of Ontario and the progress, in particular, that we are making. In 2006, 770,000 Ontarians had electronic medical records. Today it’s nearly five million. By 2011 it will be seven million. By 2012 it will be 10 million. I think that represents real progress and I would ask my honourable colleagues opposite to get on board and help us modernize our electronic health records system in Ontario.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, I’m certainly happy that the Premier mentioned the auditor’s report, because the auditor’s report also mentions that one consulting firm was given special treatment when it was handed a disproportionate number of sweetheart deals while this government waived the rules. When we asked the Premier who handed how many deals to whom, he just stonewalled. Now the Ontario PC caucus has uncovered documents which reveal that Ontario families paid $9.5 million for 48 more contracts handed out while the rules were waived. Premier, how much of that was handed to consultants with Liberal ties?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague, because she appears to have forgotten one of the specific statements made by the auditor in his report—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: And I know that my honourable colleague from the Ottawa Valley is going to want to pay attention to this.

He said this: “We were aware of the allegations that ‘party politics’ may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but we saw no evidence of this during our work.” I think it’s pretty conclusive.

I think our shared responsibility now is to find a way to move forward on behalf of the people of Ontario and ensure that we have in place an electronic health records system. That’s what we are doing. We will not take our eye off the ball. Again, I would encourage my honourable colleagues opposite to join with us in this very important effort.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question, again, is to the Premier. Maybe Premier McGuinty is adamantly opposed to a public inquiry because he has a “more intelligent understanding” of McGuinty Liberals who helped other McGuinty Liberals get rich in the $1-billion eHealth scandal.

The documents we uncovered showed that Management Board ministers had a hand in over $5 million lining the pockets of John Ronson, Karli Farrow and other Liberal-friendly consultants at Courtyard. For anyone who forgets, Ronson was your election campaign chair and Farrow was a senior political advisor in the Premier’s office before serving as chief of staff to George Smitherman.

Are Courtyard consultants the only Liberals who cheated Ontario families in the eHealth spending spree?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can appreciate that my honourable colleagues opposite have their own particular perspective on this and that is, at times, very partisan. I mean, that’s just the nature of the work that we do here. But I think Ontarians are entitled to rely from time to time on an objective, third party, expert observer of these matters, and I want to repeat what the auditor specifically said: “We were aware of the allegations that ‘party politics’ may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but we saw no evidence of this during our work.”

Notwithstanding the fact that they continue to make the claims, the auditor found otherwise. He’s a distinguished officer of this Legislative Assembly. I think we’re entitled to place our confidence in him, and I, for one, will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The Premier would know that the issues he’s speaking about were outside the Auditor General’s mandate.

But here’s the reason why the Premier won’t call an inquiry into eHealth: The documents our caucus uncovered include a four-month deal worth $122,000 that was handed to the Premier’s friends at Courtyard. The deal was signed off by Phil DeMont. DeMont was a political aide in George Smitherman’s office at the time and he later ended up in Minister Pupatello’s office. Which other McGuinty Liberals handed out sweetheart deals to other McGuinty Liberals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my colleague is not prepared to accept the word of the auditor, and I am. I think there we’ll have to

part company.

With respect to just how important eHealth is for us, so far there are over 7,500 sites in Ontario that have been linked by eHealth. I’m talking about doctors’ offices, hospitals, nurse-practitioner-led clinics and the like.

What we’re doing here is ensuring, for example, that if you are receiving care in a northern or rural community in the province of Ontario through our eHealth system, that you have access to the best possible expertise that may be found in a larger urban centre.

It’s not just a matter of ensuring that every Ontarian has their own electronic medical record, but also ensuring that those doctors and nurses who practise in remote and northern communities have access to the best expertise. That’s what this is all about, and that is why it’s so important that we keep moving ahead with it.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We agree that there’s no question that electronic health records are absolutely necessary, but the rate at which Ontario is proceeding with the development of eHealth records is laughable in most of the world.

The reason why the Ontario PC leader will call a public inquiry is because the rot in the eHealth scandal has crept right into the McGuinty Liberal ministers’ offices. It’s highly improper for political staff to approve contracts like these, but you wouldn’t know it from what Premier McGuinty has had to say about the eHealth scandal to date.

The documents we obtained show that Phil DeMont is not the only McGuinty Liberal who handed out sweetheart deals to other McGuinty Liberals. Gail Paech, who just endorsed George Smitherman, handed out 20 more sweetheart deals worth $5.7 million to Courtyard. Why is it that Premier McGuinty is the only one who knows the whole story about eHealth and he’s not talking?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m reminded of something once said by former US Senator—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry, Premier. The member from Renfrew would be best in his own seat.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There’s never any shortage of energy from that particular gentleman, Speaker.

I’m reminded of something said by former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He used to say, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.”

I think when it comes to the facts, we’re entitled to rely on that important finder of facts, the Provincial Auditor. He made a specific finding of fact that there was no political involvement in the awarding of those contracts. Now, we’re prepared to accept that finding, but my honourable colleague is not.

Again, I think what our responsibility is today—and I say this is a shared responsibility, a broader responsibility—is to put in place an electronic health records system. It’s the foundation for a modern, efficient, effective, reliable system to benefit all Ontarians.

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Yesterday, the Premier said, “Ontario tax dollars are not to be used by the broader public sector and agencies to lobby their government in order to secure still more funding,” and “We believe that is a matter of principle.... We find it unacceptable.”

Does the Premier still agree that this is not just unacceptable but also an issue of principle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We certainly do. There has been a long-standing practice accepted by the previous two governments, and we’re saying no to that practice. We want to make a change in Ontario. We intend to introduce a new initiative that will prohibit those kinds of activities. We’ve been clear that nobody should be using taxpayer dollars to hire a lobbyist to ask for more taxpayer dollars. That’s just not sensible. It’s not in keeping with our standards and our values.

Families and taxpayers expect that those dollars will go into front-line services. That’s what we intend to realize through our new initiative when we present it in this House

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Surely the Premier was not surprised to find out that this practice was going on.

The lobbyist registry shows that from 2007 to 2010, Bob Chiarelli, the Minister of Infrastructure, was a lobbyist for the publicly funded Algonquin College. It turns out he had a lucrative, $7,500-a-month contract with the college. The Ottawa Citizen went so far as to write an editorial in 2007, condemning the arrangement.

How can the Premier seriously claim that banning lobbyists in the public sector is an issue of principle when he recently promoted to cabinet someone who was doing exactly that just nine months ago?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I think—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Hot potato, for sure. Were you sitting on a hot potato there?

Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I don’t think the member of the third party clearly understands what we’re saying. We don’t endorse the idea of public entities using public dollars to lobby for public dollars. We’ve said that over and over and over again.

The minister is going to be introducing legislation with real teeth to it, not motions that are politically based. We’re talking about legislation that has real teeth to it, because we understand what the people of Ontario want: not frivolous motions, but real opportunity for growth, real opportunity for opportunity, real opportunity for public dollars to be used in a very effective way.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s surprising that the Premier didn’t continue to answer this question, but I will go back to him.

The infrastructure minister announced his intention to run in a by-election on January 18, while he was still an active, registered lobbyist acting on behalf of public sector clients. The Premier yesterday claimed this was an issue of principle for him.

To the Premier: When did it become a principle for him?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me reinforce a message that has been given from this side of the House by the Premier and by several ministers. We believe that public dollars shouldn’t be used to advocate for public dollars.

We believe that by introducing strong legislation, we will not repeat the mistakes of previous governments: the previous NDP government and, for sure, the previous Harris-Hudak regime.

We’re not about repeating mistakes; we’re about ensuring we build a stronger system for the future that’s open and accountable.

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier’s representative on earth is trying to give us the impression that the Premier is surprised to hear that such a practice has gone on in this province.

This week, New Democrats exposed a government that has cultivated a culture that puts insiders ahead of everyone else, a government that is more concerned with rewarding friends than with improving health care or making university education more affordable.

Why hasn’t the Premier completely banned the use of lobbyists in the public sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that in fact we are moving forward on that score and that we look forward to doing that. We’re open to any advice and suggestions that they may put forward.

But I want to make it clear again: The practice that had been extant during the previous two governments is unacceptable to us. It’s not in keeping with the standards of Ontarians. it’s not in keeping with their values, whether in their capacity as families or as taxpayers.

We think it’s inappropriate to lobby the provincial government in order to obtain taxpayer dollars when you’re working for an organization which is already paid for by taxpayer dollars. We’re going to make some changes to prohibit that practice, and again, we’re open to suggestions and advice that the opposition may offer.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: For the Premier: StrategyCorp, a lobbying firm made up of former Liberal insiders, has contracts with publicly funded organizations worth at least $400,000. That’s a very generous public subsidy, Premier, money that could be used to hire more nurses or help students get through college.

When will the Premier introduce the legislation that will turn off this tap to lobbyists in the public sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’m concerned that my colleagues opposite can’t take yes for an answer.

We are moving forward with specific initiatives to address these very kinds of issues. We are saying that the practice that was permitted by the former NDP and Conservative governments is unacceptable; it’s not in keeping with our standards today, so we’re going to be making changes to put those values into place and we will prohibit the practice which, as I say, had been acceptable in the past.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: You know, the opposition can understand “yes” when it hears “yes,” but it also understands that if it doesn’t hear a date, then the “yes” could sort of float off into the future. While the Premier is making vague commitments, Ontario families are wondering when the public subsidy to insider lobbyists will finally end. Later today we’ll be introducing a bill to ban the use of lobbyists by publicly funded organizations. Is the government prepared to support the bill today or can we expect more dither and delay?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I appreciate the effort and the initiative pursued by the representative of the third party, and we look forward to seeing the contents of the bill, but I want to assure him and reassure Ontarians that we in government will be moving forward with our own specific initiative.

I also want to remind my honourable colleagues opposite of some of the things that we have already done. We have reduced government-wide use of consultants by more than 54% since 2002. In just the last year, the use of consultants is down by 25%; travel expenses, by the way, are down by 23%; government advertising spending is down by 20%; and when it comes to consulting, our government spending per capita is 30% below the average of all the other provincial governments.

By the way, every time we put forward an initiative to introduce more transparency and more accountability, the opposition has stood in the way of that. Again, I look forward to seeing the initiative, but we look forward to introducing ours as well.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier about another out-of-control agency that could learn a few lessons from an inquiry into eHealth practices that got McGuinty Liberals into trouble. I’m talking about Ontario Electronic Stewardship.

Ontario Electronic Stewardship pays the salary of Gordon Day to be its program manager. Gordon Day is also a director of a consulting company called StewardEdge. Since 2007, Ontario Electronic Stewardship has been handing out and renewing consulting deals to StewardEdge. Does it concern Premier McGuinty at all that Gordon Day is handing out consulting contracts to himself?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question. First of all, the most important thing we can do is keep hazardous electronic waste out of our landfills. Under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, that was put into force by the previous government, the solution is found in having an industry-funded organization which is completely run by—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: As I was saying, Ontario Electronic Stewardship is not an agency of the government of Ontario. It is completely funded by industry and it is completely run by industry.

We’ve been very clear in our ministry that when it comes to these organizations, we will not allow any lobbyists to come and see us on their behalf. Any money that is used to divert waste, that’s its function. Its function is not to come back to—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: It’d be nice if just once that minister would actually answer a question.

A pattern has developed where agency executives hand out sweetheart deals to their own companies and the McGuinty Liberals do nothing to stop it. The pattern began with Michael Guerriere, the eHealth vice-president who handed out sweetheart deals to his own consulting firm, the Liberal Courtyard Group. This spring, we exposed it happening again with a local health integration network CEO who handed a contract to a company he worked for. Now, Gordon Day is handing his own StewardEdge consulting contracts that expand the scope of its work for OES.

If Premier McGuinty won’t call a public inquiry into eHealth, what is he doing to stop the rot he has allowed to spread through that government?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I find it interesting—I’ll just remind the member once again that the Ontario Electronic Stewardship is not an agency of the government of Ontario. Why? Because when you were in government you set it up that way, that it would be completely run by industry and completely funded by industry. Now, if the industries funding and running that organization make decisions, then those questions would rightly go to the Ontario Electronic Stewardship and their board of directors, not to the Minister of the Environment.

But to be clear, when it comes to those arm’s-length agencies, we will not, have not and will not deal with lobbyists. There is no need for money that is used for waste diversion to be used—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sit down, Pontius Pilate.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’ll repeat again: Money that is used to divert waste should not be used to lobby our government, and we’ve made very clear to all lobbyists that the door is closed at the Ministry of the Environment when it comes to any of these arm’s-length, industry-run and industry-funded organizations.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. Premier, tenants across Ontario are having a difficult time paying their hydro bills.

Rose Vancea from Fort Erie says: “My electric bill has almost doubled. My daughter’s bill for two weeks was $60 and that was with no air-conditioning or stove as she just moved into the apartment.... She has about $1,100 a month coming in. Rent is $600 and then there is cable and food and” the “electric” bill.

When the Ontario Energy Board announces the new winter hydro rates a week from now, will Mrs. Vancea and her daughter get whacked even harder?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thank you for the question. I think the member was around a few weeks ago when our Premier announced a very significant announcement of relief for Ontario seniors and for 2.8 million middle- and lower-income Ontarians. In total, it’s $1.3 billion in relief that’s going to provide some assistance to those families.

That was an indication that we do understand that families across this province have gone through a very difficult time. We’ve gone through a global recession. We do know that energy rates are rising but we’re there to help. We’re providing relief for those families.

We’re not going to do what the member opposite’s leader would want us to do. We’re not going to stop investing in our energy system, because that would take us back to where we were seven years ago and the very people he’s advocating for now would not have the power they need to raise—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Here is another incredibly sad story. Mrs. Gautreau from Mississauga writes: “[My father] rents a small house in Clarkson that he may lose ... he has lived there for 17 years, and since my mom passed he is barely making it. His hydro is outrageous.

“His bill is in arrears once again and I wish I could pay it for him, but I’m a single mom on a disability pension myself. I wish there was someone out there who really cared,” she says.

Tenants need a predictable, permanent, affordable break on their hydro bill. Taking the HST off hydro would do that. How soon can tenants expect that kind of relief?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I guess the member wasn’t listening to my original response. The Ontario energy and property tax credit is a significant level of relief that’s going to provide lower- and middle-income families with relief with regard to rising energy costs. It’s also going to provide seniors with a significant level of relief. In total, the tax credit which will be going to Ontarians is $1.3 billion. That’s going to help. But we recognize that there’s more work to do and we’re going to keep working with those families.

What we’re not going to do, though, and what the NDP appear to be determined to do, is stop investing in the energy system. That’s what the previous government did, as we watched coal go up 127%, as we watched our air being polluted, as we watched the health of the very people that the member advocates for being impacted.

We’ve got to continue to invest in a stronger, more reliable and cleaner energy—

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

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Infrastructure. This past summer, Ontarians marked with sadness the 10th anniversary of the Walkerton disaster in the summer of 2000. This occasion should serve as a reminder to all of us of how vitally important safe drinking water infrastructure is.

As the minister knows, Judge Dennis O’Connor’s Walkerton inquiry pointed out that it can be difficult for small communities to provide water service that is both safe and affordable.

My constituents in towns like Blind River, Gore Bay and Spanish have just as much right to clean water as urban Ontarians. So my question is, what is the minister doing to make sure that small communities across Ontario receive the support they need to upgrade their drinking water systems?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question.

Over the summer, Mr. Duguid and I spent considerable time consulting across the province with respect to our new 10-year infrastructure program, which is under construction. Water and wastewater infrastructure came up over and over again, especially with the smaller communities’ municipal leaders.

The McGuinty government is already providing $20 million to 166 small communities to help with the cost of operating their drinking water systems. That’s through the Ontario small waterworks assistance program, or OSWAP.

In August, we launched OSWAP’s third phase. It’s the capital phase, which will provide small communities, like the ones the member mentioned, with funding to upgrade their drinking water and wastewater systems.

I’ll tell the members more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Providing safe drinking water to just a few, a few hundred or a few thousand people is more expensive than providing it to tens of thousands of people, because either way, you need—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just heard something that was unparliamentary. Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I’ll try again. Providing safe drinking water to just a few, a few hundred or a few thousand people is much more expensive than providing it to tens of thousands of people, because either way, you need expensive machinery and equipment, and in a small community there just aren’t as many people to foot the bill.

I know that in my constituency, there are many communities that are struggling to keep up, that are struggling to afford the sophisticated technologies they need to provide their citizens with a safe and reliable supply of water.

Minister, how will OSWAP make these technologies and upgrades more affordable?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: OSWAP will help by providing up to two thirds of the necessary funding for water infrastructure projects in small communities. In order to help even more small communities, we are more than doubling the size of OSWAP’s capital component from our previous commitment of $20 million to more than $50 million. Not only that, we’ve also expanded it to cover not only drinking water infrastructure, but wastewater infrastructure too. We’ve also added a focus on water conservation and water system efficiency. For example, small communities can make their systems cheaper to operate and easier on the environment by upgrading maintenance.

The McGuinty government understands that rural and northern Ontarians in small communities deserve safe, reliable and affordable water service. That’s what this program and the McGuinty commitment is all about.

TAXATION

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Premier. If Stewardship Ontario has been collecting $100 of eco tax on cars to cover the cost of diverting antifreeze and fluids in air conditioners for several years now, then why are the McGuinty Liberals planning to introduce a second eco fee on cars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. I’d be more than happy to hear any other information she may have in the supplementary.

I am in the process of doing a 90-day review in regard to all of those agencies.

We have been listening to people, and they’ve been telling us that they want to do the right thing. They want to keep hazardous materials out of our landfills to make sure that those hazards are not visited on our children or our grandchildren one day. That’s why it’s so important that we do things that are best for the environment. I know that I am just finishing up that review, and I look forward to sharing that with my colleagues in government and with the good people of Ontario.

But I might add that Stewardship Ontario is like these other arm’s-length groups that are funded by industry and completely run by industry. We’ve had the leadership in to talk to us about what their plans are. Again, I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Well, since the minister didn’t have enough information, I’ll give him a little more.

Proof the McGuinty Liberals are planning to introduce a second eco tax on cars can be found on page 30 of the environment minister’s 2009 report, entitled From Waste To Worth. The former environment minister lauded a second eco tax on cars as “our proposal for improving the way we manage waste here in Ontario.”

Automotive industry stakeholders say the McGuinty Liberals are talking about an eco tax that adds upwards of $1,000 a car. It’s unacceptable. The industry is struggling. Families are struggling. This will kill sales and manufacturing jobs in my riding that families depend on.

Will you do with this eco tax grab what you did with the former environment minister and sweep it aside to gather dust?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Well, there we have it: A report all of a sudden is government policy. I’ll tell you that, on this side of the House, we set government policy.

We ask people all the time to give us their best advice, and there is a report that has to do with how we take the concept of waste and turn that into a resource. That is what’s required in the 21st century: How do we take things that we’re throwing away and turn them into resources?

One of our great examples of that is, now there is this new and ever-growing rubber recycling business in the province of Ontario that’s creating jobs as we ensure that used tires, for example, don’t go into the back forty, don’t go into the dump. They go into new products, turning what was considered waste into a resource, creating new green jobs that are environmentally friendly.

We will continue to receive advice from people, if they want to write a report or if they want to make a recommendation, but we set government policy on this—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In light of the two deaths of Jamaican agricultural workers recently, it’s shocking that there have only been 71 farm inspections in four years in Ontario while there are over 60,000 farms. Why has this government inspected so few corporate farms?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is wrong. This government is committed to ensuring that all farm workers are protected, that their health and safety is protected.

Let me share some numbers with the member: 375 field visits last year, and 228 were to crop and animal farming operations. Another 131 were to greenhouse operations, where there were many, many migrant workers employed. That is, on average, a farm visited every single day of the year. The member’s numbers are incorrect.

It is this government, in 2006, that brought the Occupational Health and Safety Act to farms to protect farm workers. In this province, a farm worker is a farm worker is a farm worker. Regardless of classification, regardless of status, we want to ensure that they are protected—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will come to order and perhaps be best in his seat.

Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Minister, as you well know, inspectors are telling us that they are told not to inspect farms. Given the number of serious workplace injuries and fatalities occurring on Ontario corporate farms, why is the minister not sending health and safety inspectors to corporate farming operations?

I want to say that his figures are the inaccurate ones. Our figures come through UFCW and are checked out in the field. So I challenge him just on the figures alone, but also on the facts. The fact is, the inspectors are telling us that they’re told not even to go to farms. Answer that, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’ll stick to the facts. I’ll reject what that member has said. She is completely wrong. Again, this is the government that has protected farm workers by—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

I smell turkey cooking.

Interjection: Is that Ontario turkey?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Of course it’s Ontario turkey.

Minister.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Speaker, thank you very much.

Again, the member is wrong. We’ve doubled the number of health and safety inspectors in the province of Ontario, and 100 of those inspectors are trained specifically on safe work on farms and to ensure quicker response to concerns. These are the correct numbers, and I’ll be more than happy to provide these to the member opposite.

Again, more than one visit to a farm every single day. They are large farms, crop and animal farms, greenhouse operations. There are many migrant workers in those operations. We will continue to ensure that our farms are safe.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Ontario is very fortunate to be protected by our courageous firefighters right across this great province. These brave men and women work every day to ensure our safety and the protection of all Ontarians. In their line of work, firefighters must make split-second decisions before they enter dangerous situations. They risk their very own well-being to help strangers in need of aid and rescue. Not only do our firefighters provide protection, these individuals are integral parts of our society, donating their time and effort to local charities and organizations.

Unfortunately, the reality of the job can create insurmountable risk, taking the lives of some of our finest citizens. I would ask that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services explain how we honour and recognize these great, valorous fighters of the province of Ontario.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you for a good question from the member who brought forward a bill in the House to recognize firefighters appropriately.

I was honoured to attend the Ontario firefighter memorial service this past weekend in my new capacity as Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I would like to acknowledge as well those from the Legislature who joined the grieving families and fire services from across the province to honour the fallen. The Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other colleagues from both sides of the House were there.

The Ontario firefighter memorial ceremony pays tribute to the memory of those courageous firefighters who died while protecting others. Each name engraved on the memorial represents a life of dedication, heroism and, sadly, a life lost in the service to others.

These were individuals of outstanding character and courage, whose selfless acts made a difference in the lives of people they touched. The legacy of these firefighters lies in the lives they lead and the examples they set for all of us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: I know that each and every one of us will be indebted to these individuals, particularly the families they left behind, that they have provided this service to the province of Ontario. I know that in the riding of Brant, our entire community came together to build a safety village, in which the fire department is one of the highest stakeholders.

I know we look forward to the day when no names can be added to the firefighters memorial. Fire safety is a shared responsibility and we must all do our part. It’s important that all levels of government, fire experts, caregivers, the private sector, homeowners and residents work together to make that happen.

This past Sunday marked the start of Ontario’s Fire Prevention Week, an opportunity for all Ontarians to learn helpful fire safety tips—for instance, smoke detectors, CO detectors and all the information that is needed in order for us to keep ourselves safe.

Would the Minister of Community and Correctional Services please provide us with more details on Fire Prevention Week to help all Ontarian be safe and secure?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member is absolutely correct: Our government, along with the fire safety partners we have, are celebrating national Fire Prevention Week. This year’s theme is “Smoke Alarms: A Sound You Can Live With.” Smoke alarms, as I think all of us know, save lives, but a faulty smoke alarm saves nobody.

We are challenging Ontarians during Fire Prevention Week to be fire safe and fire smart by following the following steps: Know what to do when the smoke alarm sounds. Develop a home escape plan with everyone in your household. Make sure you have two ways out of all areas. Keep combustible materials at least one metre away from space heaters. Never leave candles burning unattended.

Installing smoke alarms is the law in Ontario. At a minimum, every home must have a working smoke alarm on every storey and outside of all sleeping areas. Taking a few minutes to follow these simple steps will most assuredly keep Ontario families safe.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Premier, we all know the WSIB is broke and broken; the Auditor General said as much last year. The WSIB’s unfunded liability has doubled under your watch, from $6 billion to $12 billion, and is growing at a rate of $1 billion per year. Last February, at the public accounts committee, WSIB chair Mahoney said, “By the fall we will develop a comprehensive go-forward plan.” Last week, your WSIB chair revealed his big plan: He’s hired Professor Harry Arthurs at $500 an hour for the next 16 months.

We all know your cabinet is incapable of solving the problems they created for Ontario families. Premier, is there any problem your government creates that a high-priced consultant can’t solve?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’d be happy to share with the member the importance of the announcement that was made last Thursday by the WSIB. Yes, they have presented a comprehensive plan to retire the unfunded liability. The WSIB has presented a plan that is prudent and responsible, and it’s going to put the WSIB on firm financial footing. I want to commend the new president and CEO, David Marshall—he’s a former Deputy Auditor General of Canada—for putting that plan together.

It is a comprehensive plan. It is a plan that involves consultation, which is important, and it is what the stakeholders have asked for. We support that plan to put the WSIB on stable footing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Premier: At the standing committee, your new WSIB president said, “I’ve come into this role as president and CEO of the WSIB with a clear mandate from the minister. It is to build a sound financial plan....” Now we learn that the plan is to have someone else fix the problems.

Premier, you told us that we’re going to get a new deal: no more eHealth-style consultants, no more money down the drain. Instead, we get more per diems, more waste and more proof that your government can’t solve its own problems. Premier, if all your government does is hire outside consultants to fix the problems you’ve caused, what exactly are Ontario families paying you for?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It’s obvious that this member just doesn’t get it, but you know what? The Chair of that standing committee, the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills, does get it, because he said, “What we need is a plan. What we need is a consultation,” and that’s exactly what has been delivered.

This is a WSIB plan that is prudent and that is responsible. It does have a consultation—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just say to the member from Lanark that he knows the standing orders. He just asked the question, and as always, if he’s not satisfied with the answer he can follow with a late show. Please listen to the answer.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The stakeholders, both business and hard-working men and women of Ontario, understand the importance of the WSIB and of this plan. They have asked for a consultation; it’s being led by Professor Harry Arthurs. This member may not want somebody competent, with experience, who is somebody who is respected—

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

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety. The law in Ontario requires that all residences must have an audible fire alarm. This is of no value to deaf and hard-of-hearing Ontarians. As witnessed by the tragic death of a deaf person in St. Catharines last week, the audible fire alarm was useless, as she couldn’t hear it anyway.

The member for Pickering–Scarborough East is reintroducing his visual fire alarm bill because this government didn’t act on the proposal in the past and because this government did not let it go to third reading. When will this government take fire safety seriously and protect all citizens equally?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think the member would mischaracterize the government’s approach to fire safety if he were to say that, without a doubt. All accidents that happen of this kind, all tragedies of this kind, we feel badly about because there is a loss of lives and so on.

On an ongoing basis we are reviewing with our fire safety partners all of the possible options available to increase fire safety even more. Quite obviously, one of those options is the option to which the member has made reference and on which our member has brought forward a private member’s bill. I think there is virtue in it. I know it’s been an issue for a number of years: when your government was in power, when that government was in power and now that our government is in power; it has been for a number of years. I am really impressed by the fact that the member has brought this forward.

Certainly, in my consultations as a new minister, it is one of the issues I’ll be reviewing very, very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The reality is that this government has done little to advance fire safety for Ontarians. It has been left up to individual members and private members’ bills to fill the void. First there was the member from Brampton–Springdale, now a minister, who pushed for sprinklers in new homes. It never happened. My bill banning wooden fire escapes came next. It never happened. Now this government is being asked to act on visual fire alarms. If these bills were the law, deaths would have been prevented as recently as last week. Yet they’ve been introduced two, three and four times each.

Will this government take any responsibility for improving fire safety, or will the ideas of MPPs and firefighters continue to be ignored?

Hon. James J. Bradley: In fact, I have met with firefighters on issues of fire prevention and fire safety, along with those who are the fire chiefs in the province of Ontario.

Some of the things that we’ve already done, in addition—I think the member raises some very legitimate questions: We have strengthened the Ontario fire code to require working smoke alarms on every storey of a home, for instance; we have updated safety equipment requirements for hotels and motels; we’ve improved safety in existing care facilities through change to fire safety planning, staff and fire drills; effective April 1, 2010, we amended the Ontario building code, requiring sprinklers in all new residential buildings higher than three storeys; and we distributed an unprecedented $30 million to fire departments to assist with training, equipment and prevention programs.

We’ve made progress; we want to make even more progress.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of persons with disabilities in Ontario increased by 22%. About one in seven people in Ontario have disabilities. It is anticipated to grow to one in five within 20 years.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for his advocacy on behalf of his disabled community. He’s a great leader in his community.

We are proud to take this leadership role and we look forward to other jurisdictions doing the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: My ministry has many videos available on YouTube and our website, profiling many organizations that have become accessible. In fact, I’m happy to say our ministry has a new video available highlighting a school in Northumberland–Quinte West that made their buildings accessible. St. Mary’s Elementary School in Campbellford was recently made accessible with the addition of a ramp, an elevator, a Snoezelen room and accessible washrooms. They also received the 2009 Mary Cook Inclusive Education Award from Community Living Campbellford/Brighton for offering integrated education, where students with developmental disabilities are integrated with other students.

I want to thank and commend the principal of the school, Diane Mather, and the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for all they have done to make their community accessible.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, can you explain why your source water protection committees are sending confusing, intimidating and threatening letters to rural Ontario property owners?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m pleased to talk about source water protection. We had a tragedy in this province, and one of the things we learned from Justice O’Connor was about how important it is to keep the sources of our drinking water safe in the first place, that the right thing to do is to do that.

Because of the legislation that we passed following on the work of Justice O’Connor, we’ve had source water planning protection committees right across the province, making sure that we have the basis in science and making sure that we’ve done the consultations with people to ensure that we can be stewards of our sources of drinking water. They’ve been doing a lot of work, and they’re coming back to me now with proposals about how they’ll give life to that act, to ensure that we are protecting our municipal sources of drinking water. That is our policy objective.

I am proud that we have a program that we instituted in the act that says that we go to local landowners, who are the best stewards of the land, in many cases farmers, and—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, I have to tell you right up front: Most people in the province of Ontario don’t even know these committees exist. There are 19 of them, basically anonymous committees, at work across the province. They have caused significant distress to property owners who are concerned over the level of intrusion on their own property. They’re also wondering what new level of water protection—that’s above and beyond conservation authorities etc.—they are being subjected to and at what cost it will be.

What authority are those special purpose bodies using to send threatening letters to property owners? And what are you doing to monitor what they are doing and saying to the property owners of the province of Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Perhaps the member wasn’t paying attention in the last term, but what we did was we passed

an act. I can tell you the terms of reference for our source water planning protection committees were approved by my ministry. They’re out doing the work. They now are bringing those plans back to our ministry. I have the legislative authority to approve or to alter those plans. I take that responsibility very seriously. As these plans come back, they have to be approved by our ministry, and then they have to be put into force.

But what I can tell you is that because of funding that we made available to local landowners, they are already doing the things that are required to ensure that the sources of our drinking water are protected. I want to thank every one of those landowners who have used the millions of dollars provided by our government, which they have supplemented with millions of their own dollars because they want to do the right thing. Because though it may be our land, it’s our water. It’s something that we value, and we want to—

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

HOME CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. In today’s Toronto Star

article on the state of home care, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care said, “I need better information. I want to go deeper into the numbers.”

I’d like to assist the minister and the Premier on how this government funds home care. First, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care gives the home care money to the 14 local health integration networks. The 14 local health integration networks give the home care money to the 14 community care access centres, minus their admin fees. Then the community care access centres, through an expensive competitive bidding process, give the home care money to—there are many more admin fees and many more profit margins that come in before you’re going to see any care at all—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, and I’ll test my own memory here a little bit.

We took a long, hard look at the best way to ensure that we provide the best-quality home care to Ontario families—and obviously, we have an accountability to taxpayers. We ended up with a system which I firmly believe strikes the right balance between assuring us that we can deliver good, quality care—and we give options to people in the services in the community to make application to provide those services.

My honourable colleague takes an ideological position on this, and I just don’t think that’s a luxury that we enjoy. We’ve got to be open to various ways to deliver the best quality home care. At the end of the day, there’s only one test, and that’s the quality of the services being delivered. We keep our eye very closely attuned to those developments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The home care system is broken. We are not getting quality care through all of this long process that we go through. Everybody will tell you that because of the competitive bidding process, home care agencies are not able to retain and recruit a stable workforce. Quality care comes through continuity of care, which comes through continuity of caregivers. If you cannot keep a stable workforce, you cannot give quality care. The people whose needs are not being met through home care end up in emergency. They end up in one of the ALC beds in our hospitals. They are the ones waiting 118 days to get placed in a long-term-care home.

Home care is broken. Will you get rid of the competitive bidding process?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As far as I’m concerned, we’ve had this debate in the past. We’ve come to a landing on this, and we think we’ve struck the appropriate balance. Again, we’re putting the patient at the centre of the system. We want to make sure they’re delivering the best possible care. I’m proud to report that since 2003, 182,000 more clients are now receiving home care as a result of the system we have put in place.

I appreciate the advice offered by my honourable colleague, but I just don’t think we enjoy the luxury of bringing an ideological perspective to these things. We’ve got to strike a balance between ensuring that we have the best-quality care available to our patients—when I say “patients,” these are mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, people who are shut-ins in many cases—and ensuring that we are also being accountable to taxpayers.

I’m confident that by putting the patient at the centre of this and ensuring that we follow the quality outputs very, very closely, we’re in the right place.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. From bears to coyotes, some Ontario wildlife is so abundant that it’s preying upon and damaging agriculture crops, livestock and poultry.

In my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock farmers recognize that wildlife damage is an inherent risk, which they accept. It’s when the damage rises to intolerable levels that they turn to their government for help.

Currently, farmers are eligible for limited compensation for their losses under the Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act. However, they feel that there are some shortcomings with the act. The act only applies to a limited number of predators and livestock.

Could the minister please inform the House what, if any, steps are being taken to address these concerns, to update the act?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you very much for the question.

Certainly, I understand that wildlife can be a very serious concern to the affected producers. There has been a discussion paper on my ministry website that was available till October 1. We will now review the comments. Specifically, we wanted to hear—and I’m just going to name a couple of points—what our farmers had to say about species that should be included and also what would be adequate, what would be fair levels of compensation for predators.

One of the things that I think is a critical piece is, this legislation has not been addressed for 30 years and we recognize that it’s long overdue. The Open for Business bill gave the opportunity to—

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

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: During question period, I said that the government’s plan to bring in an eco tax on cars was on page 30 of the Waste to Worth report. I would like to correct that for the record. It is on page 30 of the PDF version on the minister’s website, but on page 23 of the hard copy of the report.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is a point of order. The member can correct her own record.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like all members to join me—this is the last day for this group of pages. Let’s say thank you to them and wish them all the best.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s great when there is harmony in the House and everyone is working together. The Speaker much appreciates that.

Members, guests and audience, have a great Thanksgiving and make sure that when you’re out shopping for your Thanksgiving dinner you buy local and buy Ontario. Support Ontario farmers. Happy Thanksgiving.

We are recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jim Wilson: It’s my pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park Maureen Millar, the mother of page Christopher Millar, and his grandmother Marie Millar. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I want to introduce Russell Ormerod from the Pelham area, down in the Niagara region, where I live. He’s here today to show his support for Bill 76, the Visual Fire Alarm System Act.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to welcome to the west gallery Shawna Clouthier and Marianne McGee, plus some other people whose names haven’t been provided to me yet. They are here for the introduction of a private member’s bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome a former member who will be joining us today, Gary Malkowski, who represented York East in the 35th Parliament. Gary will be here momentarily.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Jim Wilson: People affected by past public divestments are getting restless because of the McGuinty government’s foot-dragging when it comes to the introduction of regulations to the Pension Benefits Amendment Act.

The bill was passed in May and now it’s October, and honest and hard-working employees still can’t merge their pension assets. With each passing day, countless people are at risk of losing the opportunity for pension fairness.

I want to read from an email I received from an employee of the county of Simcoe:

“While I enjoy my job, I’m looking forward to a change and am anxious to start making plans for retirement. Unfortunately, I can’t do that as I have no idea when this will all be settled. It was not our fault that our responsibility was handed over to the municipality, and to have our pensions reduced was totally unfair....

“As you can well imagine, the stress of waiting gets worse as each day goes by. Please keep working to have this resolved. I worry that many will retire before it is [settled] because they aren’t even aware of the changes.”

I expressed these same concerns to the Premier and Minister of Finance on several occasions, and I know that many others have also done so. None of us has received a response. So I ask again: When will the McGuinty government restore the full pension benefits that these workers have earned?

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members’ statements? The member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. You finally achieved the ability to remember that. Thank you.

I’m pleased to rise today in the Legislature to recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week.

One in five people will experience a mental illness in their lifetime, and increasingly we are all aware of the need for all of us to be more aware and accepting of mental health issues.

In response to this need, Hamilton steelmaker ArcelorMittal Dofasco and it employees have announced a donation of $1.5 million to St. Joseph’s Healthcare’s West 5th mental health campus. This incredible donation will be used by the hospital to build stronger and more comprehensive mental health services for nearly 2.5 million people in south-central Ontario and help reduce the stigma associated with mental illness through best practices in prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

I invite my colleagues and members from all sides of this House to join me in congratulating ArcelorMittal Dofasco and its employees for their wonderful donation. AMD gives credence to the thought that we are indeed all in this together, for good mental health has never been more important. Good mental health is absolutely essential to everyone’s well-being, and it’s a sign of a strong, healthy society.

FOOD BANKS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: This weekend, Canadians will be celebrating Thanksgiving. It’s a time to recognize and thank our farmers. It’s also a time to remember those in need.

There are many Ontario families that simply can’t afford to put food on the table. They rely on our food banks to help them. In 2009, over 375,000 Ontarians used food banks, an all-time high for the province.

I want to commend all the people and organizations who generously donate to Ontario’s food banks. But sadly, over the last few years, there has been a significant drop in donations, due in part to the many processing plants that have been forced out of Ontario.

My colleague Bob Bailey has introduced a private member’s bill that provides a simple solution to help those families and Ontario’s farmers. Bill 78, a bill to fight hunger with local food, provides a tax credit for farmers who donate food to the food bank. This will help farmers pay for the harvesting and transportation of the food they are donating. I want to commen