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

May 9, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-09 (PDF)

L117 - Mon 9 May 2011 / Lun 9 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 9 May 2011 Lundi 9 mai 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

TAXATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CHILD CARE

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

CORONER’S INQUEST

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

TOURISM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

LONG-TERM CARE

ROTARY CHESHIRE HOMES

AND CANADIAN

HELEN KELLER CENTRE

PEMBROKE LUMBER KINGS

ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE

SAMANTHA ATTEW

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

EUROPEAN UNION ANNIVERSARY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

TAXATION

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

PARAMEDICS

WIND TURBINES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS

PARAMEDICS

TAXATION

PARAMEDICS

GASOLINE PRICES

CEMETERIES

PARAMEDICS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to welcome the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance to Queen’s Park: Rejean Picard, chair of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance; Andrew Kuyvenhoven, chair of Flowers Canada, Ontario; and Don Taylor, chair of Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, who are here in the gallery with us today.

After question period, they will be hosting a lunch in room 228, and I hope the members will take the opportunity to meet with them and learn more about the state of their industry. I’d like to welcome them all to Queen’s Park today.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I think the member from Oxford beat me to it, but I also want to add my welcome to Don Taylor, Rejean Picard and Andrew Kuyvenhoven.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’d like to welcome my sister, Susan, and her husband, my brother-in-law, Roy Houghton, who are here to watch democracy in action. Welcome, Susan and Roy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to welcome a constituent of mine from London North Centre, Melissa Kargiannakis. Melissa sang O Canada at the vote mob in London and inspired everyone who was there.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’d like to wish a happy birthday to Donna Downing, who was supposed to be here with me today. It’s her birthday, and I just wanted to wish her all the best.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m delighted today to have most of my family here with me: My mom, Martha Smith, from the great riding of Nipissing, is here; my brother, Joe Deschenes Smith; my niece, Kate Smith; my nephew, Michael Smith; and my brother, Paul Smith, from New York City. We’re delighted to have them all here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further introductions? The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I do notice in the gallery that one of our former colleagues, Bart Maves—I guess I just beat you to the punch—is here from the great region of Niagara. It’s great to see him here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I too want to take this opportunity to welcome Bart Maves, who represented Niagara Falls in the 36th and 37th Parliaments. Welcome back to Queen’s Park today, Bart.

On behalf of Christine Moreland, one of our information officers, seated in the Speaker’s gallery today are her mother, Susan McAllister, and her grandparents, Bob and Ann Bennett. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

On behalf of the member from Hamilton Centre and page Lukian Husak, I’d like to welcome his mother, Danusia Burdyk-Husak; his father, Ihor Husak; and brother Zakhar Husak. They’re visiting Queen’s Park’s today as Lukian serves as page captain. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a parliamentary delegation from the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, led by His Excellency Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan. Please join me in welcoming our guests to the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Ontario PCs believe that government should actually work for the people who pay the bills. The McGuinty Liberal approach seems to be for people to work longer and harder and pay more and more for more expensive government. Not only that, but you keep deals that you sign secret from the general public, who are the actual employers who have to pay the bills.

The minister’s secret deal of a 1% increase is supposed to kick in after the next election. This was exposed by another union trying to find the same secret deal. Finance Minister, can you confirm that no other unions have a similar increase after the next election campaign?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only thing secret around here is what the Tories will do if they come to office. They were going to get rid of the Human Rights Tribunal, and now they tell us that they’re going to keep it. Whatever happened to the original deal? Those are what the secrets are around here. The Leader of the Opposition says he’s going to get rid of arbitration, but he doesn’t say what he’ll replace it with. He fails to acknowledge the fact that when he was in government they supposedly fixed the arbitration challenge.

Then the Leader of the Opposition referred to the great city of Toronto as mediocre last week, and we completely reject that. The only secret is, where would you come up with that? We think this is a great metropolis with a bright future and with a lot of promise in a whole range of areas that—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, obviously the minister doesn’t want to talk about his secret deal that he signed with the largest public sector union that deals with the province. Ontario families were told that you were doing something about runaway spending, and now we find out you’re signing secret deals to pay out after the next provincial election campaign. Minister, that was for 38,000 provincial workers. There are more than a million workers in the broader public sector. They’re already lining up the same secret deal that you gave to OPSEU.

Minister, how much money have you set aside? Exactly how much will this cost when you spread it across the broader public sector?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, that so-called deal saved the taxpayers $137 million. That compares to another era with another government that that member was a part of, where we saw strikes and repeated loss in our school systems and in our public sector that amounted to enormous costs. So indeed, we got a four-year deal with OPSEU. There was a signed letter to the collective agreement, which is quite common, and it saved $137 million. We stand by that deal. It’s a good deal for taxpayers, and we’ll continue to work with all of our partners in the public and broader public sectors to lower the costs of the government.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don’t think anybody is buying that. If it was such a good deal, you’d make it public. You wouldn’t try to bury it. You wouldn’t pay government lawyers to keep it under wraps. You tried to bury this deal, Minister, because you wanted to keep it secret. It was a payoff to win votes after the next election campaign—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I withdraw.

Here is the problem: This is clearly evidence of a government that has lost its way and that is beyond its best-before date, and that’s why, with these secret deals, people want to see change in the province of Ontario. They want to see it change to a PC government that will respect the taxpayer who pays the bills.

Minister, how are you going to pay for it? Just be direct. Are you going to increase the HST by one point or two?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the only secret deal around here is what they’re going to do if they come to office. They’ve said they’re going to cut $3 billion from health care. We think that’s wrong. They said they’re going to get rid of the Human Rights Tribunal; now they say they’re going to keep it. The secret deal between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lanark apparently is no longer a deal, although we suspect he’ll still proceed down there. What the people of Ontario want is a government that has laid out a plan, that’s getting us back to balance.

By the way, I hope the Leader of the Opposition saw the job numbers last week. We’ve got more jobs today than we did when we went into the recession. It’s because a government with a good plan for a better future is governing this province, and on October 7—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Member from Oxford.

New question.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier, who continues to not rule out that he’s going to increase the HST to pay for his runaway spending: The problem is that Premier McGuinty continues to make secret backroom deals and then go back to the taxpayer to pay the bills after the next general election. We’ve got the secret deal with OPSEU, the largest public sector union in the province. I suspect he has other secret deals that he’s trying to keep hidden that hopefully will find the light of day.

You made a secret deal with Samsung for some $7 billion that is driving up hydro rates in our province. You made a secret deal with the former deputy minister, who resigned after the eHealth scandal.

Minister, why don’t you get it? What’s with this secrecy? Why do you bury all these expenses and try to hide them until after the election campaign?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There’s no secret that we’re creating tens of thousands of jobs in the green energy sector. It’s no secret that we have cut wait times for a variety of services. It’s no secret that we’re proceeding with full-day learning because that’s in the best interest of our children. It’s no secret that our environment is cleaner. We’ve created a greenbelt around this great centre, and this province is growing. It’s no secret that this government is on track to get back to balance in spite of the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

The only secret is what they’re going to cut. What hospitals will they close? What nurses will they lay off? What teachers will they lay off? We reject that approach. We’re taking a strong, balanced approach, an open approach that creates jobs and builds a better economy for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, your seatmate and the leader of your party is trying to ask a question and your interjections are interrupting your leader.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: Come on. You tried to bury this deal. You say “an open approach”? You paid government lawyers to bury your secret deal.

We all know that the McGuinty Liberals will increase the HST after the next election campaign. You’re going to have to do that to pay for all your runaway promises and your secret deals. You’re going to drive up hydro rates with your secret sweetheart deal with multinational corporation Samsung, and we also know, Speaker, that they signed a secret deal on the Oakville power plant that could cost up to a billion dollars to Ontario families on their hydro bills.

I will ask the minister—just tell us: Is it a one-point increase in the HST, or are you really planning a two-point increase in the HST?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d refer the leader to the budget, which lays out a three-year plan that’s cutting taxes for all Ontarians, cutting personal taxes. I welcome the support of his federal counterparts, Mr. Flaherty particularly, and a range of other federal Conservatives who have helped us put together the largest tax cut plan in the history of Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition forgets about a few things that he kept quiet. Let’s talk about the hydro agencies. Let’s talk about the hidden salaries. Let’s talk about lack of access to freedom of information and privacy, and a range of other things.

It’s no secret: This government has built a better education system; it has built a better health care system; we have provided risk management for our farmers; we’re building a better future for all Ontarians. That’s no secret and we’ll take that record to the people on October 7—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here’s something that is no secret: Minister, nobody believes you anymore, and they want to see change in the province of Ontario.

Samsung—secret deal; the Oakville power plant—secret deal; the G20—secret law; OPSEU—and I know there are probably many more secret deals that we are going to bring to the light of day and stand up for the Ontario taxpayers who get stuck with the bills.

Minister, you don’t understand that families are struggling to make ends meet. Many families have seen their own wages rolled back. Sadly, far too many have lost jobs altogether in the McGuinty Liberal Ontario—300,000 in manufacturing alone. They cannot continue to pay more.

Why is your answer to increase taxes once again on Ontario families when a better approach is to end the secret deals in the first place—end them right here today?

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: He ought to be the Leader of the Opposition in fantasyland.

The fact of the matter is, we’ve invested in health care and education. We’re creating full-day learning right across the province. We have hired nurses. We have hired doctors. We have reduced wait times for key hospital procedures. We have applied a greater degree of accountability and openness than any government in the history of this province.

The people of Ontario can see through the phony rhetoric, and they will put our plan up against their lack of plan any day. It is about building a better economy with better schools, better hospitals and a better future for all our children.

That’s what this government’s about. That’s what we’ve done till now, and I look forward to having that privilege again the day after October 7.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Acting Premier: A core principle of Ontario’s freedom-of-information act states, “Decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.” Does the Acting Premier agree with that principle?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think all members of the Legislature stand behind the laws that we pass. Inevitably, there are twists and turns on the road that cause us to make decisions and do things, but we do agree with that principle.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: We’ve got a good track record.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we’ve got a good track record. I had the great privilege of applying freedom-of-information legislation to the hydro agencies some four or five years ago. That used to be covered up. We also had the opportunity to expand accountability on ministerial expenses and a range of other issues.

I’m proud of this government’s track record on accountability, and I look forward to the member’s supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate that answer.

We’ve obtained a series of emails between political staff at the Ministry of Finance concerning freedom-of-information requests. The emails note that the request has come from an “opposition party.” Why does the ministry need to know where the request came from before deciding on how they will respond to it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We routinely, once a decision has been made, are advised about information being released. I suspect, without having those particular emails in front of me, that that’s the case here, and I’ll look forward to having the chance to read those.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In these emails, we see that some requests are labelled “contentious.” Can the Acting Premier explain why an FOI request would be labelled “contentious”?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Probably because it is.

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

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Brief but unilluminating.

In one email, a senior political staffer to this minister directed the FOI officer to label a request “contentious.” He said, “Please make it one. It is.” Why is a political staffer deciding to label an FOI request as contentious?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the FOI process is clearly spelled out in legislation and regulation. I’m confident that those regulations and legislation have been followed in all cases.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This is about the systematic erosion of Ontarians’ rights to access government information. The freedom-of-information act is pretty simple: A citizen asks for information, and unless there’s a compelling legal reason to keep it secret, it is shared. Instead, we see staff in backrooms labelling requests based on who made them. Is the Acting Premier concerned about what looks like political interference by his government in stifling the FOI process?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I should remind the member opposite that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has an unofficial benchmark of 80% for good compliance on freedom of information. In 2009-10, our government achieved 85%; our overall compliance is 91%. I’m not certain, but I’m quite satisfied that most of the information that may have been labelled contentious has been released publicly.

I’m proud of the government’s record on freedom of information. I’m proud of my ministry’s record on freedom of information. We’ll continue to work within the laws and the regulations.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Numbers can be used to obscure as well as illuminate.

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Be calm, be calm.

The information that people are looking for doesn’t belong to the Liberal Party; it belongs to the people of Ontario. The FOI process is supposed to be impartial and transparent, but the only thing that’s transparently clear is that this government is politicizing the process. Will the Acting Premier order his government and political staffers to stop interfering with FOI requests?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I reject the premise that we are interfering.

I would like to share with the House some information about a memo that was written in November of 1990—now let me think who was in office then. That memo from cabinet office described contentious issues, indicating that the government and ministers should be made aware of contentious requests. It was your government that set it up. We followed it. We’re made aware of contentious requests. And do you know what? Some 85% of the time we make them public.

That question is a joke. He’s taking facts out of context, refusing to share with Ontarians the full information that he has in his possession. He’s the only one who is not being open and transparent in this exchange.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Government Services: You’re the minister responsible for signing off on the secret deal to pay a 1% wage increase. If 1% of 38,000 workers is the bargain you struck with a public sector union leader who is not contributing to the Working Families coalition, how much will Ontario families pay for the deals you have in store for the union leaders who are part of the McGuinty Liberal attack dog campaign, the Working Families coalition?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Is he the Minister of Government Services or government secrecy?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I was just seeking clarification.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, member from Renfrew, I was about to make comments to you; that is, your member was asking a question, and you’re interjecting when she’s asking that question. I’d just ask that you be conscious of her desire to be able to ask that question in a manner that isn’t being interfered with.

Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I’m not sure what the definition of “secret agreement” is on the other side. Let me say this: We have 38,000 employees in OPSEU, and this agreement was presented to all the local presidents and they presented it to all the members in OPSEU. If it was presented to all the members in OPSEU, how could it be a secret agreement?

The other thing is, at the end of the day, the agreement between an employer and an employee is reached after negotiations. Every agreement is different, and so one agreement cannot be compared to another agreement. In this agreement, in fact, the four-year agreement led to about an 8.7% increase with a 1.25% decrease in cost. So the net is about—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can give him help with that: The definition of “secret” is withholding it from the public, and that’s what your government has done—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the honourable member to withdraw that, because it was directed at the minister.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

How much more money will Ontario families have to pay so that they can settle a score for their smear—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment that was made, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We are absolutely determined to get the best deal for the taxpayers. Let me just show the numbers. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2002, they had a three-year deal at 11.45%, with an eight-week strike by the OPSEU employees. That’s what they got: They had an eight-week strike and an 11.45% increase. We had—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean, you just asked the question. I would ask that you give the courtesy to the minister to hear the response. You know the standing orders. If you’re not satisfied, you can call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We had a four-year deal with an 8.5% increase, with a 1.25% decrease in the cost, so the net is around 7.5% for a four-year deal. That is our deal, compared to 11.45% over three years, with the eight-week strike.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Acting Premier. Parents need full information about the safety record of child care centres so they can choose the safest programs for their children. The McGuinty government has failed to publicly post information about abuse, mistreatment, injuries and deaths at child care centres for four years.

On April 18, the Minister of Education said, “The wait is unacceptable,” and promised that inspection information would be posted within the month. Will the government keep its promise and post information about serious incidents at child care centres by May 18?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The honourable member is correct: I did indicate that it was important, when the issue came to this assembly, that information would be made available within the month. In fact, it has. Maybe it was appropriate that on Mother’s Day, it was posted on the ministry website.

Now families have a very comprehensive website—I’ve looked at it a number of times; I looked at it yesterday—and I believe that it provides parents with very important information, probably the most comprehensive list of information available to any parents anywhere in this country.

We’re the only jurisdiction that has made this commitment. We are providing it; it is there now. I would encourage parents who are in the market for child care facilities to go to the—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The information posted has not satisfied anyone. Today’s Toronto Star reports that the McGuinty government is continuing to stall and has set no deadline to post reports on serious incidents at child care centres. This means that parents in Ontario will continue to be forced to place their infants and children in a child care centre without full knowledge of the safety record at that centre.

Parents need full information—not partial information—to protect their children’s safety. When will the McGuinty government finally post full information on serious incidents—or will this be another McGuinty broken promise on child care?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy to stand in my place today and say that our government has kept our promise to provide parents with the most comprehensive list of information for parents who are about to decide where they might want to have their children in child care.

With respect to serious incidents, it’s also important to say to all the members of this assembly that there is no jurisdiction in Canada, in Ontario—not the city of Toronto, which the honourable member’s leader stated in this assembly—providing serious-incidents reports on a website. There are very serious legal issues that would be impacted there.

This is something that, obviously, we will work with the sector on. We want to be sure that parents have all the information they need. But we have kept our promise to provide parents with comprehensive—

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

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Just this past Tuesday, the member opposite, who represents the riding of Thornhill, responded very negatively to the minister’s statement on Ontario’s service standards. In paraphrasing the member opposite, he stated that the PC government’s Red Tape Commission, which he claimed had been very successful in repealing and removing various outdated acts, regulations and statutes, was abolished by the Liberal government.

I would like to ask the minister directly why the McGuinty government scrapped the commission that, according to a singular source, was apparently serving Ontario well.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am delighted because I too am reminded often of those three trench coats. We were all curious as to what was behind the trench coats, as I recall.

Anyway, they did do some things. No one would deny that they did find antiquated regulation and eliminated it. For example, they could count among their big wins eliminating the Hypnosis Act for travelling road shows. We don’t know what benefit that had, in fact, to business today in Ontario or even in the late 1990s, when they actually did this work.

The pride we have in Open for Business is simply this: We went directly to business and we said to business, “What do you need to do better business in Ontario?” They would come to us, give us their priorities and that’s what we would do, on a clock, and we went back to them with resolution. It has been a terrific process and I wish, frankly, that they had done it—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: That does explain why the PC government’s Red Tape Commission was disbanded, but I think there’s a second element to my query.

In the same response which I referred to earlier, the member from Thornhill stated that, from his perspective, “The McGuinty government has not done nearly enough to create the conditions for a speedy and true economic recovery.”

Minister, that’s quite a hefty accusation, and, I submit, misguided. Facts are important when informing the public about policy of the government. I’d like to ask the minister to inform this House what the McGuinty government has indeed done to create the conditions for economic recovery in Ontario by reducing regulatory burdens on the businesses of this province.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am delighted because, in fact, only someone who’s really not watching or doesn’t know the business wouldn’t see that 70,000 regulatory burdens being eliminated is indeed a huge achievement for the government, across all ministries. Just this past month, we posted the business service standards online. It had 1,000 hits to the website because people want to know how we meet the standards that we set out in the business that we have to deliver so they can do their business. That is a huge achievement: that there are 500 business services posted there, and that they’re improving all the time makes a big difference.

I would encourage members of the opposition to call someone like Bette Jean Crews, who is the head of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We met with that group last week, and last week they told us what a tremendous process we’ve adopted in Open for Business, that in fact we are and have been—

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

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. The Fraser Institute’s report card on Ontario’s secondary schools confirmed what families have suspected for some time: Despite the government’s boasts about achievements in education, student achievement has stalled in literacy and math. The report found no statistical upward trend in student achievement despite the investment of billions of dollars. Ontario families do expect value for their money; they’re just not seeing it right now.

Minister, why are the families in this province not getting value for their money?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m so disappointed—not surprised—that the honourable member would stand in her place and seek to diminish the efforts of teachers and students in the province of Ontario.

We have empirical evidence: Graduation rates have increased. When we make this announcement, what do they do on the other side? They say, “Well, you know, if you’ve taken five years to graduate, you really don’t count.” We believe in students. We are grateful for the efforts of their teachers. We are very happy to make it plain to everyone in Ontario that we are building a strong secondary system, in spite of what the honourable member might want to say. It really does bother me when people come into this room and try to diminish the accomplishments of students, the efforts of—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Minister, we support the hard work of teachers, but not only does the Fraser Institute report card confirm—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Please continue.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Not only does the Fraser Institute report card confirm that student achievement has stagnated in math and literacy, but according to the Confederation of University Faculty Associations, students are entering post-secondary programs without the prerequisite literacy and math skills. As a result, they’re forced to now offer remedial programs to these students before they get started.

Minister, a good investment requires a good return. Clearly, the government is not delivering. Why not?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Let me tell the honourable member about what good return is. Bad return is when one out of three students doesn’t graduate from secondary school. That is the record of the previous government. A much better return is when over 80% of students in our schools are now graduating. A better return is when the program for international student assessment, an independent international body, would say that our students are improving.

I know on that side of the House they race to diminish the efforts and accomplishments of students and teachers in this province. We are building the best education system in the world, and we will always trumpet the accomplishments of our students and how well they are doing.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety. Over the last 10 years, seven teenage high school students from remote First Nation communities in northwestern Ontario relocated to Thunder Bay to go to high school. Those seven young teenagers all disappeared and then turned up dead. Can the minister tell me what the government’s reaction has been to the disappearance and death of these seven young First Nation people?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the member would know, there is an inquest under way up north with respect to the deaths. He would know that. He does know that.

We take any tragedy very seriously and take the death of young people who travelled to school very seriously. We’re working through every ministry in every way to make sure that people are safe. There are some very serious questions to be addressed. One of them is: Is the federal government providing the support for education in First Nations that it should? Is it providing the health care in First Nations that it should? Is it providing the infrastructure support in First Nations that it should? Those are just some of the questions. The other questions will be addressed, I expect, through the inquest that my friend knows is—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Attorney General ought to know that the inquest that he refers to has been delayed, and delayed indefinitely, because this government doesn’t seem to be able to get its act together in terms of the representativeness of juries and inquest juries.

But this is a bigger issue. These are seven young citizens of Ontario. These are seven teenagers. I suggest to the minister and to this government that if seven teenage high school students disappeared from London, there would be a different reaction. If seven teenage high school students disappeared from Hamilton, there would be a different reaction. Can the minister explain how seven teenage citizens of Ontario can disappear and die in a city like Thunder Bay, and there’s—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It’s a tragedy for the families; it’s a tragedy for the communities; it’s a tragedy for all involved. And that’s why we are working on answers wherever we can find them.

The specific issue that my friend raises, he knows is a part of an inquest. He knows that the inquest would expect that submissions be made to it rather than somewhere else. He knows that, and he shouldn’t speak about, with respect, why an inquest is proceeding or not in a place like this when he is providing only a small, incomeplete part of any answer. We’re going to look for the answers in every way we can to provide justice to the families who’ve lost their loved—

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

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Attorney General. Ontario is one of the most vibrant and diverse places to live in the world, and our diversity is one of the things that makes Ontario such a great place to live and has attracted immigrants, like my parents, to Ontario. Our province has a long history as a leader in protecting the human rights of our citizens, creating a fair and equitable society. Successive generations of Ontarians have built upon that history, and we are all proud of how far we’ve come over the past 50 years.

Because our society is constantly evolving and changing, we must be sure that we remain aware of any potential threats to equality and inclusion in our society. I know that some of my constituents are particularly concerned that during difficult economic times, protection of human rights might be overlooked. Can the Attorney General tell us why it is so important to protect and preserve human rights in the province of—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My colleague from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex outlined the reason when she talked about her parents coming to Canada, to Ontario. We are the most diverse place on the face of the earth. We are a place where people from all over the world, from all different countries, speaking all different languages, practising all different types of religion and culture, have come to one place, and they’re able to live together, work together and play together in a way they cannot do elsewhere. You can see strife elsewhere, but you don’t see it here.

One of the reasons is the foundation that our human rights system provides to enable people to do that, to enable them to raise grievances; a foundation that’s been constructed through Frost and Robarts, continuing through McGuinty; a foundation that enables people from all over the world to live in a way they can’t elsewhere. It is a foundation we need to—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I know that my constituents will be pleased to know that our government is continuing to make the human rights of all Ontarians a priority.

Our human rights have led to many important protections against discrimination, such as in the 1960s, when we ensured fair access to accommodation, services or facilities regardless of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin. In the 1970s, we had equal pay for equal work; in the 1980s, protection from discrimination because of marital status or disability; in the 1990s, the extension of family benefits to same-sex couples.

My constituents would like to know what our government is doing to ensure that Ontarians remain on the right path when it comes to protecting human rights. Can the Attorney General tell this House what kinds of improvements this government is making to strengthen the protection and human rights of all Ontarians?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It’s an important point. Just a few years ago, taking advice that had been around for more than a decade, we did several things to strengthen our approach to human rights. We maintained the independent, specialized right and approach to hear cases that is the tribunal. We strengthened the tribunal. We allowed people direct access to the tribunal rather than requiring that their cases go through the commission first. Direct access to the body that can hear your case and provide a remedy is essential.

Second, last year the tribunal realized that it wanted to have some specialized additional rights to dismiss cases without merit. That was done; that was brought in.

Third, we provided the legal support centre to make sure the people who can’t afford lawyers can get lawyers so they can—

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Despite this government’s promise four years ago to support and promote the skilled trades, Ontario’s young skilled workers are still subject to restrictive apprenticeship ratios in far too many of our skilled trades. These restrictive apprenticeship ratios are placing roadblocks in the career paths of our badly needed apprentices. Students who have finished their diplomas are unable to complete their certification because they cannot find a sufficient number of journeymen to apprentice under.

When will this minister lower the outdated and restricttive apprenticeship ratios for Ontario’s skilled trades to ensure that our apprentices are able to train and work in Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m always happy to address the issue of ratios here in the Legislature. The honourable member will be aware that the issue of ratios was one of the complex issues related to apprenticeship which fuelled our interest in establishing a college of trades: to allow the trades to have ownership of and responsibility for apprenticeships, training standards, compulsory certification and ratios.

We have moved forward with the college of trades, which is bringing voices from all the sectors across the province. They are looking at the type of criteria that we need in order to bring forth a ratio policy that makes sense and make sure that we look at a variety of factors in terms—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I guess the minister is referring to the unelected minister Dillon, but anyway.

This government is neglecting not only Ontario students but our veterans as well. When will this minister lower his antiquated and restrictive apprenticeship ratios and do the right thing?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s unbelievable that he would stand in this House and do anything short of praising the government for its record in terms of skilled trades. Since we took office in this province in 2003, we have doubled the number of apprentices. We currently have 120,000 apprentices in this province.

We do not want to stop there. We want to make sure that not only do we grow the number of apprentices, but also that they are receiving first-class training. That’s why we took the extraordinary step of establishing the college of trades; of sitting down with people from all sectors of the economy, including apprentices and employers, and asking them, “How we can strengthen our apprenticeship system? And most importantly, how can we attract more people to the apprenticeship”—

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

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Acting Premier: This morning, correctional workers are at Queen’s Park because of the McGuinty government’s rash decision to close jails in Walkerton, Owen Sound and Sarnia. This decision was made without any consultations and without proper planning. OPSEU, local mayors and community members have made the trip to Queen’s Park multiple times now, urging this government to reflect on its poor decision-making.

Is the government finally willing to listen to their good advice?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community Safety.

Hon. James J. Bradley: These are always very difficult decisions when governments have to make them. The member would be aware that we have a deficit in excess of $16 billion at the present time, and the government is looking for each and every way to be able to find some efficiencies, which it has in this case.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has provided to me, as minister, options that would be available, advice that would be available on what would be advisable in terms of some of the older buildings that exist in the province of Ontario and the relative cost of operating them compared to transferring to some of the newer buildings that are available in the province.

We want to ensure as well that we work with OPSEU in ensuring that there would be, for instance, jobs available—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I know the minister to be a fair and reasonable person. I’m confident that he didn’t make this decision; that this decision came out of the Premier’s office and he’s being forced now to be the Premier’s spokesperson. The closure of these jails is going to be detrimental to the communities they are in and it’s going to be detrimental to corrections within correctional services.

The government’s financial reasoning simply doesn’t hold water. Absent from this government’s calculations is the high cost of transporting inmates those long distances, not to mention the treacherous conditions in the winter months.

Will the minister at least slow down this process so that no final decision is made until after October 6, so that there can be effective reflection on the wisdom or lack of wisdom applying to these jail closures?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to assure the member that with the facilities being closed, the people will be offered other positions. I know the great difficulty, and I know that the ministry had a difficult time with this. Other ministers have had the same difficulty.

Here’s what Mr. Runciman said in 1998: “What we are doing with respect to the restructuring process is addressing the call of the provincial auditor in two reports, talking about the very high-cost system of corrections in Ontario. We currently have the highest-cost provincial system in the country, significantly higher than in other provinces. We are making an effort, which the NDP initiated some time ago, to close our older, high-cost, inefficient and in many respects unsafe facilities.”

We’re trying our very best to be able to deal with the deficit we have—

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

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr. Ted McMeekin: To the Minister of Transportation: Last month, the Ministry of Transportation released its draft study on the Niagara to GTA corridor, and I understand that MTO continues to seek public input by consulting with our municipal partners and stakeholders.

Meanwhile, my colleagues across the aisle do not seem to have a consensus on this issue. It was interesting to read in this morning’s Hamilton Spectator that the members of Halton and Burlington intend to bring petitions to the Legislature today in opposition to their own leader’s planned mega-highway through the greenbelt and the escarpment. In June 2003, the member from Burlington was prepared to take the former PC government to court to stop this. Good for her.

Speaker, through you to the minister—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The first thing I want to say about this issue is that all our members support our plan. We’re on one page. Our Niagara to GTA study takes an integrated approach to transit planning; it takes an integrated approach to transportation planning. I remind this House and I remind the public that in 1916, when the current ministry was established, it was called the department of highways. But we’ve moved beyond that. We have to have a much broader view of transportation.

We’re getting feedback from local municipalities on our plan. Port Colborne, Welland, Burlington and the Niagara region have all expressed support for our plan. The city of Niagara expressed this in a letter to me. Niagara Falls city council wanted to go on record restating the municipality’s position of being opposed to any new highway system. So we are very much on the right track.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Minister, it’s certainly a relief to my constituents and the good folk in Halton to hear that they have a government that listens to their concerns and is committed to protecting environmentally sensitive lands.

Whenever I speak to my local residents, they’re absolutely shocked to learn that the Leader of the Opposition actually voted against the greenbelt. No wonder he wants to cut off conversations about the issue and simply bulldoze over precious green space.

Minister, can you elaborate further as to what our government is specifically doing to ensure the protection of these sensitive areas?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said, we’ve gotten a lot of support for our position. The Greenbelt Council is supportive and the Protecting Escarpment Rural Land group is supportive.

What the previous government did was launch into a plan to build a mega-highway through the Niagara Escarpment. What we’ve said is that we need to look at a much more integrated approach. We need to look at maximizing the transit usage. We need to look at roads. We need to look at rail. How we can expand what’s already there without going into new and sensitive land? We know this area is particularly complex because of economic, community and environmental issues, but we have had extensive public consultation.

I’m glad that the member has had the opportunity to bring this issue forward, because we will continue to talk with the communities and look for the sophisticated, integrated approach that is demanded by the 21st century.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, over the last two years, you’ve made grain and oilseed farmers beg for extensions to the risk management program. Last year, you didn’t announce the extension until the end of July, well after the farmers had to make planting decisions and secure operating lines of credit. Farmers were looking for a permanent program in the budget, but the budget document didn’t say that; it announced an extension.

Why should farmers believe that the program is actually going to be there when they need it if the official documents won’t say “permanent”?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to rise and answer this question. I’ve got to say, for the members to stand up and ask that question when they, quite frankly, voted against a permanent risk management program for our farmers—we understand that the current suite of business programs doesn’t work. They don’t provide the predictability, they don’t provide the bankability and they don’t provide the stability.

So what has the coalition been doing? I want to inform the members from across the way that they’ve been working very hard, developing programs that involve three partners, those being the farmer, the provincial government and the federal government. They are working very hard to make all of that come together in a package that was supported by the budget—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, if it’s a permanent program, why didn’t the budget documents say so? I’m not the only one who has concerns. I have a letter from the grain and oilseed farmers that expresses their concern that there hasn’t been a full commitment in writing.

Minister, let’s remember the history. This government dragged its heels on this program and then announced it right before the last election. Even though it worked, you made farmers beg for extensions until 200 days before the next election. Now you expect them to believe it’s a permanent program and that they’ll be treated fairly even though the official document doesn’t say so.

Minister, after ignoring them for four years, do you really think farmers will just accept this government’s word that they will be treated fairly in the future? Do you really believe that? Do you really think they should—

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

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It is just beyond the pale that anybody from across the way would ask this question. The coalition understands, and every commodity understands, that they have a permanent risk management program. They are working very hard to make that happen, and they know that that was supported in the budget.

But for the member to ask that question when (

a) they have no plan, and (

b) what did they do when they were in government? They stood by, wringing their hands, while 1,000 farmers left the land. That was their plan: to stand by and watch the farmers leave the land.

And then what did they do? They then cut the ag budget. Then they shut down the offices, and they got out of town. No plan over there, no support for the plan on this side, and then they won’t even ask the federal—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister of Economic Development. Minister of Agriculture.

New question.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services: Is the minister aware that almost a year ago, the Superior Court of Justice made a decision stating that the Child and Family Services Review Board does not have the power to hear children’s aid societies’ complaints that are before the courts?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to spend a moment talking about the important oversight that we do have when it comes to children’s aid societies.

I want to highlight that there is Family Court oversight; there is the Child and Family Services Review Board oversight; the Ombudsman, who does have oversight of the Child and Family Services Review Board; the Auditor General; and the Office of the Chief Coroner.

Yes, my colleague opposite does raise an issue that the CFSRB has an appeal presently before the courts where they continue to defend the rubric and the area of authority that they importantly have as a specialized tribunal that has expertise to deal with these highly complicated and sensitive matters, and that, in our view, is the appropriate forum to deal with these issues involving children and families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The minister would know that since the Superior Court of Justice’s decision was made last year, over 50 children’s aid societies’ hearings have been put on ice. Many more will be on hold in the coming months.

Let me understand this: The government will not allow the Ombudsman to oversee children’s aid societies, and the courts are not allowing the CFSRB to hear any cases before a judge, yet the government is adamant that there are no problems with the system.

How is the government planning to help the growing number of families that have no one to turn to when they have a problem with the children’s aid society?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I think it’s important for families right across the province that might be watching to understand that we have a very rigorous variety of oversights that allow you, as an individual, to come forward with a complaint if you do have one with respect to a children’s aid society. The OACAS and other organizations have been very clear about their support for rigorous oversight of CASs. It’s a very regulated procedure, as it should be. These are highly important and emotional and technical matters that involve our children, and so we very much appreciate the variety of oversights that we’ve put in place.

At the same time, the CFSRB is a specialized tribunal. We have expanded their powers and increased their mandate to give them the opportunity to review these matters in a holistic way. There is an appeal presently, and that should proceed and is proceeding through the courts, where arguments are being made with respect to their oversight—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Minister, this morning I had a meeting with some of my students from the riding of Davenport, and they’re certainly eager to begin summer. They are ready to visit our clear waters, our clear lakes, our clear campgrounds and to visit our canals, but summer also provides us the opportunity to visit such places as museums and art galleries, historical parks and cultural and entertainment parklands. They offer children the chance to learn and families the chance to bond.

But in a globally competitive market, attractions in other provinces and countries are working hard to lure families away to their places. That’s why it is important that we continue to strive to make Ontario’s attractions the best in Canada and in the world.

What is this government doing, Mr. Minister, to ensure attractions in this province contribute—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. On top of that, I want to thank the honourable member for promoting diversity, tourism and culture across the province.

Ontario is home to some of the leading attractions in Canada. These attractions are well positioned to compete nationally and internationally, and offer families and visitors across this province wonderful vacationing destinations, attractions such as St. Lawrence Parks, Niagara Falls, Huronia Historical Parks, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the McMichael Canadian art gallery, Ontario Place, Science North and Fort William Historical Park. Together, these and other attractions are making Ontario the leading destination for tourists in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: This is really exciting news for families. Mr. Minister, many of the attractions that we’re celebrating are really milestones in our history. This year, why not use that opportunity to ensure that visitors across the province, and for that matter internationally, are aware of what Ontario has to offer? For example, places like Ontario Place, celebrating its 40-year anniversary—I remember visiting, Mr. Speaker, the fantastic Cinesphere, as you did. What a beautiful view of Lake Ontario. What a beautiful view of the riding of Davenport.

Minister, I understand that part of the 40th anniversary is hosting various events. Can you tell this House: What are we planning to host this anniversary and others in the province?

Hon. Michael Chan: As Ontario Place celebrates its 40th anniversary, our government would like to congratulate all the dedicated staff, volunteers and board members who contribute continuously, making it one of the leading attractions in Ontario.

In 2010, Ontario Place attracted 800,000 visitors. To attract even more visitors, admission to the grounds is free this year. Ontario Place’s door is wide open to welcome visitors to take advantage of this opportunity. It will save Ontario families some of their hard-earned money while enjoying a wonderful day out. The last time admission to the grounds was free was 20 years ago.

We are also doing more to promote other attractions. Summer is around the corner. There will be many, many festivals and events across—

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you and the Minister of the Environment: I have spoken to you; I have questions on the order paper; I’ve presented petitions from October of last year. The issue is the movement and placement of clean fill, or commercial fill, in abandoned pits and quarries. Quite honestly, this issue is evident on the Earthworx site on Lakeridge Road and Morgans Road, of which you’re aware.

I’m asking you today to take leadership and convene a meeting of the stakeholders, including municipal leadership, to develop a procedure to move and test soil when being placed in commercial fill operations in abandoned pits and quarries. Will you call that meeting on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: On behalf of myself and my colleague, my seatmate, I want to assure the member, first of all, we appreciate the fact that you have raised this issue on behalf of your constituents.

I recall that there was a letter I just sent the member, which perhaps he has not read yet, where my ministry is more than happy to continue to sit down with the residents in your riding and, as well, with your municipal partners so that we can ensure that we have what we all need, which is to protect our sources of drinking water; to protect the legacy of the Oak Ridges moraine; and to ensure we have a set of rules that are robust, so people can be assured that the environmental protections that they count on for them and their families are there and will continue to be there.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to correct my record. At one point in a response to a question from the member from Nepean–Carleton, I said the four-year deal adds up to 8.5%. It actually is 8.75%. The savings are 1.5%, for a net of 7.5%.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. That is a point of order.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to once again welcome the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance to Queen’s Park. I want to recognize Rejean Picard, chair of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance; Andrew Kuyvenhoven, chair of Flowers Canada; and Don Taylor, chair of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, who are here in the gallery this afternoon. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park to share their concerns and provide MPPs with a great lunch made from fresh Ontario produce. It is always a great event and a great opportunity to hear directly from the greenhouse growers.

Ontario’s greenhouses—both vegetables and flowers—contribute greatly to our economy. Their annual gross payroll is over $270 million, and their farm gate sales are well over $1 billion. However, like many sectors of our agriculture industry, they are struggling with high input costs, like the increasing cost of hydro.

Our greenhouse growers are significant exporters. That means that they are impacted by the high dollar. It also means that they need to be competitive with growers in other jurisdictions.

Today, many of them are struggling with government red tape and over-regulation. Government needs to make it easier for them to get on with doing what they do best: growing great Ontario produce and Ontario flowers.

On behalf of the PC caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, I want to once again thank the greenhouse alliance for coming to Queen’s Park, and assure them that we are committed to continuing to support a strong greenhouse sector for the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We welcome you. We also like to enjoy TOGA parties at Queen’s Park.

Member from Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’ve got half a dozen punchlines there, Speaker. I’m not going to try any of them.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Peter Kormos: James McIntyre is 81 years old—a good man, worked hard all his life, a good member of the community. In 2006, he was diagnosed with dementia. He’s now in a private long-term-care home. His wife, Gwendolyn McIntyre, who is 69 years old and suffering from lupus, dearly misses him and wants to be closer to him. His daughter Cathy Wall has become James McIntyre’s most aggressive advocate—because she goes to the long-term-care facility and finds her father sitting in a hallway in soiled trousers, and the stench she describes as impossible to endure, never mind sit in it.

She describes the long-term-care facility as so understaffed that her father is getting less and less assistance when it comes to things like eating and even feeding himself, so he’s losing weight. She’s frustrated by waiting lists and a real shortage of long-term-care beds down in Niagara, which means that her father can’t move closer to Virgil, where Gwendolyn, his wife, lives.

We’ve addressed these issues with the minister, we’ve addressed them with the CCAC, and we’ve addressed them with the long-term-care facility itself, and what we’ve discovered is a McGuinty Liberal government that turns its back on seniors in this province and that has betrayed them and their families. This government should be ashamed.

ROTARY CHESHIRE HOMES

AND CANADIAN

HELEN KELLER CENTRE

Mr. David Zimmer: I’m always happy to speak about Willowdale. Today, as I have before, I’d like to recognize Rotary Cheshire Homes and the Canadian Helen Keller Centre, located in Willowdale on Willowdale Avenue.

I’m pleased to follow up on an announcement that my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services made. As part of the recent Ontario budget, our government will continue to ensure that funding for intervener services is available to organizations like Rotary Cheshire Homes and the Helen Keller centre. They do very, very good work; they provide a home for the deaf and blind. This is in addition to the nearly $22 million that the government has already spent on intervener services. We are now working with the industry to develop a new funding model that matches resources and needs.

I want to commend Rotary Cheshire Homes and the Canadian Helen Keller Centre. Tomorrow, they’ll be hosting their first annual awareness reception at Queen’s Park. I invite all members to stop by committee room 2 between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to get a better understanding of the front-line services that are truly vital to the deaf-blind community here in Ontario.

The Canadian Helen Keller Centre and Rotary Cheshire Homes in Willowdale are probably among the premier homes, at the leading edge of services that are provided for the deaf and blind. They are an icon for this kind of service, and we are thankful for the intervener services provided by this government.

PEMBROKE LUMBER KINGS

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yesterday in Camrose, Alberta, the Pembroke Lumber Kings earned the title of Canada’s Junior A champions, winning the RBC Cup with a 2-0 victory over the Vernon Vipers, representatives of the Pacific league.

It was a thrilling victory, keeping everyone on the edge of their seats until an empty-net goal sealed the win with 15 seconds left. The Lumber Kings were certainly the underdogs, as the Vipers were seeking a record third consecutive title. They were undefeated in the tournament, including a 5-3 victory over the Kings earlier in the week. Tied at zeros after two, Jonathan Milley intercepted a shot from the blue line and scored on a breakaway at 13:40 of the third period. Milley also added the empty-netter, but not before making a key shot block with a minute left, taking a blast from the point off his foot.

Coach Sheldon Keefe and the boys knew it wasn’t going to be easy, but they came up with a game plan, stuck to it, and in the end emerged on top. Lumber King netminder Francis Dupuis played a fantastic game, making 40 saves, many of the heart-stopping variety. In the first period, the Vipers peppered Dupuis, outshooting the Kings by a 15 to 5 margin. He would not yield.

What a thrilling moment when Kings captain Ben Reinhardt, playing in his final game, hoisted the cup, one of the toughest to win in all of sport, with no less than 137 teams from 10 leagues vying for it when the season began.

The Lumber Kings are five-time repeat champions of the CCHL and Reinhardt has been a member of every one of those teams.

Heartiest congratulations go out to Keefe, his entire coaching staff, and each and every one of the committed, focused players who have worked so hard to bring Pembroke its first national championship. To the entire organization, well done. To the city of Pembroke and the most amazing fans in the world, who have supported this team so tremendously over the years, you all share in this victory. Savour it, enjoy it. It’s a great moment for everyone in the valley.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We’ll have to start calling you Foster Yakabuski.

ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE

M. Phil McNeely: J’ai assisté, le 4 mai, ici-même à l’Assemblée législative, à la cérémonie de remise des décorations de l’Ordre de la Pléiade,

section Ontario. Cet ordre, créé par l’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie en 1976, est destiné à reconnaître les mérites de femmes et d’hommes qui se sont particulièrement distingués en servant les idéaux de coopération et d’amitié de la francophonie en Ontario.

En tant que membre du comité de sélection, ce fut vraiment un privilège de participer au processus de sélection des six récipiendaires de la médaille de l’Ordre de la Pléiade, 2011. Il s’agit de M me Mariette Dallaire, de Harty; Marguerite Martel, de North Bay; Jean-Marc Aubin, de Hanmer; Alain Baudot, de Toronto; Félix Saint-Denis, d’Embrun; et son père, Yves Saint-Denis, de Chute-à-Blondeau.

Encore une fois, félicitations aux six récipiendaires.

SAMANTHA ATTEW

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I rise today to congratulate Samantha Attew, who has been selected by the Milton Chamber of Commerce as Citizen of the Year. Samantha has been involved in many different organizations and helping to promote various programs in Milton, including the Friends of Milton Hospital and the Grow Milton Hospital projects, which she was heavily involved in.

Her list of community activities goes on and on and on. This is a lady who has lived in Milton for less than five years. When she moved into town, she immediately got involved. She saw a need to do something. She didn’t ask someone else to do it. She didn’t make excuses. She rolled up her sleeves and she went to work, and she’s done that time and time again. She is a very passionate person who gives her all to these projects, and the chamber of commerce has made a very wise decision in selecting her as Citizen of the Year for 2011.

I would point out that it’s always good to give a job to a busy person—and Samantha, indeed, is busy. A busy person is well organized, and she gets the job done. No one in town will ever say that Samantha dropped the ball. She gets the job done time and time again. Again, congratulations to Samantha Attew, selected as the Milton Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year for 2011.

SOUTH ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Every year, in May, we celebrate South Asian month. We celebrate the presence and heritage of people with roots in the South Asian countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan.

The first South Asians arrived in Canada in 1897. The South Asian community has fully embraced the Canadian values of respect, freedom and multiculturalism. We have brought the South Asian spice and flavour to Canada. We have been involved in building this great nation from the railroad to its modern glory. Even today, the South Asian community is second to none in its contribution to the development and prosperity of Canada.

From a personal standpoint, I too am South Asian. My family immigrated from India. I have grown up in the communities of Mississauga and Brampton. I’m very privileged to represent the great riding of Brampton West. This riding’s population is over 50% people of South Asian descent. We celebrate all religious and cultural festivals, from Vaisakhi, Eid, Diwali, Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanza.

In this House, my South Asian colleagues also share and embrace these views.

South Asian Heritage Month has grown dramatically since 2001. Dozens of celebrations take place each year, including events at the Ontario Parliament, the Gerrard Street bazaar and religious and community functions.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate South Asians across Ontario and the constituents of my great riding. I request all members of this House to go out and celebrate this month.

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Tobacco use kills over 13,000 Ontarians every year. This costs the Ontario health care system $1.9 billion and the province’s economy $4.4 billion in productivity loss.

Recognizing that these figures are not acceptable, the McGuinty government took the initiative five years ago to introduce provincial tobacco control legislation that would be the strongest of its kind in North America. Through the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, we showed real leadership by taking a patchwork of municipal bylaws and introducing province-wide action in the war against tobacco use.

Smoke-free Ontario protects us from the impact of second-hand smoke by eliminating smoking in indoor public spaces. It prevents our children from starting to smoke by limiting their exposure to tobacco and reducing their access to tobacco products. All are protected from the allure of cigarettes by elimination of power walls in stores.

As a physician, I’m so pleased that smoking rates continue to fall in Ontario as fewer young people start to smoke and more Ontarians are quitting through programs introduced by the Ministry of Health Promotion. I’m proud to say Ontario has one of the lowest smoking rates amongst Canadian provinces.

With the help of Ontario’s supportive partners, such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Cancer Society and the Lung Association, as well as health care professionals, the McGuinty government has led the way on tobacco control.

EUROPEAN UNION ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: At 12 noon today, we celebrated the 26th anniversary of the European Union. Helping us to celebrate this special day, in the Speaker’s gallery on the east side, are a number of persons who I would like to mention today who were there and made a special mark on the celebrations: the president of the European club, Mr. Marek Goldyn; Jennifer Wawszczyk from the executive; Allyson Luck, also on the executive; Lidiya Koval on the executive; and Julia Prodaniuk, also on the executive of the European club. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

In celebrating this special day, we are very much reminded of what can happen when extreme forms of nationalism are being overcome. The European Union, of course, in terms of celebrating this event, is showing the whole world that working together in co-operation, working with each other, can mean a whole lot of difference in terms of the economy and certainly in terms of the culture as well. So we are reminded that after the first war and after the second war in Europe, when over 50 million people died and the countries of Europe were all devastated—especially after the Second World War—it was necessary to think of a new paradigm, a new way of co-operation, a new way of doing things.

And so I’m very much delighted to have people in the audience who are celebrating with us the 26th anniversary. I know that the future for Europe is great because they will lead the way and show the rest of the world that it is always much better to work in co-operation, as opposed to nationalism.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to beg the indulgence of the House and give the member from Burlington—I know she had some guests who were coming in and there was a bit of a delay for them coming in. I’ll give you the opportunity to introduce your guests.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity.

I would like to introduce to the House members of the Burlington community: Mayor Rick Goldring; Councillor Blair Lancaster; Councillor John Taylor; Frank McKeown, chief of staff to the mayor; and Donna Kell, the manager of public affairs. But also, more importantly, a resident of Burlington in the hamlet of Lowville, Janie Moorse. Welcome.

PETITIONS

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I have a petition to present to the House, and I believe my colleague from Halton, Ted Chudleigh, is going to be presenting some as well. Collectively, there are over 3,000 names on this petition. It’s to the Legislative Assembly, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the location of a new Niagara-to-GTA transportation corridor passing through the rural area of Burlington, as indicated on map number 3 of the regional official plan amendment 38—draft decision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing—November 2010, or as shown by the Ministry of Transportation Niagara-to-GTA draft transportation development strategy, June 2010.”

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the HST, effective July 1, 2010, will raise gasoline prices by 8%; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario will collect approximately $1.6 billion in new tax dollars; and

“Whereas municipalities need access to a greater source of revenue beyond what they collect in property tax;

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

“While our roads continue to deteriorate and our province’s infrastructure deficit is at an all-time high, CAA is asking Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, to dedicate a portion of the HST collected on gasoline and diesel to transportation infrastructure and maintenance.”

It is signed by hundreds and hundreds of people, and I will affix my signature thereto.

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I’d like very much to thank Phil Saunders of Kenninghall Boulevard in Mississauga for having sent it to me. It reads as follows:

“Whereas many seniors, visually impaired persons and other non-drivers do not need or are not eligible for a driver’s licence; and

“Whereas many day-to-day transactions such as cashing of cheques; opening a new bank account at a financial institution; returning merchandise to a retail store; boarding a domestic flight; gaining admittance to bars, clubs and casinos; checking in at a hotel; obtaining a credit card, and even renting a video require government-issued photo identification; and

“Whereas Ontario’s Photo Card Act, 2008, sets the legislative framework required to deliver a non-licence photo identification;

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

“That the province of Ontario develop a government-issued photo identification card and deliver, in 2011, an Ontario photo card identification for residents of the province over the age of 16 who cannot or choose not to drive.”

It’s a very simple resolution. I fully support it. I have affixed my signature, and I’m going to ask page Caleb to carry it for me.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a huge number of petitions, with over 3,000 signatures, from the good people of Burlington, who are very concerned about an issue. They have petitioned the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the location of a new Niagara-to-GTA transportation corridor passing through the rural area of Burlington, as indicated on map number 3 of the regional official plan amendment 38—draft decision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing—November 2010, or as shown by the Ministry of Transportation Niagara-to-GTA draft transportation development strategy, June 2010.”

I agree with this petition. I’m pleased to affix my signature, and I’ll pass it to my page, Amira.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Ontario provincial government has unilaterally ordered the closing of the Owen Sound and Walkerton provincial jails with no public input; and

“Whereas staff of both facilities will be forced to relocate from their home communities and the two rural municipalities will lose up to $3 million each in wages spent; and

“Whereas the local aboriginal offenders will be forced away from their communities and local native resources. All offenders will be moved out of their localities, rehabilitative resources and family visitation. Intermittent sentenced offenders would have jobs placed in jeopardy as the travel to Penetanguishene would be great; and

“Whereas rural communities hard hit by recession and manufacturing job loss need these well-paying jobs in their community;

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

“That Premier McGuinty supports the Owen Sound and Walkerton jails remaining open until such time as a new regional corrections facility can be opened.”

This is certified by the Clerk, and my signature is affixed.

PARAMEDICS

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have a petition today from Tom Schmidt from the wonderful community of Strathroy, Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in servicing Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

I agree with this, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Andrew.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’ve got close to 1,000 names on a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas industrial wind turbine developments have raised concerns among citizens over health, safety and property values;

“Whereas the Green Energy Act allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approvals;

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

“Revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments and that a moratorium on wind development be declared until an independent epidemiological study is completed into the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

I agree with this petition and affix my signature.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Michael Prue: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario provincial government has unilaterally ordered the closing of the Owen Sound and Walkerton jails with no public input; and

“Whereas staff of both facilities will be forced to relocate from their home communities and the two rural municipalities will lose up to $3 million each in wages spent; and

“Whereas the local aboriginal offenders will be forced away from their communities and local native resources. All offenders will be moved out of their localities, rehabilitative resources and family visitation. Intermittent sentenced offenders would have jobs placed in jeopardy as the travel to Penetanguishene would be too great; and

“Whereas rural communities hard hit by recession and manufacturing job loss need these well-paying jobs in their community;

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

“That Premier McGuinty supports the Owen Sound and Walkerton jails remaining open until such time as a new regional correctional facility can be opened.”

I would affix my signature thereto and send it with page Erica.

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition, and it reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas strikes and lockouts are rare: 97% of collective agreements are settled without a strike or lockout; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those two provinces have never repealed those laws; and

“Whereas anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

“Whereas the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community in the short and the long term as well as the well-being of its residents;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.”

I shall sign and send this to the Clerk’s table.

TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition that reads pretty much like the one that was just read, so I’ll read it in French.

« Attendu que les grèves et les lock-out sont rares; en moyenne, 97 % des conventions collectives sont négociées sans arrêt de travail; et

« Attendu que des lois contre le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs existent au Québec depuis 1978 et en Colombie-Britannique depuis 1993, et les gouvernements successifs de ces deux provinces n’ont jamais abrogé ces lois; et

« Attendu que la loi contre le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs a réduit la longueur et la discorde des conflits du travail; et

« Attendu que le remplacement temporaire des travailleurs pendant une grève ou un lock-out compromet le tissu social d’une communauté à court et à long terme ainsi que le bien-être de ses résidents; »

Ils demandent « à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario d’adopter une loi interdisant le remplacement temporaire de travailleurs pendant une grève ou un lock-out. »

J’appuie cette pétition et je vais demander à Jonathan de l’amener aux greffiers.

PARAMEDICS

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

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in servicing Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

I agree with this, and I will sign it and send it down with Caleb.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a petition certified by the Clerk and addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the HST, effective July 1, 2010, will raise gasoline prices by 8%; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario will collect approximately $1.6 billion in new tax dollars; and

“Whereas municipalities need access to a greater source of revenue beyond what they collect in property tax;

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

“While our roads continue to deteriorate and our province’s infrastructure deficit is at an all-time high, CAA is asking Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, to dedicate a portion of the HST collected on gasoline and diesel to transportation infrastructure and maintenance.”

I have affixed my signature.

PARAMEDICS

Mr. Phil McNeely: I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in servicing Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

I’m very pleased to support this petition. I will put my name and send it up with Erica.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the skyrocketing price of gasoline is causing hardship to families across Ontario; and

“Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government charges a gasoline tax of 14.7 cents per litre to drivers in all parts of Ontario; and

“Whereas gasoline tax revenues now go exclusively to big cities with transit systems, while roads and bridges crumble in other communities across Ontario; and

“Whereas many residents of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke have been shut out of provincial gasoline tax revenues to which they have contributed; and

“Whereas whatever one-time money that has flowed to municipalities from the McGuinty Liberal government has been neither stable nor predictable and has been insufficient to meet our infrastructure needs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to redistribute provincial gasoline tax revenues fairly to all communities across the province.”

I support this petition, affix my name to it and give it to John.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s cemeteries are an important part of our cultural heritage, and Ontario’s inactive cemeteries are constantly at risk of closure and removal; and

“Ontario’s cemeteries are an irreplaceable part of the province’s cultural heritage;

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

“The government must pass Bill 126, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2010, to prohibit the desecration of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario.”

As I agree with this, I shall sign it and send it to the Clerk’s table.

PARAMEDICS

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas paramedics play a vital role in protecting the health and safety of Ontarians; and

“Whereas paramedics often put their own health and safety at risk, going above and beyond their duty in servicing Ontarians; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario annually recognizes police officers and firefighters with awards for bravery; and

“Whereas currently no award for paramedic bravery is awarded by the government of Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario paramedics deserve recognition for acts of exceptional bravery while protecting Ontarians;

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

“Enact Bill 115, a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Maria Van Bommel on October 6, 2010,

An Act to provide for the Ontario Award for Paramedic Bravery.”

I will sign this and send it off with page Erica.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 5, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 186,

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

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s an opportunity for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives to discuss what we’ve in fact been discussing for eight long years on this side the House; that is, contraband tobacco and trying to eliminate it on Ontario streets, particularly illegal contraband tobacco in the hands of children. As I’ve said, the Progressive Conservative caucus throughout the past eight years has been asking this McGuinty Liberal government to take action on contraband tobacco.

I remember first being elected to this place and, with my former colleague, now Senator Bob Runciman, asking diligently in this House why more wasn’t being done by this Liberal government on attacking contraband tobacco.

This Liberal government has failed to address illegal cigarettes and the underground economy, they’ve failed to address illegal cigarettes and their links to organized crime, and they’ve failed to address underage smoking as a result of contraband tobacco. I can attest that not only Senator Runciman but other colleagues of mine in this chamber have stood very firmly against this practice. I’d like to acknowledge at this point my colleague from Haldimand–Norfolk, Toby Barrett, as well as my colleague from Thornhill, Peter Shurman, and of course my other colleague, Garfield Dunlop, from Simcoe North.

Through them and the rest of our Ontario PC caucus—I did miss my colleague from York–Simcoe, Julia Munro—we’ve stood up for eight years.

On the eve of an election, this Liberal government plans to roll out a very weak plan that won’t be able to be fully scrutinized before Ontarians go to the polls. In fact, whether or not we decide to pass this legislation before the House rises is another matter.

Of course, those of us in the opposition benches don’t have any knowledge of when that would be passed, but we find it quite suspect, because as I mentioned on several occasions, members of the Ontario PC caucus have stood up, have indicated this is a very serious issue, have responded to Auditor Generals’ reports and have told the government—to keep their feet to the fire—that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, we were not quite sure whether or not it will be addressed in good time.

I can assure you, however, that the Ontario PC caucus will continue to hold this government to account, because we are concerned about contraband tobacco and the lost revenue it has cost the Ontario treasury and the health effects it has had on Ontario’s youth.

Last week, this House had to be suspended for a few moments as a result of comments made by the minister responsible for health promotion. I’m going to quote what she said. In speaking to this bill, she said, “It obviously looks to me like they don’t care about Ontario’s children.” This was a comment made to the opposition benches as it relates to smoke-free Ontario or anti-smoking across our province. I was in the chamber at the time, as were my colleagues from Newmarket–Aurora, Oxford and Halton. We took great offence to those statements.

As parents ourselves, as people who want to see public health in our province succeed and accelerate, the comments were not only unwelcome, but they were also quite offensive. It is offensive as well because she tried to say that only the Ontario Liberal Party has spoken up on a smoke-free Ontario. I must admit, not only was it offensive, but I thought it was very disruptive to an orderly debate on this very important topic of illegal and contraband tobacco.

I want to first commend my colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills, who in 1986 introduced one of the most important pieces of legislation, a private member’s bill that would set the stage for Ontario becoming a smoke-free society. Norm Sterling put forward Bill 71,

An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by prohibiting and controlling Smoking in Public Places. Although that did not pass, he did set the stage for what would be a movement not only in this province, but across the rest of Canada and throughout North America, to promote non-smokers’ rights above those of those who are smoking.

The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills has a riding adjacent to my Nepean–Carleton riding. In fact, over his 32-year career, he has represented many of the communities that I represent today. In fact, in my short career, I have represented some of the communities he represents today. About a month ago, I was talking to his first campaign manager, Rich McDonald. Rich is a great, great Conservative. Do you know what he said to me?

He said, “Norm has taken enormous risks in his career.” The member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills put forward a bill at the time that wasn’t popular in our riding, but he did so because he believed it was the right thing to do, which is in stark contrast to what the Minister of Health Promotion said in this House just last week. That’s why it’s so offensive—because the first person to openly discuss this in a legislative capacity, to make sure that there was one rule for all across this great province, was Norm Sterling.

I’m going to use his own words from that day in 1986. He said, “What we need and what I am proposing in this bill is a uniform minimum provincial standard to deal with non-smokers’ rights in the public place and in the workplace. Quite frankly, I am getting a mixed signal from this government”—and of course, he was speaking at the time about what government? A Liberal government.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: David Peterson.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: David Peterson, at the time, was the Premier.

He said, “I am getting a mixed signal from this government as to whether there is a commitment to reduce smoking in our province.”

My colleague, in 1986, was so far advanced, compared to what this Liberal government is today. He was ahead of the pack, and he’s somebody whom I admire.

I also had an opportunity, when I was forced to listen to the Minister of Health Promotion—I was very disappointed, as I know my colleague from Halton was; he was with me in this chamber at the time. It disappointed me because she put words in the mouths of so many members here.

In 2002, my father, who has passed on, worked hard to bring in an anti-smoking bylaw for his small community of 10,000 people, a place called New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. Like Norm Sterling’s bill, it was not popular; it was not the thing people wanted done in their communities. People were afraid it would close down restaurants and bars and other community places such as bingos, but he believed that it was the right thing to do.

I remember when my father passed—it’s almost four years now since he passed of cancer—it was a triumphant moment for us to realize that he had taken that step, that same step Norm Sterling had taken, which was to stick his neck out and understand that he might be going into a place of relative discomfort. You’re leading the pack and it’s never easy to be a leader, it’s never easy to take charge of a situation, but they both did that.

I was very impressed that it was the Conservatives, under Norm Sterling, that first put forward this type of legislation. Of course, in my own city of Ottawa—and I have two colleagues here who sat on the municipal council there as well; however, they’re now with the Liberals. They took courageous steps back in 2002 and 2003 as well to ensure that the city of Ottawa was smoke-free.

I remember at the time, people would talk about closing down restaurants, closing down bingo halls. Again, it was the right thing to do and people took a positive stand. I was very proud to have worked with the city of Ottawa’s administration at the time, because it was the right thing to do, it would save lives.

Ultimately, the same people who would effectively say that this wasn’t good legislation would, at the end of the day, I think, agree that we were leading the way not only in small communities like New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, not only in big cities like my city of Ottawa, but right throughout the rest of the world—in New York, in Boston, in Dublin. People were recognizing that this was an important place to go and that’s why I have an enormous sense of pride throughout the years that this has been done and people have taken the responsible route.

What wasn’t responsible, as you will probably well agree, was the rhetoric that came out of the minister last week, who effectively said that if you don’t support every government legislation on anti-smoking, then you obviously don’t care about your children, and that’s wrong. As a mother who celebrated Mother’s Day with my six-year-old yesterday, I’ve voted for legislation, whether it’s to ban smoking with kids in cars—in fact, whenever I see somebody doing it, it really hurts to see that, that that somebody would not only be, by the way, ignoring the law, but they’ve put their own child’s health in danger.

I think sometimes you can’t really legislate morality and I think there are a few things that my colleagues have said over time that have been misinterpreted or taken in a different way by the Minister of Health Promotion.

Before I talk a little bit more about where my colleagues have stood over the years on contraband tobacco, I want to talk briefly about the work that some of my colleagues have done, namely my colleague from Simcoe North, who is the correctional services critic. He and I have had an opportunity to discuss this legislation and we’re concerned because it appears that the Minister of Revenue is more concerned about this being a monetary issue and not an enforcement issue. We believe this could have been a corrections bill, or it could actually hit a number of different groups.

The reality is, we need to provide the police with more enforcement mechanisms so that they can crack down on illegal contraband tobacco, which could be anywhere from $500 million a year in lost revenue, but it also contributes to organized crime in our communities.

It could also, of course, be a small business issue. As my colleague from York Simcoe will point out time and again, there’s lost revenue in the small business sector. We’ve had many different groups, like the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association, that have said this is impacting in such a negative way, this contraband tobacco, that it’s hurting small businesses across Ontario. I think, too, of my colleague from Thornhill, who has brought this issue up, these illegal smoke shacks, as a blatant example of how people are fighting law and order, and he has brought that up time and time again.

Then of course, I think there is the real issue of smoking and what it does to our health care system.

But this government has not done very much. In fact, as my colleague says, and I’m going to quote Garfield Dunlop, “We’ve actually asked about this for some time now. Over the last seven or eight years, we’ve asked the government to do more about the contraband cigarettes. Here we are at the 11th hour, five months from the election, and they bring out this bill. We’ll never have a chance to test this bill. Even if it was passed tomorrow, by the time you get it implemented, we won’t have any idea how it will actually work before the election.”

I’ve got a number of questions. I know that we have raised this in the Legislature since as far back as 2005-06. It’s been of grave concern to us, but this government, even after an auditor’s report, effectively did not implement any strategies to rid Ontario of this contraband tobacco. We see it from time to time. Whether it’s on the borders of Cornwall or other port or international boundaries, we’re starting to see these challenges.

I go back to December 2, 2008. My colleague at the time, who’s now a senator on Parliament Hill, asked the Premier of the day, Mr. McGuinty, about “the current estimate that your government will run a $500-million deficit”—jeez, remember when it was only a $500-million deficit instead of a $17-billion deficit?—in the fiscal year, and the necessity for putting that added burden on the backs of future Ontario taxpayers.

He said at the time, “We recently saw published reports that almost 50% of the cigarettes smoked in Ontario are illegal.” He asked at the time, “Premier, can you tell us how much tax revenue you’re losing because of the illegal cigarette trade and what steps you’re taking to collect it?”

At the time, the Premier referred that question to the Minister of Finance, who did not have an answer. He said, “There’s no question that contraband tobacco impacts our revenues.” So in 2008 they recognized that it impacted the revenues, but they didn’t do anything about it. Here we are in 2011, and we’re just starting now to see a bill that focuses more on updating jargon than it does on clamping down on illegal and contraband tobacco.

My colleague then goes on and says, “Any objective observer would have to question this government’s commitment to come to grips with this particular challenge. We only have to look at Haldimand county, where illegal smoke shacks are operating with impunity—one, unbelievably, on government-owned land. Talk about rubbing it in your face.

“Minister, you and your colleagues are the 100-pound weakling here. Where’s Joe Weider when we need him?... [W]hy would you rather burden future taxpayers with a $500-million deficit than enforce the law?”

Remember, this is a question that the former member from Leeds–Grenville, a former leader of the official opposition in this House, Senator Bob Runciman, asked the Premier on December 2, 2008. Three years later we see a toothless bill, and my colleague from Nickel Belt will attest, because we were both interviewed for the same

article when we were told of these great, new enforcement mechanisms—she was the first to be interviewed, so she was the one that got the quote: Why don’t they have them already? If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.

The police should have the ability to arrest somebody and to confiscate it and to protect Ontarians. Unfortunately for us and for Ontario taxpayers and Ontario patients and Ontario smokers, that’s still happening, and there’s no real, real law.

But then they went on to start referring not only from the Premier to the finance minister, but then, of course, remarkably, to the Minister of Correctional Services, who chose, might I add, not to put forward a bill in 2008. Now we find it’s a revenue bill at last.

But Senator Runciman then reminds this chamber that there was an Auditor General’s report in 2008, and it was to say that this government was losing $500 million a year on illegal tobacco.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: At least.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: At least, in the cigarette trade, as my colleague the Attorney General critic points out. So we’re losing at least $500 million a year in tax revenue on the illegal cigarette trade. “Some estimates,” Mr. Runciman pointed out, “peg that as high as $1 billion” in illegal activity surrounding cigarettes that are being sold to minors in this province that it took seven and a half years for this government to even notice. They would rather let it go, that $1 billion or $500 million, whatever number it ends up being.

Whatever that number is, they didn’t care, because they didn’t want to do anything about it at the time. Now they’re bringing this weak bill before us, a bill that offends the sensibilities of constituents who have been calling for real action on illegal contraband tobacco for eight long years. It’s very, very shameful.

The reality is, we have people who are breaking the law in Ontario, and for eight long years, the McGuinty Liberals have turned their back against crime that is happening in our communities and is impacting children and youth. At the same time while that crime is happening and children are smoking, and they can afford it because of these illegal cigarettes, the government of our province is losing anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion because there hasn’t been the leadership on this file to crack down on that illegal activity.

On December 8, 2008, that Auditor General’s report came out, and we at the time were so frustrated because we had been asking for years for resolve. The Auditor General pointed out that by adopting their look-the-other-way justice system and ignoring the problem, they were costing us hundreds of millions of dollars—at least $500 million.

The question we had at the time and I guess the question we all still have on this side of the House is: Why should law-abiding Ontarians put up with the issues we’ve been dealing with across the way when they’re refusing to collect the taxes that we’ve been owed? Understand it from this perspective: When you have a $17-billion deficit and the government is completely looking another way at recovering anywhere between $500 million to $1 billion and they’ve looked the other way, yes, that’s a revenue problem. It’s also a correctional service problem. It’s a justice problem.

It’s an issue that the laws are being flouted in this province, at the risk not only of public health but also of our public revenues and our public services.

So I guess it would, in this 11th hour, explain why this government, right before an election, would want to act: so that they can pretend that they’re cracking down on crime, they can pretend that they’re going to get all of these lost revenues that they have for so long let squander away; $500 million a year goes a long way over a period of eight years, as my colleagues would sure point out.

The question then goes back to this: They acknowledged in 2008 that more needed to be done. They pointed out that they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue problems. The question is, why did we wait until the spring of 2011 to do anything about this bill? They’ve laid off nurses; they’ve cut back on family health teams; they’ve threatened hospital surgical units, and they had at least $500 million they could have collected from these illegal smoke shacks and they did nothing.

Regrettably, at the time, several ministers of the crown dating back to that Auditor General’s report of December 8, 2008, have stood by and watched and done nothing as kids, as adults, as people across our province were able to buy illegal and contraband tobacco. It’s illegal. Something should have been done about it. Regrettably, they lacked any form of concern or expression, and they looked the other way. By the former Minister of Correctional Services’ account, on November 1, 2009, some 257,000 cigarettes were seized.

On November 26, another 50 cartons of cigars and 2,332 cartons of fine-cut tobacco were seized. They acknowledged at the time, in December, that there was more that they could do. The question becomes: Why does it take so long to get anything done? Why didn’t they come back with a strong piece of legislation at the time?

We’re now three years after the Auditor General first released his report on illegal contraband tobacco: how much money the province was losing, how many young people were smoking these contraband cigarettes. As our health critic and deputy leader, Christine Elliott, says, it’s shocking. In fact, our health critic, Christine Elliott, has been working on this issue as well, because it does impact the health of Canadians and the health of Ontarians.

She has spent some time in the great city of Ottawa, as I do, and there was a study done not so long ago—I believe last year—that suggested that most of the cigarettes being smoked at federal government offices in Ottawa were contraband. The reality is, if that’s happening, it’s not just a lost revenue problem, it’s a health problem. But it is also a criminal conduct problem. Why are they letting this occur? It’s so frustrating.

I know, for example, that many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked serious questions. They’ve debated, to no avail, bills that they believed were serious and would help the public health aspect, the public good aspect as well as the small business aspect. We finally get this bill, and when I sat through part of the briefing—my staff sat through the rest—the only thing we could decipher as being a contribution from this current legislation is that, as my assistant Megan Boyle would say, it updates the jargon from last century to this century.

Also, my colleague Ms. Munro from York–Simcoe has been, I believe, a steadfast opponent of contraband tobacco, and she’s been a real champion for small businesses. I want to point out what Ms. Munro has been working on. She said, on September 30, 2010: “Contraband cigarettes are killing small businesses and threatening the livelihood of thousands of convenience store owners.

These contraband cigarettes, which are being smuggled throughout Canada in record numbers, now represent one out of every three cigarettes purchased.” So while we’re talking about $500 million in illegal trade—and that might be lost taxes—we’re also hurting businesses, because one in every three cigarettes smoked is being purchased outside the appropriate avenues—the legal avenues. So it means that small business owners are being hit.

She asked the minister at the time—actually, she asked the Premier, who referred it—“How does this fit in with your overall plan for economic growth and jobs in Ontario? You say you are concerned, but why won’t you take action on illegal” cigarettes? This was a question asked by the member from York–Simcoe last September. And we get from the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services at the time, “It’s a very important question.” Really? I don’t think we really needed Sherlock Holmes for that, Minister. We already knew it was a serious problem. We’ve known it was a serious problem for eight years, but I read it to you again. He said, “It’s a very important question.”

I’d hate to have him trying to crack the big case in a Nancy Drew book or on CSI; I’m quite certain that the obvious has been hitting him on the head for quite some time.

Interjection: Or the Hardy Boys.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Hardy Boys.

Interjection: Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Exactly.

He also says at the time, “It’s a very timely question.” This was back on September 30, 2010, and it’s a timely question: so timely that they would not introduce legislation for another seven months, so timely that they just looked the other way, sat on their hands, twiddled their fingers and did whatever they had to do over a period of time because they weren’t interested in getting the job done.

And then, of course, they did what this government is always very good at doing. Guess who they blamed? They blamed the federal government. Somehow they had to blame Jim Flaherty for a problem that wasn’t his, but he seems to be the biggest opponent of this government over here. They had to blame the federal government.

So I guess the question is, why? Why can’t they put a plan together when most of the illegal cigarette trade is occurring in Ontario? Why couldn’t the Ontario government do anything about it? Do you want to know why? Because they felt it was easier to blame the federal government and tell them to put forward a plan than actually implement one of their own.

Interjection: Did they blame Mike Harris?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They didn’t blame Mike Harris on that particular issue. However, I think the jury is still out on that. I’m sure they may still have a few more opportunities to do just that.

Let’s fast-forward to a year ago, May 4. My colleague Toby Barrett had some questions on illegal tobacco—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Could the member refer to the riding rather than the name?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, sorry; Haldimand–Norfolk. He was curious about illegal tobacco. Of course, he, like the rest of us, was concerned about who would answer the questions over there because it’s a bit of a hot potato, but again it does serve so many different ministries when you think about it. It could be the Attorney General that deals with this. It could be the health minister that deals with this. It could be the revenue minister, which, in this case, it is. It could be the correctional services minister. It could be the small business minister. It could be the health promotion minister.

But do you know what the problem is? There are so many different people talking about so many different things, this government has never had a concerted approach on this issue. In fact, do you know what they could have done?

This government, had it started to listen to the Ontario PC caucus in the early 2000s—after they formed government—would have provided the Ontario public with a task force that had representatives from each of those ministries to cut down the silos, get the job done, enforce the laws to prevent underage smoking, to prevent the underground economy and to prevent further losses to our revenues, whether that’s small businesses. We could have saved all this money, but they chose not to do it.

Again, I walk through some of the different questions that our colleagues have been asking for quite some time. On May 5 of last year, my colleague from York–Simcoe asked the Minister of Consumer Services—yet another ministry in this whole mess that this government has looked the other way on—what steps this government would be taking to protect consumers, particularly those under the age of 19, from the growing threat of illegal tobacco use. What leadership had they shown at the cabinet table for those under 19 who are consumers?

Does anyone want to make a bet who the consumer affairs minister was at the time? It was the current Minister of Revenue. Do you know what she did at the time? She then referred the question, as we’ve seen, and this is a pattern of behaviour from this government, to the previous Minister of Revenue, who’s now the Minister of the Environment. Guess what? Let me tell you this. You’re going to be surprised. He too agreed that it was a very important question, and he too agreed that we can all agree that there are people in our society who manufacture and sell contraband tobacco to our children.

But did they do anything about it at the time? Did they do anything about it on May 4 or May 5, 2010? No, they did not. They waited over another year after the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus had demanded answers from several different ministers. We asked the Premier, we asked the finance minister, we asked the revenue minister, we asked the correctional services minister, and we asked the government and consumer services minister; not one of them provided us with an answer. Not one of them stood up in their place, not one of them demanded that we increase enforcement against the illegal tobacco trade.

Not one of them did that over that eight-year period.

We gave them lots of opportunities. We stood up, we spoke, we asked them, we demanded that they do something for the protection of the children of this province who were smoking. They did nothing.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: No responsibility.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They took no responsibility, no effort, no action. When we talked about the loss in revenues for this province, whether that’s $500 million or $1 billion, whatever that number ends up landing on, did they do anything to try and get that money back into the coffers? No, they didn’t.

We warned them that this was hurting small businesses because the small convenience store owners who have been working night and day, 18-hour and 19-hour days, so they could keep their small business, to feed their families, put their kids through school and heat their homes—when we told them that this was a problem for those small businesses, did they do anything? They did nothing. They waited years to provide us with this very small piece of legislation that changes the name of certain jargon.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: And it doesn’t really attack the manufacturers.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It doesn’t attack the manufacturers, as my colleague from Halton says. It doesn’t do anything to protect the health and safety of children in the health care system, as my colleague from Whitby would tell you. It does nothing to go after those people who are making millions of dollars off of the people, the law-abiding citizens of this province.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: What else are they distributing, those criminals?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It raises a good point. The organized crime component of this, as my colleague from Halton is pointing out, is startling.

Let me go back to taxes for a second, because as I mentioned several times, my colleague from Thornhill has worked diligently on this file. He raised this when no one else wanted to raise it. He would raise it each and every day in the House, demanding answers, and it wasn’t happening.

On May 18, he asked a question again about hard-working convenience store owners. They had warned at the time that adding 8% HST on legal cigarettes was “‘adding gasoline to the fire’ that is the illegal tobacco trade, with its 50%-plus market share. It’s going to accelerate the number of convenience store closings in Ontario, now at 2,400 in the last two years.” Mr. Shurman said, “This is clear cause and effect. These small business owners are offering a revenue-neutral solution to the mess you’ve created. Will you give it to them?”

Guess what? Can I just say that who actually answered this question was the Minister of Revenue? Do you know what he said at the time—this was the