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

June 9, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Jun-09 (PDF)

L055 - Mon 9 Jun 2008 / Lun 9 jun 2008

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 9 June 2008 Lundi 9 juin 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Order of business

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Unparliamentary language

ORAL QUESTIONS

Skills training

Automotive industry

Automotive industry

Skills training

C. difficile

Poverty

Disaster relief

Tourism

Renewable energy

Elder abuse

School trustees

Child care

Services for the developmentally disabled

Road safety

Health care funding

Members’ anniversaries

PETITIONS

Pope John Paul II

Long-term care

Pope John Paul II

Bluewater Health

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Lord’s Prayer

Hospital funding

Lord’s Prayer

Firearms control

School closures

Hospital services

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Hospital funding

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Uxbridge Cottage Hospital

Capital Food Blitz

Tourism

Hospital services

Malvern Bicycle Classic

Tourism

Skills training

Hockey Night in Canada

Foreign-trained doctors

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Payday Loans Act, 2008 Loi de 2008 concernant les prêts sur salaire

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Order of business

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion regarding division of time for debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 55: that the time available to 10:45 this morning be divided equally among the recognized parties for debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 55,

An Act to enact the Ontario French-language Educational Communications Authority Act, 2008 and make complementary amendments to the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act, following which the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of Bill 55 without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members have heard the motion by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for the splitting of the debate. Agreed? Agreed.

Agreed to.

Ms. Wynne moved third reading of the following bill:

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very pleased to rise to speak to Bill 55 today. French-language education and culture have a huge impact on our province. The very fact of Franco-Ontario culture is part of our definition as Ontarians, because the French-language community plays such an important role in Ontario’s cultural and economic development. That’s why I’m pleased that we are moving forward with this legislation, with third reading. If passed, this legislation would support Ontario’s French-language students, teachers and parents.

This is an educational issue, but it’s also a broader cultural issue for Franco-Ontarians and, as I say, for all Ontarians. This proposed legislation, Bill 55, is the last step required to formally give TFO its independence. In fact, TFO has been operating as an independent entity for some time. TFO has its own board of directors, it administers its own budget and it operates separately from TVO at this point.

Given TFO’s successful transition to becoming an independent broadcaster, it makes complete sense to finish this process and formalize TFO’s status by passing the proposed legislation.

Teachers use TFO’s resources extensively in our French-language schools, and TFO also has the support of Ontario’s francophone community and French-language education stakeholders. Some 83% of Ontario francophones say that it’s essential for all francophones in Ontario to have access to TFO. So if 83% of Ontario francophones are saying that, that goes well beyond our education system. The feedback that TFO receives directly from the public is overwhelmingly positive.

In fact, in 2007-08, TFO received 2,500 phone calls and 1,200 e-mails from viewers, and TFO estimates that 90% of the feedback it gets from the community is positive. I think we would agree that that’s a good rating for any institution.

Ce qui est intéressant, c’est que les sites Web et la programmation éducative de TFO sont populaires non seulement auprès du personnel enseignant, des élèves et de leurs parents ici en Ontario; ils ont aussi comme leur public des élèves francophones du monde entier, ainsi que leurs parents et enseignants. Il est évident que TFO fait un excellent travail.

TFO plays a big role in spreading culture in Franco-Ontario and beyond Ontario, throughout the world. It provides positive reinforcement of Franco-Ontario identity and values in all of their diversity. As I said, to my mind, that is an affirmation of Ontario culture as much as it is an affirmation of Franco-Ontario culture. That’s why I ask everyone in the Legislature to support this legislation. It will make TFO’s self-governing status permanent and it will allow TFO to continue on this very successful path that it has begun.

It’s important we do this now, because we need TFO to continue to provide resources that meet the unique educational and cultural needs of Ontario’s francophone population.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank in advance the members of the Legislature who will support this legislation. I’d like to share my time with the member for Guelph–Wellington, my parliamentary assistant, Liz Sandals.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mrs. Sandals: I too am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 55. As has been mentioned, this proposed legislation is the last step needed to formally make TFO’s independence permanent. In fact, TFO has had its own board and has operated independently from TVO for more than a year now, and TFO recently moved into new independent offices in downtown Toronto.

TFO is a voice that unites francophone communities across Ontario, a voice that allows them to express their Franco-Ontario identity within Canada and a voice that tells the rest of the world who we are. It has become a gateway to reach Franco-Ontario youth through its programming and its website. This is particularly important in ridings like mine, where there’s a very small francophone community and the cable TV outlet doesn’t carry any other French-language service on its standard service: no CBC French, no CTV French. In areas like mine, TFO is really the only access to francophone TV. So it’s very important to the francophone community in areas like mine.

As my colleague the Minister of Education pointed out, TFO has received much praise from the French-language education sector and from Franco-Ontarians. Just two weeks ago, three of TFO’s programs were recognized by the Alliance for Children and Television during its 2008 French-language awards of excellence. This shows that TFO produces French-language educational and cultural programming that is second to none in Canada.

The ministry has also heard from education stakeholders in the Franco-Ontarian community in support of TFO and Bill 55. I would like to share with you some of the comments and submissions we have received from the sector. Mr. Paul Taillefer, president of the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, has this to say about the benefit of passing the proposed legislation: “We are confident that passing the proposed legislation would allow TFO to better meet the needs of schools and the Franco-Ontarian community and to fulfill its role as a francophone producer and broadcaster in Ontario, in Canada and abroad.”

The Centre francophone de Toronto also expressed its support for passing Bill 55 and for an independent TFO. The centre’s executive director, Mr. Gilles Pelletier, added that “governance of services by francophones is the ultimate guarantee that French-language services will be offered on an ongoing basis.”

Ron Marion, president of the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario, said “ACEPO greets Bill 55 with open arms as it would create an autonomous and entrepreneurial TFO—a TFO that supports the sustainable development of communities.”

The Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques also supports Bill 55 and TFO. AFOCSC’s president Robert Tremblay said, “Our TFO is a powerful learning tool for our students. Not only because TFO produces high-quality pedagogical resources ... but also because it provides students with a living window on Ontario’s francophonie.”

If passed, this legislation would make TFO independent and therefore better able to support our students. That is why I urge my fellow members to support this legislation.

I would just like to add that at committee when we did the public hearings on this bill, all the presenters were in support, there were no amendments to the bill and all parties supported the bill. This seems to be a bill that has been very favourably received. I’m looking forward, I hope, to its passage on third reading debate.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I rise today to comment on Bill 55, the Ontario French-language Educational Communications Authority Act, 2008. Why? Because it is back here after committee review. It is absolutely unchanged. It is still one of those bills we simply need to pass, so we will pass it today.

But I beg the indulgence of members here, if I add a few new comments on this government’s priorities, given that we’re spending this time discussing a bill that is, first, already basically implemented, and second, not the kind of thing we couldn’t have dispensed with more readily while we put valuable time to use on a economy that isn’t going to hold up or a health system that can’t seem to get a handle on serious bacterial infection or servicing taxpayers who are funding all of this.

As the opposition critic for francophone affairs, I commend any efforts that are made to promote the French language and culture. That’s why I’m on my feet here today.

Last week when I asked the Minister of Education about Ottawa money—federal dollars—also earmarked for educating our kids in the French language, I was disappointed, to say the least, to hear that this excuse for a government is effectively diverting federal heritage language allocation funds only to the public system after years of ensuring that kids in all schools received the federal grant, to see to it that they also had what is their right: a knowledge of the French language. But not anymore. The minister says you can’t police private schools.

How will we ever police silly moms and dads who choose to smoke in their cars while junior is in his car seat if they can’t police who gets other people’s money to learn French in schools?

Vindictive, nasty and unfair; three of a long list of words I could use to describe the McGuinty Liberals. I could say, “I digress,” but I won’t because it is not digression to describe this web of nonsensical activity that feeds into itself, in one way or the other, to provide things for Ontarians that are questionable as to priority, while leaving the important stuff alone, as people go through life thinking, “Maybe it’ll all be okay.” Would that it were so.

I have looked at our education system and have become aware of the work that is being done to encourage bilingualism. Comme citoyen bilingue, il me semble que c’est normal dans un pays comme le Canada, et c’est pourquoi j’ai exprimé ma difficulté avec certaines décisions récentes du gouvernement McGuinty.

The province of Ontario has some 90,000 students, from 350 schools, who are learning the French language. According to the Ministry of Education, nearly half of Ontario’s teachers regularly use TFO’s programming in the classroom. That is quite appropriate.

TFO has created award-winning educational programs that help parents and teachers alike. TFO provides 225 different teachers’ guides and 15,000 educational resources divided by grade and subject matter. In addition, TFO produces 4,000 educational programs for French-language schools, 1,600 of which are provided free of charge. All of these resources are available through their website. TFO staff also consult with parents and teachers, showing them how to use TFO’s resources effectively.

The people of Ontario should be incredibly impressed with how much work TFO has put into its educational programming, and we have the tax money to do that, apparently—Ontario tax money. But, when Ottawa hands some over for the same purpose, basically—education—that’s for public education only, no longer for private. Why? Because the government can get away with it. Let’s hope Ottawa doesn’t agree.

It is good use of tax money to educate kids in the second official language. It creates value for Ontarians. The continuing resource base provided by TFO gives true meaning to the term “public service.” Our party continues to support Bill 55.

Although we will be supporting this bill, it doesn’t mean we don’t have several reservations about how the McGuinty government has handled this file. In separating TFO, we have effectively created a new government department, complete with all the costs that go with that. Duplication of services could lead to reduced resources for other areas. It will undoubtedly do so. The government failed to bring in this legislation prior to actually separating TFO from TVO—fait accompli. The government announced this intention in 2006 and split them in May 2007.

Why is now the time for legislation, so long after the deed was done? Likely because, as with much of this season’s legislation, it keeps Ontarians’ focus off the big picture. Not to worry, the gas pumps and the cost of a head of lettuce, a pound of cherries or a taxi ride will refocus people this summer.

Debate on Bill 55 was nearly nonexistent and, when it did take place, it was a waste of time. Not because the idea doesn’t make sense, but because it does. Clause-by-clause review at committee lasted three minutes. Deputations were all by French educator-teacher groups. Coverage of this Legislature on both TVO and TFO is almost nonexistent. That has been mentioned repeatedly here. No one seems to care that these television services cost Ontario taxpayers money, lots of money. The services are run for and by Ontarians and they are not out, like commercial broadcasting, to gain ratings or advertising revenues.

So cover the darn Legislature and let taxpayers know what we’re doing here. It ought to be fun. It would scare the daylights out of them, I suggest.

Since taxpayers fund government-owned and -operated networks, one could reasonably expect that the business of interpreting government to taxpaying citizens would be prime in the program makeup of these services. This legislation legitimizes an entirely new department in the province of Ontario. The legislation calls for the creation of a new board of directors, plus regional councils and advisory committees. Will these appointments be more partisan appointments from a government famous for rewarding its friends with taxpayers’ money?

Laughter.

Mr. Peter Shurman: You liked that.

I underscore that just to get it on the record, and I call for doing the right thing: Put people in positions for their knowledge contribution and expertise—no more, no less.

These are reasonable concerns, given the track record of a tax-and-spend regime now entrenched in all aspects of Ontario’s administration. The McGuinty government sat around for a year, knowing this was coming, and what did they do? Nothing. Then the separation came along. Did they act? No. TFO has been a de facto separate entity since May 2007, more than a year. That’s two years of no plan, two years of no action. Now there is action, at a cost, and before it has been discussed, debated or passed by the Legislature, which does have jurisdiction over it, after all.

Do I sound a little ticked off today? Why wouldn’t I be? What are we discussing here? And once passed this week, today in fact, what positive change will our citizens receive besides a new piece of legislation finally recorded on our law books for posterity? All the while, TFO’s legal status has been in limbo because this government hadn’t separated them from TVO in legal terms. The bill doesn’t do anything new. It basically is a fix.

According to Claudette Paquin, the current CEO of TFO: “TFO is a well-recognized resource for French-language students, teachers and parents, and is greatly appreciated by francophiles across Ontario. This legislation is the last step to officially make TFO into an independent, self-governed educational broadcaster. We hope with all our hearts that the legislation will be passed.”

We on this side of the House agree with Ms. Paquin’s assessment of TFO. With the support of our party, it will be passed; in fact, it will pass unanimously, I suspect. But it cannot go unsaid that this is the work of an arrogant government that more and more often puts the cart before the horse and thinks that’s just fine. After waiting two years for this legislation to be introduced, of course Madame Paquin hopes this bill is passed.

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Shurman: The derision I hear on the other side simply confirms what I’m saying. TFO is an organization whose efforts I support and applaud for what it does. It is also an organization that has been purchasing property, acquiring assets and entering into contracts.

How is it that we have departments splitting off from one another without legislative control before the fact? It kind of explains things, doesn’t it? First nations issues: “Don’t worry. We’re fixing it.” C. difficile infections: “Don’t worry. We’re fixing it.” Massive economic shifts, unhealthy to our once-proud province: “Don’t worry. We’re fixing it.” Thank you, Dalton McGuinty. But on the TFO file, can the minister explain who would be responsible in the case of, for example, a legal dispute?

This sort of mismanagement begs the question: Who is actually running things? Is the minister running her department or is the department running the minister? We have learned that with this government in control of taxpayers’ money, the inmates are in control of the asylum. I know, I know, I used that line in another debate, but I liked it so much I wanted to use it again.

Clearly, this is a government that has no plan. Both TVO and TFO receive the bulk of their funding from the people of Ontario. For the most part, the networks provide either educational or highly relevant programming, so why is there this exception—the incredibly poor coverage that the proceedings in this very House receive from both of our public broadcasters? They have a responsibility to provide better coverage to educate the people of Ontario as to what goes on in this chamber.

For many in the francophone community, TFO represents the best access that they will have to provincially relevant news, and it’s wonderful that extra funding for the teaching of French to public and Catholic schoolchildren will continue on Ottawa’s dime. Perhaps the private schools can use TFO too, at their own expense, to teach a heritage language, because they’ll have to if they want to and if they want to do what the ministry is talking about in terms of French language while it purloins the Ottawa dollars earmarked for this purpose.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: You can TiVo it.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Yes, we’ll TiVo it.

TVO and TFO should be used to promote and maintain the cultural diversity of our communities.

In closing, francophone people have a long, rich heritage here in Ontario. They have raised generation after generation of children here. They have worked hard; they have helped to build our province. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has fought and will continue to fight to ensure that their culture is promoted and celebrated here in Ontario. This bill, although late, will help to ensure that the francophone people of this province have continued access to media content in their own language.

I believe it is indeed something that we can all support, but I again would remind the government that the power of what we have created goes well beyond what is envisioned. Let us use it wisely.

M. Gilles Bisson: C’est avec une certaine fierté et une joie que je suis ici ce matin pour finalement, en troisième lecture, finir le débat sur ce projet de loi pour créer une autonomie pour la chaîne de TFO, quelque chose qui a commencé il y a déjà une couple d’années et qui va finir avec notre propre législation qui donne les droits et les pouvoirs nécessaires pour permettre à TFO d’opérer avec une autonomie à elle-même, et n’être pas seulement une organisation qui est fusionnée avec un organisation bilingue.

J’ai écouté le membre conservateur parler. C’est un peu le même débat qu’on a entendu en deuxième lecture, puis des commentaires qui étaient donnés au comité. On parle d’une perte d’argent. On dit qu’on pourrait mieux dépenser nos sous si on avait une organisation bilingue, et créer une TFO autonome à côté de TVO—ce n’est pas nécessairement méchant, la manière dans laquelle le membre conservateur le dit—

Interjection.

M. Gilles Bisson: Merci, madame la ministre. C’est bien beau d’avoir cette discussion-ci avec vous aujourd’hui. C’est votre législation. J’aimerais avoir une chance d’en parler et puis de comprendre.

Je veux parler de la question de ce qui arrive avec des organisations bilingues par rapport aux organisations autonomes. Ce qui arrive dans beaucoup d’instances, quand c’est une organisation bilingue, c’est que le groupe francophone se trouve dans une situation minoritaire dans une organisation qui est par majorité anglophone. Ce qui arrive, c’est que chaque fois que tu essaies d’avancer un projet ou faire des décisions quelconques, c’est toujours la bataille de convaincre tes collègues. Ce n’est pas que tes collègues sont méchants, mais ils ne comprennent pas ta situation.

Ils n’ont pas vécu ta vie; ils ne marchent pas le même chemin. Donc, c’est toujours à convaincre. C’est difficile d’avancer les dossiers pour être capable de mieux desservir ta communauté.

Un bon exemple, c’est les conseils scolaires. Quand on avait des conseils scolaires, soit séparés ou publics, c’étaient des conseils bilingues. Par exemple, chez nous dans mon coin on avait les francophones comme majoritaires sur le conseil catholique, avec les anglophones en minorité. Quand je parle à mes collègues anglophones qui ont servi sur ces conseils-là, eux autres disent qu’ils ont eu le même problème que les francophones quand ils se trouvaient en minorité. Si tu veux avancer un projet, tu as besoin d’être capable de convaincre tous les autres sur le CA ou sur la commission à prendre ta position.

Ce qui arrive, comme j’ai dit, ce n’est pas parce que ce monde-là sont méchants, c’est juste qu’ils ne comprennent pas, et ce qui arrive est que tout devient une bataille.

Justement, une des présentations que j’ai eues—je ne me rappelle pas trop le nom—c’était quelqu’un qui avait vécu cette expérience, qui avait travaillé comme conseil élu catholique sur un conseil où les francophones étaient minoritaires, et ce qui arrive, c’est qu’à cette heure ils sont majoritaires. Il a dit qu’avec les avances qu’on a faites avec notre propre conseil francophone majoritaire où nous autres on est autonomes, on était capables d’avancer des dossiers dans 10 ans comme on n’en avait jamais pu avancer dans l’organisation bilingue.

C’est une raison pour laquelle les francophones veulent avoir leur propre gestion dans certaines organisations, parce que c’est clé d’être capable d’avancer ses dossiers, c’est clé d’être capable de faire ce qu’il y a à faire sans toujours avoir des batailles soit avec l’administration ou alors avec ton CA, afin d’être capable d’avancer des dossiers.

L’autre partie, après l’école, non seulement au primaire ou au secondaire, c’est aussi la question des collèges et des universités : on a établi un système de collèges francophones en Ontario. Le Collège Boréal et, à Ottawa—voyons. Le collège francophone.

Interjection.

M. Gilles Bisson: Mon Dieu. Non, non. Boréal, et à Ottawa c’est—

M. Phil McNeely: Cité collégiale.

M. Gilles Bisson: Cité collégiale. Merci beaucoup. Est-ce que tu as des blancs de mémoire des fois? C’est impossible à figurer pourquoi j’ai eu ce blanc de mémoire-là, parce qu’on a assez travaillé avec ces organisations-là.

Sur la question de TFO, au moins, c’est un aperçu ontarien. Le problème avec Radio-Canada—c’est excellent comme organisation et c’est du bon monde qui travaille bien fort, mais c’est plutôt un aperçu du Québec. Il faut comprendre qu’en Ontario, les francophones ne se voient pas comme Québécois; on se voit comme Franco-Ontariens. Ce n’est pas dire qu’on est en chicane avec nos amis québécois ou québécoises. Ça ne veut dire rien d’autre que notre identité est totalement différente.

Oui, ma famille, les Bisson, est

partie de la France, et elle a été au Québec et est restée là pour 200 ans, 250 ans—plus longtemps que ça, de 1640 jusqu’au début du dernier siècle, environ. Mais ils sont venus en Ontario et la famille a changé son aperçu quand elle est venue vivre ici en Ontario parce que c’est ce qui arrive quand on déménage de notre coin du monde.

Donc, TFO nous donne un aperçu francophone pour ceux qui demeurent en Ontario, et surtout pour ceux qui se trouvent dans une situation minoritaire.

Avec ça, je suis très fier aujourd’hui de supporter cette législation et je regarde pour le passage de ce projet de loi.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Merci.

Further debate? Seeing no further debate, Ms. Wynne has moved third reading of Bill 55. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Third reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Orders of the day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Madam Speaker, I seek consent for the House to recess until 10:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. This House now stands recessed until 10:45 a.m.

The House recessed from 0943 to 1045.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning, members. I take this opportunity on behalf of the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan to welcome some guests from Agnew H. Johnston Public School in Thunder Bay: Pauline Fontaine, Mike Judge and Alison Lavoie.

On behalf of page Taylor Martin, her mother, Linda; her father, David; her brother Jonathan, who’s a former page; and her brother Andrew, who’s a former page, are in the west members’ gallery. We welcome you to Queen’s Park today.

On behalf of page Gregory Nettleton, his mother, Judy Nettleton, is sitting in the public gallery today.

I’d also like to welcome, in the Speaker’s gallery, Kathie Cunningham, my office manager from my constituency office, who’s visiting Queen’s Park. Welcome, Kathie.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I’d like to extend a very warm welcome to the Canada Egypt Business Council delegation, led by the Honourable Dr. Hany Helal, Egyptian Minister of Higher Education and State for Scientific Research, and accompanied by His Excellency Ambassador Wafaa El Hadidy, Consul General of Egypt, and Mr. Assem Mohamed Fahmy Ragab, Chairman of Investment Authority of Egypt, who are seated in the Speaker’s gallery. Welcome to our guests today.

Unparliamentary language

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just like to make a comment regarding last Thursday. Last Thursday, I called the leader of the official opposition to order and asked him to withdraw certain language on the grounds that it imputed motives to another member. Upon review of the phrase in its entirety, I have found it to be within the bounds of what is acceptable in this place. I perhaps reacted too hastily. For that, I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. My apologies.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Skills training

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Right off the top, Speaker, thank you for that. That was very gracious of you. I think it sends a very positive signal about your role in that chair.

My question is to the Premier. Last week, I asked about the $5 million doled out to Local 793 of the operating engineers’ union in a seven-month period, a grant that represented 20% of the total skills training fund; 50 other applicants received the remaining funds. Can the Premier tell the House today why Local 793’s application was so special that it received significantly more tax dollars than any other successful applicant?

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

Hon. John Milloy: As I indicated last week, I’m very proud of the investments our government has made in terms of skills training. As I pointed out, about 14% of apprentices in Ontario are trained through union training centers and union-employer training centres. Our government recognized that through the creation of the STIP program, which was $25 million in equipment and other capital that was made available.

These investments were made available to all union and union-employer training centres. Through two public and competitive calls for proposals, contracts were awarded based both on eligibility criteria and weighted evaluation criteria. The delegation of authority to approve and award transfer payments was made to the public service. It was delegated to them, with the final sign-off of the deputy minister. It was a clear and transparent process. The allegations—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Apparently, members of Local 793 have a different view behind you handing them $5 million in tax dollars. In their March newsletter, they congratulate their business manager, Mike Gallagher, for his success in lobbying the government and landing $5 million in tax dollars. The exact words: “The effort has paid off in spades and the return on investment has been phenomenal—something like 5,000%.” Minister, is the investment they’re referring to the $153,000 they contributed to Working Families?

Hon. John Milloy: As I mentioned last week, the allegations that are coming from the leader of the second party are outrageous. If he has proof of this, I wish he’d table it here in the House. The simple fact of the matter is that this was an open and transparent process.

The funds in question went for the following: in Morrisburg, six tractor loader backhoes, four dozers, three packers and two excavators; in Oakville, two boom trucks, a truck-mounted crane, a conventional crane, a conventional crane simulator and a concrete pump; in Morrisburg, a bulldozer and ripper, three skid steers, three mini excavators, two concrete pump simulators, three excavators and ten mechanical hoe simulators.

I’m proud that we’re able to invest in skilled trades in this province. Just because that party, when they were in power, did nothing for skilled trades or apprenticeships doesn’t give them the right to stand up with unwarranted accusations.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In the June 15, 2007 edition of the Toronto Star, Ian Urquhart reported that Working Families was re-forming in preparation for the upcoming provincial election and “expected to get the go-ahead … next week.” The very next week, June 18, the aforementioned Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Pat Dhillon, a principal of Working Families, met with the former finance minister and Liberal party campaign chair. There was no agenda and no minutes of that apparently secret meeting. One week following that meeting, Local 793 received the first instalment, a $3.3-million grant.

Connect the dots. The chain of events reeks of wrongdoing. Minister, will you commit to releasing the details and purpose of that meeting? Did you use taxpayer dollars to cement a sweetheart deal with Working Families?

Hon. John Milloy: The claims by the Leader of the Opposition are simply untrue. If he has any evidence, I wish he’d bring it forward, or if not, recall them. I am quite frankly surprised that the member opposite does not recall the important work that operating engineers do, especially since when he was Minister of Economic Development and Trade he made a special trip to their training facilities in Morrisburg for a photo op and to present them with a $2.3-million cheque.

Let me quote from the press release at the time: “‘Upgrading skills of employees in the heavy equipment industry is vital for this sector. Skilled workers strengthen the competitiveness of businesses and industry in Ontario …’ said Bob Runciman, Minister of Economic Development and Trade.”

I am happy to bring forth the details of this program to any member of the House, as well as a very handsome photo of Mr. Runciman presenting the cheque to the operating engineers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the member of the use of props.

Automotive industry

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Before I begin, I’d just like to say to our visiting delegation: 'as-salāmu-calaykum.

My question is for the Premier. Less than three weeks ago, the CAW and General Motors workers signed an agreement that was found to be null and void 16 days later. During that agreement, the CAW workers made substantial concessions in the vacation area, the wages area and the benefits packages as well.

Premier, the province of Ontario used to have a considerable advantage, whether it was through WSIB or through OHIP. Workers in other jurisdictions are now seeing that and are eliminating those competitive advantages for the province of Ontario. Premier, what is your plan to give the auto sector and the manufacturing sector that competitive advantage to make sure we’re strong in the future?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important to note that a few months ago we were able to table in this House an economic update—that was last December—followed by a budget that was tabled in this House. On both of those occasions, we embedded in those budget documents initiatives that would lower business costs for Ontario. These are the kinds of initiatives that were hailed by business communities, saying “This is exactly what we need.” They pointed out very specific items they were looking for. One of them was the elimination of the capital tax. That was made retroactive to January 1, 2007.

An organization about the size of General Motors had a savings of some $10 million. These are the kinds of initiatives that business has asked for and that in fact they have had.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary, the member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to refer the question back again to the Premier, as this is such an important matter. As the member from Oshawa has pointed out, to be competitive today, you’ve got to have some plan. Now the minister has suggested you have a plan. Well, that’s of very little use to the 2,600 families that now don’t have jobs, who are part of the larger picture of over 200,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector.

The real issue here, if you can think through this plan, Minister, is the ripple effect in the economy. Think of the municipalities who will now lose the tax from that industry. It’s not just General Motors. The whole manufacturing sector is in peril, and you seem to be asleep at the switch. In my view, if you look at the ancillary industries, this is a serious problem, and what I don’t hear is any consistent plan is to have a recovery in the manufacturing sector of Ontario.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I would think that if this member chooses to stand up and ask questions of this nature, he would check with some of the experts in the field, like the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association. Ask its director or its member executive how they feel about this provincial government and how we’ve come to the table, trying in these very challenging times to work with this sector to see that they have opportunities. In fact, in our last budget alone, we targeted to the very supply chain that this member references some $50 million of assistance that is now finding its way to those companies in the supply chain.

These are the kinds of real ways to help an industry that is challenged. I look forward to yet another question where we can table more examples of how this government has come to the table time and time again for a very important sector of the Ontario economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary, the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Premier, you can’t just sit there and wring your hands. This is a situation that requires action now. Premier, will you commit today to bringing together business, labour and community leaders to develop a plan to deal with this devastating blow to our economy?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important in these challenging times that we do what the people who are looking for assistance from all levels of government do, and that is, work together to find solutions. That means that this government will continue to call on the federal government to join us with our automotive strategy.

Let me just say this. This in fact was written by the one individual who represents all of the CAW workers. In the words of Buzz Hargrove, “The attacks of Runciman and Hampton on Ontario’s auto strategy are anything but informed. They are an attempt to make cheap political points at the expense of tens of thousands of hard-working autoworkers in Ontario who quite rightly fear for their future. Myself and my members are deeply offended”—as are we on this side of the House.

Automotive industry

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is a question to the Premier. General Motors signed a collective agreement with auto workers just last month. General Motors promised its workers would have jobs at the Oshawa truck plant until the end of the contract. Now, 2,600 workers are being put out the door. While General Motors puts workers out the door, they’re still collecting the $235-million handout from the McGuinty government.

The Premier has said here in the Legislature and elsewhere in the province that as a result of the $235-million handout, a new hybrid-powered truck would be built at the Oshawa truck plant. Clearly, General Motors deceived its workers. My question is, did General Motors also deceive the Premier and the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We intend to continue, notwithstanding the reluctance of my colleague opposite, to pursue as aggressively as we can new investment in the auto sector in the province of Ontario. The leader of the NDP has never been onside for our approach, notwithstanding the tremendous successes that we have enjoyed. He has never been onside, notwithstanding the fact that in comparison and in contrast to what has happened to the auto sector in Michigan and other states south of the border, we’ve enjoyed remarkable successes.

He remains adamantly opposed to the government rolling up its sleeves, sitting down with the auto workers, sitting down with the auto sector and doing what we can to land new investment here in the province of Ontario. At some point in time, I hope that he will stand up in favour of new investment in the auto sector in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I heard a lot of words, but no answer. One presumes that the Premier knew what he was talking about when he went outside this Legislature and boasted that a new hybrid truck would be built in Oshawa, when he told this Legislature on May 7 that General Motors would build a new hybrid-powered truck in Oshawa, when he told this Legislature on May 13 that a new hybrid-powered truck would be built here in Oshawa. But it turns out that the Premier didn’t know what he was talking about. The Premier has either been duped by a large multinational corporation or his government is incompetent. I ask the Premier, which is it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my friend remains adamantly opposed to finding ways to work in a highly competitive global economy to land new auto sector investment in the province of Ontario. He thinks we should write off that sector. Canadian and American consumers on an annual basis, in a bad year, are still buying 15 million cars; in a good year, they buy 18 million or more. The leader of the NDP says that we should get out of the auto business in the province of Ontario. I disagree, and so do the workers and the families that rely on their living—and a prosperous future as well.

We have, through countless agreements—whether with Toyota, Honda, GM, Valiant, Ford, the Ford Essex engine plant, Chrysler, Nemak, Linamar, AGS and Denso, to list a few—landed significant new investments in the auto sector in Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier obviously wants to avoid answering any questions about General Motors. New Democrats believe in making strategic investments to sustain jobs, but unlike the McGuinty government, we believe we need to get product guarantees or job guarantees before you give $235 million to General Motors. The Premier may not like it, but Ontarians have a right to know what the Premier agreed to with General Motors. After all, it’s their money, and after all, Ford also received $100 million and Chrysler $77 million. We need to know, are we going to see more layoffs at those companies?

So I ask the Premier again—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Question?

Mr. Howard Hampton: —will he own up to the fact that the Premier and the McGuinty government bungled their negotiations with General Motors when he gave them $235 million and now they’re laying off thousands of—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The leader of the NDP knows that there was a penalty provision in place. It looks like circumstances will evolve in such a way that a penalty will in fact ensue and we will enforce the contract, should that in fact occur, some time next year.

But let me talk about some of the other things that we have done through that particular investment. It included a $58-million investment for our new Automotive Centre of Excellence at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology to ensure that the parts and vehicles of tomorrow are researched, designed and built in Ontario. That was part of the package that demonstrates once again that we are looking out at the distant horizon when it comes to securing new investment in new product in the auto sector in the province of Ontario.

There is a marked difference, a stunning contrast. The leader of the NDP believes we should do nothing. We believe that we have an obligation to roll up our sleeves, work with both sides and land continuing new investment.

Skills training

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: Yes, engineering and design may be done in Oshawa, but the jobs are all going to Mexico, and that’s as a direct result of your government’s bungling the whole agreement with General Motors.

But it turns out that not only have you bungled the operation with General Motors, but now, you’ve also bungled your much-boasted-about second-career retraining program.

It appears that 10,000 forest sector workers who were laid off in northern Ontario will not be eligible for second-career retraining. Not only did you let down the workers in Oshawa, Premier, but it seems you have no regard for all those workers in northern Ontario who were laid off. How can you do this sort of thing to workers who are facing a very difficult time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We are very proud of our new program. It’s the first of its kind in Canada. It creates two-year, long-term training opportunities for workers who have lost their jobs during the course of the past year.

There is a significant new investment associated with this program. The leader of the NDP says that it is not enough. It’s reaching out to 20,000 Ontario workers who have lost their jobs. He loses sight, of course, of the fact that through our existing Employment Ontario program—that’s a $1-billion annual investment—we are caring for 900,000 other Ontario workers.

What we’re asking the Ontario worker to do is not easy. There are 20,000 opportunities, but if you’re 43 with two children and a mortgage, to go back to school for two years is a significant sacrifice. My hope is that that new program, available for 20,000, will be greatly oversubscribed.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the Premier struggles to avoid answering the question. The fact is that your so-called second-career program only works in terms of people who were laid off after June 1, 2007. The reality for northern Ontario is that most people in the forest sector lost their jobs before June 1, 2007. So workers in Thunder Bay, Chapleau, Dubreuilville, Nipigon, Red Rock, Smooth Rock Falls, Kenora, Dryden, Ignace, Espanola and Nairn Centre all lost their jobs before June 1, 2007.

Premier, tell those workers in northern Ontario why the McGuinty government thinks they’re second-class workers and aren’t worthy of access to this kind of job retraining.

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

Hon. John Milloy: To reiterate what the Premier said, right now we have, through Employment Ontario, access to 900,000 workers for supports throughout Ontario. We’re spending $1 billion a year. Second career, which was announced several years ago, enhances that by offering additional training to workers who want to move that step forward.

As the Premier mentioned, there are right now, through Employment Ontario, access to 900,000. Over the next few months, as we have workers come forward under second career, we’re going to be monitoring the ones who come forward, we’re going to be monitoring the ones who are not eligible for the program and making any adjustments to the program to make sure that it’s enhanced and serves the best needs of Ontario employees.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, both the Premier and his minister try to avoid the question. There’s only one answer to this. Either you have bungled this job-training strategy or you just don’t care about those laid-off workers in northern Ontario.

The fact of the matter is, literally whole communities have had their economies wiped out. Whole communities have watched 500 or 1,000 workers laid off and they have very few options, other than retraining.

I simply ask the McGuinty government again: Is this your message to laid-off workers in northern Ontario? They don’t count? They don’t matter? They’re not worthy of job retraining? Or have you simply bungled this, just as you bungled the $235-million cheque to General Motors?

Hon. John Milloy: The leader of the NDP is being mischievous with his question. He knows darn well that we invest over a billion dollars a year in terms of retraining opportunities for all workers across this province.

As soon as we learn that there may be a possibility of a downsizing or a possibility of a layoff, within one hour our ministry is in contact with the plant in question, with the union, with the workers, with the community. We’ve set up rapid re-employment training centres in communities. We’ve set up adjustment in communities. We’ve made sure that we work with all affected to make sure that there are opportunities for all workers to receive the support that they need—support in finding a job, support in training opportunities and support moving forward. Second career adds to these supports, but it’s in addition to the $1 billion that we’re already spending.

To stand up in this Legislature and suggest that we are not helping workers in communities throughout northern Ontario is wrong and it’s mischievous. We are investing—

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

C. difficile

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Premier. Today’s Hamilton Spectator reports that when Northern Ireland was hit with 51 C. difficile deaths, the health minister set an immediate action plan in motion where an expert panel did a comprehensive three-month review. In a letter to you dated May 15 of this year, our leader, John Tory, asked you to do just what Northern Ireland did; that is, commence an investigation that would report back in 90 days. Why haven’t you proceeded with the investigation? Why is the death of over 260 people from C. difficile not enough to spur this government into protecting public confidence in our health care system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to take the question. I know that the Minister of Health has spoken to this on several occasions, and he has related to the opposition that we have had three independent reviews thus far. There was a coroner’s jury that made specific recommendations, there has been an investigation into the Joseph Brant outbreak, and our government has our own medical expert advisory committee that has made recommendations.

But I think it’s also important to take into account the views of Dr. Richard Schabas, a former chief medical officer of health in the province of Ontario, who said that the Conservative government turned its back on public safety. When he was asked about an additional public inquiry, he said the following: “I’m not sure a public inquiry is necessarily the logical next step. They often make for good theatre, but they don’t get us where we need to go, which is to address this problem in a vigorous and effective way, and I think largely we already know what the underlying problems are with C. difficile.” I’m inclined to agree with the expert.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Over 260 people have died from C. difficile that we know of. That’s a crisis, and that should be dealt with. The

article from the Hamilton Spectator goes on to say, “Graham Tanner of Britain’s National Concern for Healthcare Infections says the first act in dealing with a superbug like C. diff is to accept that a severe problem exists,” which you do not do. It also says that “a British patient advocate, who has been following the spread of the bacterium around the world, says the Ontario government ‘appears to be in denial’ over C. diff.”

Premier, over the last four years, despite repeated warnings that C. difficile does exist, you sat back while scores of people have died unnecessarily from this virulent strain of C. difficile since 2004. The Ombudsman has referred to you as being “inexcusably lax” on this life-threatening matter. I ask you again: Why won’t you launch an investigation and treat C. difficile as the serious health threat that it is?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, to use Dr. Schabas’s expression, it might “make for good theatre,” but what we need to do now is move ahead on the basis of the information that we do in fact have.

In December 2004, the provincial infectious disease advisory committee sent out its best practices document on C. difficile—back in 2004. Since then, we’ve established 137 new infection control positions in hospitals. Handwashing guidelines have been referenced countless times during the past several years. In March 2007, the acting chief medical officer of health—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ve warned the member from Renfrew repeatedly. Any more outbursts and I’ll be forced to eject him. Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to list a few of the steps that have been taken even more recently: In March 2007, the chief medical officer of health sent out C. difficile fact sheets to all our medical officers of health and our hospitals. They sent out countless C. difficile bulletins as well in the same month. In May, they held focus seminars. There have been video conferences. We have updated best practices documents—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question, the member from Beaches–East York.

Poverty

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. After the minister of poverty reduction’s private, by-invitation-only, last-minute so-called poverty consultations are over, Ontarians have now learned from her that no public report will be released. Countless taxpayers’ dollars are being spent on these sham hearings. The poor have barely been consulted, and now we know that there will be no report released.

This government must be accountable. Why won’t the government show that it’s serious about reducing poverty and publish a report before the Legislature returns in September?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased with the work that Minister Matthews is doing on behalf of all Ontarians. We have committed ourselves, notwithstanding some challenging economic circumstances, to find a way to make a real difference in the lives of families, but especially children who are growing up in poverty in Ontario.

There have been a number of consultations held throughout the province. I understand that there will be several held in the greater Toronto area—tonight, in fact—and I would invite the member opposite to hold one on his own.

I just don’t think that families affected by poverty are looking for another report. I think they’re looking for action, and that what we’ve committed to do.

Mr. Michael Prue: Obviously, the Premier has not listened to the criticism that has been out there—the outcries of Ontarians who were shut out of the meetings. Surely the public has the right to hear what the hand-picked few had to say at those meetings.

We wonder why the minister is afraid to release her findings. Why won’t this government prove that it is serious about reducing poverty and make its findings public?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand that there are three public meetings tonight in the city of Toronto. The member opposite is invited to attend whichever one he would like to attend. I am also advised that the minister had been writing on her website after each meeting. He can log on and read the updates that are made available there.

What we are determined to do is to put in place specific indicators that help us better understand poverty, help us better measure poverty, put in place some ambitious targets and then make transparent our successes or, frankly, lack thereof when it comes to achieving those targets. That has never been done before. It has never been embraced by any government before. We look forward to doing that. We think it’s the right thing to do. And in a highly competitive global economy, it’s absolutely essential that we issue an all-hands-on-deck edict to all Ontarians. We need everybody at their best, and that’s what we intend to do.

Disaster relief

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. On Thursday evening and Friday morning in Thunder Bay and surrounding area there was an incredibly heavy rainfall in a very short period of time. I want to thank you, your staff and the ministry for all their support and constant communication. I appreciate the work of the EMO.

Minister, small organized communities in my riding like Neebing, Oliver Paipoonge, O’Connor, Conmee, Gillies and Fort William First Nation have been severely affected in terms of their infrastructure as a result of the downpour, which led to localized flooding. As well, unorganized areas like Nolalu have been severely affected, and their local services board is working diligently to fix and repair the damage caused by the rain.

Minister, can you provide this House with a status update of the situation in my affected communities?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I would like to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for this very important question. Last Friday, a sudden rainstorm caused pretty significant flooding in Thunder Bay-area townships and the Fort William First Nation. Emergency Management Ontario successfully coordinated the provincial response and facilitated the flow of information between the province and the municipalities.

EMO field officers were deployed to the area to provide advice and assistance as necessary, and the Office of the Fire Marshal assisted by coordinating local fire services. The Ontario Provincial Police is actively working with affected communities to warn the public of any dangerous road conditions and is taking steps to make communities accessible by road.

The provincial emergency operations centre continues to monitor the situation closely. We are thankful that no serious injuries occurred, and we thank the communities for their incredible interactions during this very serious time.

Mr. Bill Mauro: As mentioned, many small townships in unorganized areas have been severely damaged. Our government has recognized that small townships have small tax bases and major infrastructure responsibilities. Through our budget announcements and infrastructure programs, communities like Gillies, Oliver Paipoonge, O’Connor, Conmee and Neebing have received provincial assistance for roads and bridges in their areas.

By Saturday afternoon, I had managed to reach most of my affected mayors, although some, understandably, were very busy. These mayors and residents of unorganized areas will once again be looking to us for assistance. Mayors like John Valenthe in Gillies, Bob Rydholm in Conmee, Ron Nelson in O’Connor, Steve Harrasen in Neebing and Lucy Klusterhuis in Oliver Paipoonge, as well as my residents in unorganized areas, want to know what assistance we will be able to provide as they struggle to meet this latest challenge. Minister, what assistance is available for these communities in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: I join my colleague Minister Bartolucci in thanking the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for his hands-on work with this very troubling situation in northwest Ontario.

The Ontario disaster relief assistance program, ODRAP, provides assistance when damages are so extensive that they exceed the capacity of a municipality or a community to pay those costs. I understand that the townships of O’Connor and Gillies have, in fact, declared a state of emergency under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. Affected municipalities have up to 14 days after the emergency to declare a state of emergency.

My ministry will work quickly to work with the member and to help those municipalities in need. Ministry staff will evaluate all requests for assistance by ODRAP, and I’ll review their recommendations quickly. I can assure the member that our staff will work with the affected municipalities to help them through the ODRAP process.

Tourism

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. At a cost of $8 million, the Premier recently appointed the member for Vaughan to study the tourism industry in Ontario. But we need action now, not a year from now or two years from now, as per the study’s original time frame. Today our tourism industry is heading into what could be one of its worst summers on record. That’s why John Tory’s plan to eliminate the retail sales tax on accommodation and attractions would stimulate tourism so that families can save money and actually have their holidays in Ontario.

My question is this: Will the Premier instruct his $8-million tourism czar to at least consider this plan, and if not, what immediate relief will he provide the tourism industry this summer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to commend my colleague opposite for his ongoing commitment to enhancing tourism opportunities in Ontario. I want to let him know that we continue to make some real progress in that regard.

More Ontario families are choosing to vacation in the province than ever before. Our plan to increase tourism within the province in particular is working in helping to grow the economy. Stats Canada figures from April to June 2007—we look forward to seeing where they’re going to be for this year—show 21 million visits within the province. That’s a 5% increase over the year before. It’s the third-highest increase in Canada. Some $2.3 billion was spent on travel; that was nearly a 4% increase over the year before.

Some $1.4 billion was spent on overnight trips; again, that was nearly a 4% increase over the year before. So, notwithstanding a struggling economy otherwise, tourism continues to grow at a healthy rate in the province.

Mr. Ted Arnott: That’s just not good enough. Their study so far has done nothing except put tourism in the red—Liberal red, incidentally. It’s just the beginning of June and our tourism numbers are already in freefall. Just ask the members from Simcoe North and Parry Sound–Muskoka. Our plan would allow families to keep their summer travel plans in Ontario. The Premier’s plan offers nothing but travel plans for the member for Vaughan. I ask the Premier: What will he do today to stop the ripple effect that a weakening tourism industry will have on our economy this summer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, one of the things of which we are very proud is our advertising campaign: “There’s no place like this.” I know that the member opposite will have seen some of those ads, and I’m sure that he’s very much supportive of those. We’ve been using a number of entertainers and Ontario personalities to help promote the quality of the tourism experience in Ontario. Especially given rising gas prices, I know that Ontario families are still determined to seek out some kind of experience, modest though it may be, when it comes to having some kind of a holiday opportunity with the children.

We are strongly encouraging them to look just around the corner to the wonderful experiences that are to be found in this province. From the great northwest all the way down to the Niagara region, there are all kinds of great family, quality opportunities to be enjoyed this summer in Ontario.

Renewable energy

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: Minister, your recent changes to the renewable energy standard offer program will curtail the provision of badly needed wind, biomass and solar power in this province. You have a continuing policy to keep OPG out of developing renewable power, although they have considerable expertise. Minister, why are you turning your back on renewable power? Why are you betting the province’s future on your nuclear gamble?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Actually, it’s quite the contrary, I might say. He perhaps doesn’t understand it. Our whole idea is to more than double the use of renewables in Ontario. As a matter of fact, we’d hoped that under this plan, called RESOP, to have over a 10-year period 1,000 megawatts. After 18 months, we’ve already signed, I think, 1,400 megawatts. It is phenomenally successful—so successful that we are making some adjustments to continue to expand it dramatically.

I would say to the member that in the next few days we will be going out for another 500 megawatts of clean, renewable energy. We are going to be going out for another 500 megawatts of combined heat and power. We are aggressively pursuing—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So if you’re aggressively pursuing it, why do sustainable energy advocates say that you’re cutting back in the north and southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario? Why are you suspending those payments? Why are you suspending those purchases of renewable power? Why are you not going to the maximum on renewable power and avoiding the $40-billion nuclear gamble?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Again, I say to the member, and particularly to the public, we are aggressively pursuing and expanding the reuse of renewable resources. Our problem is that we have an excess of applicants wanting to come forward and we are trying our best to accommodate them. The member should recognize that what we’re doing in the next few days is another 500 megawatts. The renewable energy program—the RESOP program—is one of a kind in North America. We’re very proud of it; 1,300 megawatts after 18 months. We thought we’d do it in 10 years and we did it in 18 months. We are going to continue wherever we can to accept those applications.

To the member, there may be the odd person who may be complaining because they can’t get access, but for the overwhelming majority of people involved in renewable energy, I think they would say that Ontario is leading the way, and we will continue to do that.

Elder abuse

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. Minister, elder abuse is a very serious issue facing many of our seniors in Ontario, and it is estimated that between 4% and 10% of Ontario seniors experience some form of abuse at some point during their later years. I’m certain that all of my colleagues in this Legislature would agree that simply is not acceptable. Ontario seniors have played a crucial role in building our province and we must protect them from all forms of abuse.

Can the minister responsible for seniors please inform the House what steps our government has taken to prevent elder abuse from occurring?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is quite right, as ever. Elder abuse cannot be tolerated. Ontario seniors have helped to build and maintain a strong Ontario, and they continue to make valuable contributions to our province. Our seniors deserve to live with dignity and they deserve respect and to be in a safe environment. That’s why this government is building safer communities for Ontario’s seniors by investing in the elder abuse prevention strategy.

I’m more than pleased that the McGuinty government recently provided $209,000 for the Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse to help the prevention network protect seniors from all forms of abuse. This investment will ensure that Ontario’s seniors have the help and support they need to live safely and with dignity.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I am very pleased that the government recognizes the seriousness of elder abuse in Ontario. My riding of Huron–Bruce is home to a very large number of seniors, so this issue is of a great deal of interest to me professionally and personally. The government and its partners must work together to raise awareness of elder abuse and they must continue to support prevention initiatives across our province. After many years spent working and raising a family, seniors deserve to be treated with the utmost respect for all that they have contributed to our society.

Can the minister explain how this elder abuse prevention funding will protect our Ontario seniors?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: In spite of the catcalls, which I guess indicate some lack of interest or indifference to this matter, people on this side of the House consider elder abuse an incredibly important issue, one that we are compelled, with any sense of fiduciary duty, to be right out in front on, doing all that we can as a government.

The funding that I made mention of helps Ontario’s seniors by supporting 52 community-based elder abuse networks in the province. Each community network partner received $4,000 to help with the service coordination, front-line staff training and public education. It will also help the networks mobilize community activity to help prevent, and respond effectively to, elderly abuse. This funding indeed builds on the McGuinty government’s $1.65-million strategy to combat elder abuse, and that is the first of its kind in Canada.

School trustees

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Minister of Education: The public trust has been shattered and you have lost the confidence of Ontario taxpayers. Your disappointing and also delayed reaction to the spending violations within the Toronto Catholic District School Board is amplified by the not one, but two people you have hired at exorbitant rates to investigate this issue.

Minister, your performance on this issue has been really poor at best. When are you finally going to restore the public trust and confidence in the ministry’s ability to deal with this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is a little astonishing to me, the reaction from the member opposite. I have been spoken to a number of times over the weekend by people in the public coming up to me and saying, “Your government has done the right thing”; teachers from the school board coming and saying to me, “You are on the right track. You have done the right thing. Thank you very much.”

So in fact, everything that we have done as a government, everything that I have done as the minister—to act on the information that I got from the Toronto Catholic District School Board, from the investigators who went into the school board—has been in the interest of restoring public confidence in that school board and in publicly funded education in general. At the end of the day, what this is about is the fact that we need all of our kids in the absolutely best learning environments possible. That’s what our actions are about.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, that’s one in a long list of pat answers that we’ve heard for many days. You’re not fooling the opposition and you’re certainly not fooling the people of Ontario. Your inactions have compromised the reputations of trustees who are working, and have acted, within the confines of the law.

Now we see that your former colleagues have been charging their home cable bills to the taxpayers of Ontario. Minister, will you suspend the salaries and benefits of those trustees who have breached the public trust and restore the confidence back into education?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My actions have been taken in order to make sure that at the Toronto Catholic District School Board and school boards across this province, public dollars are spent in the public interest and for the benefit of our students. That is why we have a supervisor now in the Toronto Catholic District School Board. That is why that supervisor will be making financial decisions on that board.

The fact is that the Toronto Catholic District School Board situation is a cautionary tale. There are boards across the province who are looking at their expenses and looking at their policy guidelines. They must all be transparent. There must be checks and balances in place.

The issue that member opposite raises is one at a school board where there are checks and balances in place. There is money being paid back. Those receipts are vetted. Those must be transparent to the public. That’s what my actions have done, shone a light on the issues at boards across—

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

Child care

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Grandparents play a crucial parenting role when their own children are unable to do so due to mental health problems, drug abuse or other life issues. Grandparents in some parts of our province—Hamilton, London and Ottawa—have been, or are about to be, cut off the Ontario Works temporary care assistance. This program provides basic financial supports to low-income grandparents to meet their unexpected parenthood duties.

The minister seemed reluctant to act on this issue at our meeting last week. Perhaps she has given it more thought. So I ask again: Why won’t this government immediately direct all municipalities to stop cutting grandparents off from temporary care assistance for no good reason?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, let me congratulate and thank the grandparents who are taking care of their grandchildren. They are rendering a very needed service, and I want to say thank you to them.

This temporary care assistance is short-term. It says so; it’s temporary care assistance. Different municipalities have applied different rules, and I thank the member from the NDP for bringing this to my attention. We need to review it. We cannot apply rules in different areas differently.

However, I’ll say to the member: This is a temporary care assistance allowance, and we are going to review all this within the review of the poverty reduction strategy.

Mr. Paul Miller: I guess the minister’s

interpretation and my

interpretation of legislation are different. Minister, as you and your staff know, there is no legitimate reason to cut off grandparents from temporary care assistance benefits. You say it’s temporary. Your program directives clearly state that temporary care assistance is intended to be available for as long as the child needs the care. When will you direct all municipalities to fully implement your ministry’s temporary care assistance program and stop undermining grandparents who are raising their vulnerable grandchildren? These people need help now, not after a big review.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I think that the legislation is very clear. It’s temporary care assistance, but it was brought up by the member from the NDP that it’s being applied differently in Hamilton. However, the member of the opposite party is asking me to reverse a decision that was rendered by a tribunal. I cannot do that. All members in the House know that.

What I’m saying is, this needs to be reviewed within the poverty reduction strategy. We will do it.

Again, I want to thank and show my appreciation to the grandparents who are taking care of their grandchildren.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, we have heard the rumbling, the gnashing of teeth and the wringing of hands from the official opposition about the closure of Ontario’s developmental services institutions, where our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters and relatives with intellectual disabilities have been isolated and excluded from our communities for decades. We are aware of the services of the extremely dedicated professional and caring staff providers. Specific to our most vulnerable citizens, can the minister please explain to us what impact this closure will have on them and their families?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I want to thank the member for Brant for his constant advocacy for the full inclusion of those with disabilities. It is unfortunate that the opposition has decided to play political football with the lives of Ontario’s most vulnerable. They say that those with intellectual disabilities are made homeless and live in long-term care, which is incorrect. They are playing politics with the lives of those who have been forgotten for far too long.

The story of this transition is a new era of inclusion and it’s a positive one. It is a story of people who have been handicapped by a system that dismissed their abilities. It is a story of people finding new friends, new places to live, new chances to work and a new opportunity for life. This government will continue to support and care for Ontarians with intellectual—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate hearing what the minister has to say about the new delivery of these particular services. I’m also sure that Ontarians all over the province will join those living with intellectual disabilities and their families in celebrating the end of an era of exclusion and embrace more inclusiveness and diversity in our communities, and I hope we get rid of the NIMBY attitude that some have.

It seems to me and to others that the members of the opposition are just a little bit confused as to the process surrounding these closures. They suggest that we are forcing these vulnerable citizens out of their homes and are unconcerned about the well-being of these wonderful people. Is there any possible way that the minister can clear up the opposition’s confusion? I know it’s a tough question, but I’m sure she can answer it.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, it is unfortunate that the opposition has decided to play a football game with these individuals. So far, this government has invested $279 million in funding to close facilities and to strengthen the foundation of community services. Of this funding, $70 million went into capital projects to create community-based living accommodation, and the remainder has gone into providing additional community services and developing infrastructure.

We are confident that with this careful and thoughtful planning—involving families, ministry staff, health professionals and community partners—facility residents will be successfully placed. This government wants to make sure that these individuals are fully included in our community.

Road safety

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Attorney General. On Thursday of this past week, my colleague Mr. Runciman raised the issue of the leniency of the sentence handed down to the driver responsible for Mr. David Virgoe’s death, the result of street racing. The Attorney General is fully aware that the only way he can ensure that justice is done and that the will and intent of this Legislature—as expressed by legislation that was passed here—is exercised by the courts is if he appeals that lenient decision. I’d like to know whether the Attorney General will commit today that he will in fact appeal that lenient decision.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Not surprisingly, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the member’s question. I will say to the member—and we’ve had discussions about this before, as have all members of the House—that we take street racing very seriously. Whether it is under the Criminal Code or under our new highway traffic legislation, it is simply unacceptable. It not only places the driver at risk, it places all members of the public who are users of the roadway at risk—for no reason whatsoever.

We will continue to prosecute these cases to the full extent of the law, continue to take them very seriously. As I indicated to the member before, on the specifics of that matter, the process is that a report is received from the trial crown so the chief prosecutor can be aware of all of the circumstances, and the decision will be made in due course on the issue of the specifics my colleague asked.

Mr. Frank Klees: In responding on Thursday, the minister said the following: “Our government has made it clear, both with provincial legislation and in prosecuting federal legislation, which this is, that we take these matters very seriously. We prosecute them to the full extent of the law. We take a strong position in favour of public safety on these and all matters at all times.”

The minister knows fully that the only way to ensure in this case that this individual is prosecuted to the full extent of the law is if he appeals this case. We fully understand that he wants to review information, but what we also want to know from him is that he will uphold the intent, through the power that he has to appeal, as fully expressed by—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member opposite for reading my quote from the other day—it saves me the necessity of repeating it—because that is precisely the position. And we give all matters that have the potential for an appeal due consideration.

I know my friend opposite would want us to receive the report from the trial crown—because the chief prosecutor was not present in court, I know the member opposite would want us to receive all of the information that was tendered not only by the defence but by the crown, including victim impact information, so that we have a full examination of all the facts before making that decision. And that in this case, as in all cases, is what we endeavour to do, and then that decision will be made in full consideration of the principles that I’ve outlined and my friend has quoted.

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. “With horrific cuts in the auto industry devastating Durham region, it’s a fine time to kick the mental health supports out from under the area’s residents,” say the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as well as the Ontario Nursing Association. Can the Premier explain, in the wake of massive cuts to the region’s flagship employer, General Motors: How is cutting 200 staff and 80 beds at the local hospital in Durham region good public policy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not familiar with the specifics of this particular matter, but I can say that we continue to invest new dollars in health care. We’ve invested substantial new dollars since we first earned the privilege of serving Ontarians as their government. I gather that some local officials, in their wisdom, are considering making certain kinds of changes. We’ll have to wait and see whether that bears out in fact.

I can say that our government has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to health care with more doctors and more nurses and shorter wait times, dramatic new investments which are resulting in an improved quality of care available for all Ontario patients and our families. I look forward to hearing more about the details of this in the supplementary, but I want to assure the member opposite that the main thrust of our health care policy is to enhance it, and that’s done in part by new funding.

M me France Gélinas: Here’s what Smokey Thomas, the head of OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, had to say: “This is a gutting of hospital services for the communities of West Durham and Scarborough. We were promised efficiencies; instead we are seeing critical cuts to core services. This doesn’t solve a problem—it merely pushes it off to somewhere else in the health system.”

As Smokey Thomas asks, will the Premier agree to step in right now, reverse these cuts and get the hospital back on course to help the people through tough times?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can only speak to this at kind of a higher level because the Minister of Health has the details on this. I can say that with respect to the Rouge Valley Health System in particular, we have provided more operating dollars every year. We have increased the base funding to Rouge Valley Health System by 15.5% since 2003. As a result of our government’s commitment to hospitals and patients in Ontario, hospital funding will have increased—this is overall—40.3% between 2003-04 and 2009-10. We think that is a significant new investment.

In the 2008 budget, the government committed to $80 million over the next three years to further improve mental health and addiction services, including funding to increase treatment for eating disorder services and early intervention for psychoses. We think that we are making some considerable progress. We want to continue to work with our partners who work on the front lines, but I want to assure all of them that our intention is to enhance the quality of the experience in any health care setting for all Ontario families.

Members’ anniversaries

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Before the members depart, I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate the co-deans of the Legislature, who today are celebrating their 31st anniversary: Jim Bradley, Norm Sterling, congratulations and thank you very much.

PETITIONS

Pope John Paul II

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, with your permission, I want to extend a special welcome to my constituents Audrey and Harry Neary from Aurora.

I have a petition that I would like to present, submitted by Michael Bolton of Sacred Heart secondary school in Newmarket. It reads as follows:

“Petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

“Whereas the legacy of Pope John Paul II reflects his lifelong commitment to international understanding, peace and the defence of equality and human rights;

“Whereas his legacy has an all-embracing meaning that is particularly relevant to Canada’s multi-faith and multicultural traditions;

“Whereas, as one of the great spiritual leaders of contemporary times, Pope John Paul II visited Ontario during his pontificate of more than 25 years and, on his visits, was enthusiastically greeted by Ontario’s diverse religious and cultural communities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to grant speedy passage into law of the private member’s bill by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees entitled

An Act to proclaim Pope John Paul II Day.”

As a proponent of this bill, I’m pleased to affix my signature, and present it to page Gregory to deliver to the table.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from the people of the city of greater Sudbury.

“Whereas understaffing in Ontario’s nursing homes is a serious problem resulting in inadequate care for residents and unsafe conditions for staff;

“Whereas after the ... government removed the regulations providing minimum care levels in 1995, hours of care dropped below the previous 2.25 hour/day minimum;

“Whereas the recent improvements in hours of care are not adequate, vary widely and are not held to accountable standards;

“Whereas there is currently nothing in legislation to protect residents and staff from renewed cuts to care levels by future governments; and

“Whereas care needs have measurably increased with aging and the movement of people with more complex health needs from hospitals into long-term-care homes;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Immediately enact and fund an average care standard of 3.5 hours per resident per day in the regulations under the new Long-Term Care Homes Act.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it with page Jocelyn.

Pope John Paul II

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I have a petition from the residents of York South–Weston.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the legacy of Pope John Paul II reflects his lifelong commitment to international understanding, peace and the defence of equality and human rights;

“Whereas his legacy has an all-embracing meaning that is particularly relevant to Canada’s multi-faith and multicultural traditions;

“Whereas, as one of the great spiritual leaders of contemporary times, Pope John Paul II visited Ontario during his pontificate of more than 25 years and, on his visits, was enthusiastically greeted by Ontario’s diverse religious and cultural communities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to grant speedy passage into law of the private member’s bill”—Bill 25—“entitled

An Act to proclaim Pope John Paul II Day.”

I agree with this petition and affix my signature to it. I will hand it to page Gregory.

Bluewater Health

Mr. Robert Bailey: I have a petition today signed by over 8,000 residents in Sarnia–Lambton that reads as follows. I’d like to pay special notice to the lady who collected them, Arlene Patterson, who’s with me here today.

“Whereas the community of Sarnia–Lambton has lost confidence in the administration of Bluewater Health corporation, due to the reduction of services;

“Whereas community concerns regarding the lack of information, cuts, layoffs, firings, closed board meetings and complaints have met with defensiveness; and the hospital is in a serious dispute with its doctors that has been unresolved for over a year;

“Whereas the community funds the hospital through donations and municipal tax levies and relies on our hospital as a vital public service, and taxation without elected representation is undemocratic;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Health to send a provincial supervisor to conduct a full investigation into the operation of Bluewater Health, with the intent to make the required changes that will resolve these concerns from physicians, staff and community. We also petition the minister to help to change the bylaws of the hospital corporation, so that the board members are elected by a bona fide community membership at an annual general meeting at the Bluewater Health corporation.”

I affix my signature to this as well.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition here from the good people at the Westside Animal Hospital.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been updated since 1919;

“Whereas Bill 50 would require all veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, protecting veterinarians from liability;

“Whereas it would allow the OSPCA to inspect and investigate places where animals are kept;

“Whereas the bill would prohibit the training of animals to fight;

“Whereas Bill 50 would allow the OSPCA to inspect roadside zoos;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 50, entitled the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008, to protect our animal friends.”

I agree with the people of Westside Animal Hospital. I affix my name and I give the petition to page Chris, who is from the great riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Lord’s Prayer

Mr. John O’Toole: I have a series of petitions here. This particular group comes from Living Water Community Church, which is located in Uxbridge. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord’s Prayer from its” rightful “place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Ontario Legislature; and

“Whereas the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

“Whereas the Lord’s Prayer’s message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

“Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord’s Prayer;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly ... to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord’s Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature.”

I’m pleased to sign it in support and present it to Gregory.

Hospital funding

Mr. Joe Dickson: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Central East Local Health Integration Network ... board of directors has approved the Rouge Valley Health System’s deficit elimination plan....; and

“Whereas, despite the significant expansion of the Ajax-Pickering hospital, the largest in its 53-year history, a project that could reach $100 million, of which 90% is funded by the Ontario government, this plan now calls for the ill-advised transfer of 20 mental health unit beds from Ajax-Pickering hospital to the Centenary health centre...; and

“Whereas one of the factors for the successful treatment of patients in the mental health unit is support from family and friends, and the distance to Centenary health centre would negatively impact on the ... care for residents of Ajax and Pickering; and

“Whereas it is also imperative for Rouge Valley ... to balance its budget, eliminate its deficit and debt and realize the benefits of additional Ontario government funding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Rouge Valley Health System continue to provide the current level of service to our Ajax-Pickering hospital, which now serves the fastest-growing communities of west Durham; and

“That the Ajax-Pickering hospital retain the badly needed 20-bed mental health unit.”

I shall affix my signature to this and pass this to Charles.

Lord’s Prayer

Ms. Sylvia Jones: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the current government is proposing to remove the Lord’s Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Ontario Legislature; and

“Whereas the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

“Whereas the Lord’s Prayer’s message is one of forgiveness, of providing for those in need of their ‘daily bread’ and of preserving us from the evils we may fall into; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

“Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord’s Prayer;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord’s Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature.”

I proudly affix my signature.

Firearms control

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition here.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

“Whereas police officers ... and” other “licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

“Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

“Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver’s licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, entitled the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities.”

I affix my name to the petition and I give it to page Kelvin from the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence.

School closures

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I have a petition here from the parents of the students of Rideau Centennial Elementary School in Portland, Ontario, requesting that the Minister of Education in the province of Ontario review the accommodation review process of the Upper Canada District School Board under the Boundary 2020 study. The board made their school closure resolutions on May 14, 2008.

I agree with this petition and I affix my name thereto. I give this petition to Jocelyn.

Hospital services

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have petitions here from the citizens across Ontario, but mainly from the Midland and Penetanguishene area.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government-appointed supervisor of the Huronia District Hospital (HDH) has recommended a merger of HDH with the Penetanguishene General Hospital (PGH);

“Whereas the supervisor recommended changes to the governance of the hospital to eliminate community memberships and the democratic selection and governance of the hospital board and directors based on an ideology and not on the wishes of the community;

“Whereas the supervisor has also recommended the splitting up and divestment of the mental health centre in Penetanguishene, creating uncertainty in the future of mental health beds and services; and

“Whereas hospital mergers and restructuring under the local health integration network can result in a loss in the total number of hospital beds and services provided to a community,

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“We call on the government of Ontario to

“Protect the current level of beds and services at all sites in Midland and Penetanguishene;

“Protect the community memberships and the democratic governance of the new hospital created by the merger of HDH and PGH.”

I’m pleased to present this and ask Murray from Orillia, the Warminster area, to present it to the table.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been updated since 1919;

“Whereas Bill 50 would require all veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, protecting veterinarians from liability;

“Whereas it would allow the OSPCA to inspect and investigate places where animals are kept;

“Whereas the bill would prohibit the training of animals to fight;

“Whereas Bill 50 would allow the OSPCA to inspect roadside zoos;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 50, entitled the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008, to protect our animal friends.”

I agree with this petition, Speaker, sign it and send it on to you with page Chris.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Mr. Charles Sousa: This petition is in support of Bill 50. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been updated since 1919;

“Whereas Bill 50 would require all veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, protecting veterinarians from liability;

“Whereas it would allow the OSPCA to inspect and investigate places where animals are kept;

“Whereas the bill would prohibit the training of animals to fight;

“Whereas Bill 50 would allow the OSPCA to inspect roadside zoos;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 50, entitled the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008, to protect our animal friends.”

I sign this and I give it to Charles.

Hospital funding

Mr. Mike Colle: I’ve got another petition from the wilds of western Mississauga to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA area served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the vigorous capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

“Whereas ‘day surgery’ procedures could be performed in an off-site facility, thus greatly decreasing the” pressures “....

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2008-09 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to ‘day surgery’ procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed.”

I support this petition for western Mississauga and I give it to page Chris from—I forgot. From which riding?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): He’s not supposed to tell you.

Mr. Mike Colle: He’s not supposed to tell me. It’s a secret. I forgot.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for petitions being expired, this House stands recessed until 1 o’clock. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Uxbridge Cottage Hospital

Mr. John O’Toole: I rise in the House today to update members on the situation at Uxbridge Cottage Hospital and particularly the future of their emergency room. Earlier this year, the community was understandably concerned over the possible closure of the emergency room at the cottage hospital.

I attended a public meeting on June 3, and members of the public were told that the summer ER

schedule is being filled and that by September, 11 doctors will be working in the ER. This is the plan. Janet Beed, the CEO for Markham Stouffville Hospital, of which the cottage hospital in Uxbridge is one of their sites, was there and gave a very thorough overview of the transitions occurring in health care. Cottage hospital chief of medical staff Dr. Michael Damus said at the meeting that there is an ongoing challenge to attract and keep doctors working in ERs across Ontario.

I’d like to commend Roger Peirson, chair of the Uxbridge physician recruitment committee; Tracy Evans, president of the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital Foundation; and all in the community, who are working hard to keep the ER open and to ensure that Uxbridge has a full range of hospital services. Community support in Uxbridge is extremely strong to retain all service levels in their hospital.

I would urge the government to look more closely at the funding of hospitals in Durham to ensure that they receive their fair share of funding under the HBAM program and to keep pace with the growing needs of a growing community. It’s time that each of us recognize how vulnerable we are without a hospital in the community. Everyone is at a loss on how this government is failing. Smaller hospitals in rural Ontario are at threat many times.

Capital Food Blitz

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to share with members of this Legislature the wonderful activities that are taking place in my riding of Ottawa Centre. For a number of years prior to my election to this honourable chamber, I had the pleasure of working with the Ottawa Food Bank to coordinate the Capital Food Blitz, a door-to-door food collection initiative that is now in its fourth year. Each year, this event is growing, adding more teams and helping to collect more food from very generous Ottawa residents.

Previous blitzes have taken place in the community of Westboro, and this year we had the pleasure of returning to a very supportive neighbourhood while extending the food drive to the community of Glebe.

Last Thursday, armed with brown-paper grocery bags, I joined 80 volunteers to hit the streets in Glebe and Westboro to collect non-perishable food items. I’m pleased to let you know that together we collected 12,000 pounds of food in a span of just three hours. I am proud to inform the Legislature that the blitz raised 42,000 pounds of food in the last four years.

I want to congratulate Liz Wood, events manager at the Ottawa Food Bank, and the many volunteers for all their hard work and dedication to this event. I commend them on their tireless commitment to ensuring the success of this wonderful initiative.

Tourism

Mr. Norm Miller: As summer approaches, Ontario’s tourism industry is facing one of its most challenging seasons in decades. In my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, many tourism-related businesses are concerned about what effect factors like the high Canadian dollar, record gas prices and the slowdown in the US economy will have on the upcoming summer season. Students are worried about finding summer jobs to pay for college or university, while small businesses are just wondering if they can make ends meet. A decline in tourism would be felt across Ontario, as the industry employs nearly 200,000 people and is the number one employer of youth and seasonal workers.

Recently, the Tourism Industry Association called for urgent action by all levels of government to help with the looming crisis, but the McGuinty government has failed to put forward any plan to address their concerns. Ontario’s tourism industry cannot afford to wait for another report before the government takes action.

By eliminating the retail sales tax on hotels and accommodations, as proposed by John Tory and the PC Party, we can make it easier for families who are travelling to the many tourism destinations that our province has to offer, many of which are located in Parry Sound–Muskoka. In order to help this struggling sector, we need to encourage families to stay in Ontario for their summer vacations. We need to give a boost to our tourism sector now. I call on this government to implement the retail sales tax holiday on accommodations and attractions, as proposed by the PC Party.

Hospital services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Proposed changes to hospital services in Hamilton have the community up in arms. Hamilton city councillors in fact are promising to mobilize. A major restructuring is being contemplated, with little real consultation with residents and users of our hospitals.

People in my riding are justifiably worried. They fear the worst. The proposal is extremely controversial. For example, it would rob the West Mountain and the entire western area of Hamilton of an emergency department.

I have raised warning flags with our local health integration network, the LHIN, with the Minister of Health and with the administration of Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., but I believe there has been a serious lack of earnest dialogue with concerned members of our community. That has to change. It has to change, and it has to change fast.

Hamilton will not tolerate having a major restructuring of hospital services rammed down its throat. I put my concerns in a letter to the LHIN chair on May 5, and remain troubled that no one has bothered to respond to this urgent critical matter.

The McGuinty government, too, is ducking the issue. The hospital CEO feels that hosting a few public information centres and talking to his medical staff is all the consultation that’s required, but even health care professionals at the hospital are not sold on the new direction. Ultimately, the hospital is for the community. Hamiltonians—through the LHIN—should make the decisions about services, not the local hospital administrator alone.

I call on the McGuinty government to guarantee a proper process for consultation to ensure it’s the community that has the final say in this very important matter.

Malvern Bicycle Classic

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I rise today in the House to tell you about a truly uplifting event I recently attended in my riding of Scarborough–Rouge River.

The Malvern Bicycle Classic is a road race for youths aged 10 to 18 in the Malvern community in Scarborough. This was the first year this race was held, and it was a resounding success. Sponsors generously outfitted 85 neighbourhood children with bikes and helmets, and the kids trained alongside police officers from the local police division in preparation for the races. The participants and spectators were treated to a display by the Toronto Police Service’s precision motorcycle team, and the kids got to watch an elite group of 50 competitive racers in action.

The best thing to see was how the community came together for the children, to make this day happen. The city of Toronto, Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Cycling Association all worked together to encourage kids to get outside for a day of fun and some healthy competition.

Many sponsors supported the race, providing not only bikes and helmets but food and drinks, T-shirts and prizes. What I loved about the event was the energy of the kids, who were most obviously having a wonderful time. The Malvern Bicycle Classic is a great example of a neighbourhood coming together to promote healthy activity, good sportsmanship, positive community relations and self-esteem for our youth.

I’d like to especially recognize the work of Rick Gosling, Jim Crosscombe, Rick Meloff and Staff Sergeant Jim Darbyshire. Congratulations to all the organizers, sponsors and participants on a very successful day.

Tourism

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I rise today to comment on the inaction of the McGuinty Liberals to help support the drastically declining tourism industry in Ontario.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to participate in a boat and cottage show down at the beautiful Couchiching Beach Park in the city of Orillia. Without question, the biggest issue facing the citizens who attended is the high cost of gasoline and the fact that Dalton McGuinty is doing absolutely nothing to help relieve the impact.

I spoke to families who cannot afford to take any kind of vacation this year. I spoke to men and women who can no longer take their families to even a fast-food outlet because that money is now used to buy gasoline. I spoke to resort operators who will definitely be cutting back on summer staff this year because they simply do not have the business.

The PC caucus has a solution that will at least help stimulate the tourism sector. Three weeks ago, we launched our summer tax relief plan. This plan calls for the immediate elimination of the retail sales tax on tourism-related businesses. The Minister of Tourism calls it a piecemeal plan, but he has done absolutely nothing to gain the respect of the tourism industry.

Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars will be lost in the tourism industry this summer. I call on this government to adopt the Progressive Conservatives’ summer tax relief plan. Please indicate to the small-business communities that, for once, you actually care about their existence. Remember, the provincial sales tax savings may in fact be reason enough for many Ontarians to travel in Ontario this summer.

Once again, on behalf of all Ontarians, I urge the government to adopt the PC summer tax relief plan.

Skills training

Mr. Mario Sergio: Last Thursday, in my riding of York West, Premier McGuinty made an announcement at Seneca College regarding a $355-million investment for the second-career strategy. The strategy will train people who have recently been laid off or have been unemployed since June 1, 2007, to find a new career and not just another job.

The second-career strategy offers training for up to two years, and it can be three years when combined with literacy and basic skills upgrading. Workers can choose between college or private career colleges for careers such as technical mechanical engineer, construction surveyor, building inspector, foreman, lab technician, accounting clerk, paralegal and so on. The second-career strategy will target and be of most benefit to laid-off workers from the manufacturing and service sector and/or workers who have lower skill levels and want to upgrade to a higher level.

I would like to encourage people to find out more about the program by contacting their local employment office, which will direct them to their nearest assessment centre, or the Employment Ontario website, the Employment Ontario hotline, community colleges and private career colleges. Of course, there will be valuable information at the local constituency office.

I want to thank the Premier and Minister John Milloy for a new innovative program to provide long-term, full-time jobs and new skills for thousands of laid-off workers in our province.

Hockey Night in Canada

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Last week, it was announced that the CBC has decided to stop licensing the theme for Hockey Night in Canada. The theme song has been used for almost 40 years, playing at the beginning and end of the NHL broadcasts.

Like many Ontarians, I was surprised and a little saddened by this announcement. In my household, when the theme song came on, it meant the end of the talking and the socializing. It was time to watch hockey.

While it may seem strange to some a theme song could be such a big part of the Canadian consciousness, the fact is that it is uniquely Canadian. It’s something that can be heard in households in rural Ontario or a pub in downtown Toronto. It’s so recognizable that many people even have it for their cellphone ring tone.

Over the weekend, the show of support for the song has been unbelievable. Radio shows, newspapers and blogs have been posting comments from Canadians who want the CBC to keep the theme song. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I hope the CBC and the song’s composer can work out their differences and keep the theme song on the air.

We need to cherish our unique pieces of Canadian culture, and you really can’t get much more Canadian than hockey on a Saturday night.

Foreign-trained doctors

Mr. Phil McNeely: I am pleased to speak in the House today about the recent release of this government’s report on international medical doctors. This report is a result of the hard work of my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, in which she presented five key recommendations as to how Ontario can further increase its number of internationally trained doctors. The recommendations include helping make the registration process for international doctors easier and more streamlined, introducing a transitional licence, and more efficient assessments.

This report complements the progress the McGuinty government has already made in the last four years when it comes to international medical doctors. In fact, we’ve doubled the number of positions for international medical graduates from 90 spots to 200 spots. For the fourth straight year, more certificates were issued to international medical graduates than to Ontario graduates by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Along with the report, this government will soon be introducing legislation that will build even further on this progress. This is good news for our hard-working internationally trained doctors as they enter practice in this province. It is also very good news for the Ontario families looking for a family doctor.

This government wants to ensure that Ontarians get the help and care that they need. The insights and recommendations from this report are another way that we are accomplishing that goal. Thank you, Laurel Broten, for your great work.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Payday Loans Act, 2008 Loi de 2008 concernant les prêts sur salaire

Mr. McMeekin moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to regulate payday loans and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 48, Loi visant à réglementer les prêts sur salaire et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It’s again a privilege for me to rise in this House to take up third reading of the government’s proposed Payday Loans Act, 2008. I should just say at the outset that I will be sharing my lead-off time with my parliamentary assistant, Charles Sousa, who is opposite and is eager to get going, I suspect.

I know you will permit me a moment to thank all members for the passion and professionalism demonstrated throughout the debate that followed second reading of this important proposed legislation. The debate was lively and the arguments were well presented on both sides, as both sides of the House recognize the importance that this legislation has to many Ontarians.

On a personal note, let me just share that, as members know, there was a four-week period or so where I was at home recovering from some surgery. I got to watch a fair bit of TV. I got to watch the best two political teams on television: CNN, which was covering primarily the Democratic debate, and of course the Legislative Assembly, which I watched with a great deal of eagerness.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: You’ve got to get a life.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: My friend said I should get out more often, but it was really good to hear so many friends in this place on all sides of the House, who stood to pass on their prayers and good wishes my way. I want to take a minute, if I might be allowed, to say thank you for that. My spirits really were buoyed, and I think my recovery was expedited as a result of all the caring and sharing that was going on.

At the outset I want to give a word of special thanks regarding second reading and subsequent to Charles Sousa, my parliamentary assistant. Our colleague had already impressed many of us in this place with his role as MPP. As my parliamentary assistant, he delivered again by making over and over again the powerful arguments in support of the need for regulation and stability within the payday lending industry. Well done, Charles. You did good, and I’m proud of you.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Be careful, Ted. You’ve got a whole classroom up there behind you. Don’t lose them.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We certainly want to welcome the class up there as well, who are seeing democracy here at its finest.

I want to also take a minute to thank the ministry staff, who so often do so much of the real legwork and all too frequently aren’t acknowledged for the wonderful work they do. I want to take a minute to thank them personally and read their names into the record. On the policy front: John Mitsopulos and his team, which included Frank Denton, Jeff Hurdman, Diane Zimnica and Christina Christophe, who were very instrumental in pulling some of the policy issues together.

On the communications side: Jennifer Lang, Scott Williams, Rose Bliss, Nemone Smith and Sherry Chartrand—wonderful people who did a really good job working to bring this day and this possibility forward. Let the record record that for historical purposes. When their grandchildren one day say, “What did you do at Queen’s Park?” they’ll be able to go back and say, “We put the first piece of payday loan legislation—which has been changed many times since, to be improved—into the books.”

I’m pleased to say that we’ve achieved what appears to be broad support for the passage of Bill 48 on both sides of this House. I am so very, very proud that, notwithstanding some of the specific technical differences we may have—and may have when this debate is over—at least we all recognize in this place the need for this legislation. That’s really important.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure and the privilege of addressing the Standing Committee on General Government. They commenced the deputations and began clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 48. I thank all members of the committee for their diligence, for their hard work and for their passion with respect to this bill.

I restated at that time my belief that this proposed legislation strikes a precise and positive balance where payday lending is concerned. On one hand, there is a demand for better consumer protection in this industry. There’s also the need for a fair and stable marketplace that will prevent consumers from going underground to get short-term loans. I’m happy to say that the proposed Payday Loans Act, 2008, does exactly that: striking, as I referenced, that precise and positive balance between the two major concerns involved in this issue.

The members of this House should know that many Ontarians do, indeed, have short-term requirements for payday lending services. They sometimes need money for necessities, something to tide them over before the next payday. Our proposed legislation of the industry is designed to protect them as consumers, but I’ve also made the case that the proposed legislation is a solid step in the fight against sustained, cyclical poverty in Ontario. It’s more than that, but it’s a significant step there as well.

It’s an important step, as all of us within government and all across Ontario know, that will help us focus more intently on the wide-ranging challenges associated with poverty in our beloved province.

To that end, I pledge to work tirelessly to move forward to better protect vulnerable consumers. That’s our job as a government and as a House. I’m asking all members to join today in doing the same. From many of the fine submissions arising out of the committee process, you can see the clear need for this legislation and how cyclical debt continues to keep many of our citizens economically marginalized. The facts on the ground in many low-income areas across the province bear daily witness to this need.

As our friends from the United Way of Toronto shared with the committee, their Losing Ground report on poverty estimates that in 1995 there were 39 payday lending and cash-chequing outlets in Toronto. By 2007, they counted 317 such storefronts, the majority of which are situated in neighbourhoods targeted for support by the United Way. That’s an eightfold increase just in Toronto alone. It’s a concern for everyone in communities all across Ontario. It’s a deep-felt concern, I know.

It is clear that continuing to allow the unregulated conduct of this necessary financial activity—often in low-income neighbourhoods—will only further the problem of cyclical debt. When you factor in harmful lending practices such as the so-called rollover loans, it was imperative to take action. That is why I am pleased to state again that our proposed legislation will provide for a stable, regulated payday lending industry in which customers will be protected and treated fairly.

Through the fine and dedicated work of my predecessor the Honourable Gerry Phillips, this government had already required the industry to provide clear and prominent disclosure regarding the total cost of borrowing on these loan