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

October 19, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 19 October 2009 Lundi 19 octobre 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

FIRE IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

SMOKING CESSATION

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

CANCER TREATMENT

MANUFACTURING JOBS

FOOD SAFETY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

HEALTH PROMOTION

PREMIER'S WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

ROAD SAFETY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING IMPAIRED

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING IMPAIRED

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

HELLENIC COMMUNITY OF OTTAWA

POAG JEWELLERS

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH /

MOIS DE L'HISTOIRE DES FEMMES

PERSONS DAY /

JOURNÉE DE L'AFFAIRE « PERSONNE »

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TOM LONGBOAT

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

WIND TURBINES

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TOM LONGBOAT

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I am probably going to steal someone's thunder, but I just noticed a very good friend of mine up in the gallery: a former minister of the crown in this Legislature and my very good friend, Claude Bennett. I hope he understands that what I'm about to do to his successor today, I would never do to him.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to introduce and welcome to the House some members of Project Kids HEAR, who are in the gallery; 150 members and family members are here with Project Kids HEAR to advocate for the benefits of children who are deaf and hard of hearing. I welcome them, and I think we all welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome to the Legislature Brent and Laura Ferguson and their son, Cade, who is here happily wearing his cochlear implants.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'd like to introduce Christine and Chris Wines to the chamber. They're from Grimsby, Ontario, and I welcome them here, as well as Paul Mundra, from Durham region.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I have two guests visiting from my riding today: Sharon Bell and Elizabeth Oliver. They're in the members' gallery. I would like to welcome them to the House.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I would like to welcome two members of the finest school board in Ontario, the Upper Canada District School Board: Greg Pietersma, chair, and David Thomas, the director of education. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. John Milloy: It's my honour to introduce Harry Watts, a World War II veteran and community leader from my riding who served overseas as a motorcycle dispatch rider and, in 2001, wrote one of the first–and maybe only—accounts of the experiences of a dispatch rider during this period. Later today, Harry and I will meet with you, Mr. Speaker, and the executive director of the legislative library to donate his book, The Dispatch Rider, to the legislative library. He is joined by his daughter, Laura Nahls, and Jeremy Diamond, managing director of the Dominion Institute. They're in the west gallery, and I know we'll want to welcome them all.

Hon. Jim Watson: I'd like to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery, 10 former ministers of municipal affairs, and I will ask that they stand: Claude Bennett, who served from 1978 to 1985; Dennis Timbrell, 1985; Dr. Alvin Curling, 1985-87; Dr. Chaviva HoÅ¡ek, 1987-89; Ed Philip, 1993-94; Richard Allen, 1994-95; Allan Leach, 1995-99; Chris Hodgson, 2001-03; Helen Johns, 2003; and David Young, 2003. These former ministers have joined me today to celebrate—

Interjection.

Hon. Jim Watson: Excuse me. Steve Gilchrist. My apologies.

These former ministers have joined me today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the ministry, which coincidentally falls during our second annual Local Government Week, which starts today, during which students from across the province learn the importance of municipal government. I hope the House will join me in welcoming these distinguished guests back to the Legislature.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: On behalf of Minister Broten and myself, I would like to welcome Norseman Junior Middle School and their teachers to the Legislature—Lesley Bullin and Jennie Cansfield. Welcome and enjoy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to introduce Bill Laidlaw, the EO of the Canadian Assistive Devices Association. Welcome, Mr. Laidlaw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the Clerk of the House, I'd like to introduce several Clerks and secretaries from various state Legislatures seated in the Speaker's gallery. They are Patsy Spaw from Texas; Denise Weeks, North Carolina; Diane Bell, Florida; Ann Cornwell, Arkansas; Steve Marshall; Vermont, Pat Harris, Dowe Littleton and Joyce Wright from Alabama; and Bill Schaeffer from Virginia. Enjoy question period today.

FIRE IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you to some people. As many of you are aware, a week ago a fire broke out on the north wing. I think it's important, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, that we acknowledge those individuals who called in the fire; the firefighters, particularly, for their hard work and efforts of extinguishing the fire; and as well all the legislative security, maintenance and library staff who work so hard. We thank everyone, and we're very fortunate this was not a more serious situation. Thank you to all those individuals.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Tuesday, September 29, 2009, the House leader of the official opposition, Mr. Runciman, raised a point of order concerning the conduct of oral question period, and specifically, my

interpretation of standing orders 23(

h) and 23(

i) and 37(a). Both the third party and the government House leaders, Mr. Kormos and Ms. Smith respectively, also contributed to this point.

At the outset, let me repeat what I have already said to the House: My ruling with respect to the previous day's supplementary question by the member for Nepean—Carleton, Ms. Macleod, which prompted this point of order, stands. I considered it to be out of order at the time and, having reviewed our precedents and the relevant authorities, I reaffirm that view.

I also accept the opposition House leader's assurance that he accepts this ruling and that his point of order is not a challenge to the Chair but rather a request for clarification. In fact, I'm grateful for the opportunity this has given me to clarify our rules and practices and my approach to the use of language in question period.

With respect to the question for the member from Nepean—Carleton which I ruled out of order, I've dealt with this theme in previous question periods. The member alleged that the granting of contracts by the present government to a specific firm was "a quid pro quo" for donations by that firm to the Ontario Liberal Party. I am hard-pressed to find a more blatant example of a breach of standing orders 23(

h) and (

i) in Hansard. That question makes an overt and unseemly allegation and directly ascribes motive to the alleged behaviour.

At this point, let me address what is important in part of the two opposition House leaders' arguments, being that standing orders 23(

h) and (

i) refer to another member in the singular. Indeed, to quote the member for Leeds—Grenville, "the wording is quite specific." It is, but the specific wording of the standing order is not the full extent of what informs the Speaker's decisions. The standing orders are the first-line guide to the conduct of proceedings in the House.

However, the standing orders do not exist in a vacuum. They are also informed by practice and precedent. In the current case, there is no dearth of authority for the proposition that an allegation made against the government, or the cabinet or a party—pick the formulation of your choice—often equates, in all meaningful respects, to an allegation against a member of the assembly. Various parliamentary authorities speak to this proposition. In the House of Commons' Procedure and Practice on page 526, it is noted, "Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual member have not always been considered so when applied 'in a generic sense' or to a party."

This, of course, is the same as saying, as I am, that depending on the context and the specific situation, sometimes such expressions have been considered unparliamentary.

This matter is discussed in the Australia House of Representatives Practice commencing at page 500 of the fifth edition. A Speaker's ruling in that House set out their practice as follows:

"I think that if an accusation is made against members of the House which, if made against any one of them, would be unparliamentary and offensive, it is in the interests of the comity of this House that it should not be made against all as it could not be made against one."

Finally, David McGee in Parliamentary Practice of New Zealand notes that "allegations of corruption on the part of the government or a party and offensive terms applied to a party are just as disorderly as allegations against or an offensive term applied to an individual member."

Quite a quick canvass of our own Hansard has revealed numerous examples in support of this. Let me share with you just one to make my point. On October 16, 1996, the Speaker repeatedly called the leader of the third party to order for alleging that the government was "prepared to climb into bed with," "to dance with" and to "have a cozy relationship with organized crime." The member was required to withdraw the language before being allowed to proceed. Other broadly similar examples are not difficult to find.

It is certainly possible to identify from the record numerous instances when a specific allegation or imputation of motive—whether toward a single member, or certain members collectively—passed without comment from the Speaker or another member; in other seemingly identical or largely similar instances, the Speaker or another member objected to the comment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It would be perhaps helpful that all members listen to this ruling, because it speaks to members on both sides of the House, and I think we should be listening.

It is certainly possible to identify from the record numerous instances when a specific allegation or imputation of motive—whether toward a single member or certain members collectively—passed without comment from the Speaker or another member; in other seemingly identical or largely similar instances, the Speaker or another member objected to the comment. This is less inconsistency on the part of the presiding officer than evidence of the "cut and thrust" of question period to which Mr. Kormos referred. Oral question period, as we know, is often emotional, inelegant and raucous.

In that cut and thrust, in the heat and speed of question period, it is sometimes a genuine challenge for the Speaker to find the correct balance between a legitimately aggressive opposition—or an equally aggressive government front bench—on the one hand, and the need to maintain an minimally orderly forum on the other hand. And depending upon the context, the manner of delivery and general tenor of the House, what may be out of order one day will pass without comment or reaction on another.

The opposition House leaders raised this point of order in the context of standing orders 23(

h) and (i), but it is equally important to keep in mind standing order 23(k), which provides that a member shall be called to order if he or she uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.

Sometimes questions, comments, speeches and interjections contain veiled or not-so-veiled innuendo, and just as often are framed in such a way as to invite the listener to infer that which cannot be stated expressly. Aside from being examples of members attempting to accomplish indirectly what they are not permitted to do directly, they are also apt to produce disorder.

I think it is fair to say that the basis for the body of precedents we have that interpret "member," singular, in the plural, lies in the broader power and responsibility of the Speaker to maintain order and decorum. In that broader context, then, simply put, an allegation or assignment of motive against multiple members, or against any collective that embraces members of the House, is not protected by the singular wording of the standing orders.

As Speaker, my goal is always to foster and encourage conditions that permit the opposition to perform its fundamental role of holding the government of the day to account. It is an adversarial system, without a doubt, but it is my view—which I have conveyed on previous occasions—that the maturity of temperate debate produces the best and most respectful environment for this to happen effectively. After all, Ontarians are also watching a government-in-waiting in action.

Let me now turn to the issue of standing order 37, which was also raised in that same point of order. I have recently addressed this issue too. On June 4, the last day of the spring sitting, I stated: "Speakers have traditionally allowed a fair amount of leeway in allowing questions to be put. In this, I am no different than my predecessors. I have taken the view that members should be given the greatest freedom possible in the putting of questions. Like a hockey referee at playoff time, I am always mindful not to be overly intrusive, and as much as possible, to let the game play on.

"The member made reference to standing order 37(a), which refers to the necessity of questions being of urgent public importance. This particular reference has caused some difficulty for almost all occupants of this chair. Like them, I am reluctant to sit in judgment as to what is or is not a question of urgent public importance....

"It is a subjective question, and as demonstrated yesterday by the response to this point of order by the government House leader, there are differing opinions on what is considered to be either urgent or of public importance. One member's pothole is another member's crater."

That statement continues to reflect my approach to the chair, especially during question period. It was not an invocation of standing order 37(

a) that prompted me to move on from Ms. MacLeod's supplementary question on September 28, but rather my impatience with her remarks in the context of standing order 23(h), (

i) and (k).

I accept that this all leaves much to the judgment of the Speaker, judgment that, during question period especially, is often applied in a heated, loud, emotional and adversarial environment. Certainly, I won't always get it right. Indeed, I apologized to the then-leader of the official opposition on June 9, 2008, for having reacted to something that the record revealed he had not actually said.

When the House leader of the official opposition sought clarifications on the ruling given September 28, he indicated that the consequence of that particular

interpretation of standing order 23 is that it would hamstring his party's ability to be an effective opposition. I acknowledge that the subject matter of the question posed by the member from Nepean—Carleton was not trivial and agree that it is a job of the opposition to hold the government to account and that they should do so vigorously and insistently. But I cannot agree that it is necessary to disregard the principles of decorum in order to do so.

As I said earlier, my preference is to let the game play on and permit all reasonable leeway. Only when I feel the line has been crossed, as I did in that instance, would I want to interfere with the free flow of question period or debate in general.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question for the Premier, stemming from his summer of scandal: Premier, in last week's report on your billion-dollar boondoggle at eHealth, the auditor revealed that "one of the firms bidding was aware of additional pertinent information that had not been disclosed to the other vendors." In other words, the firm Anzen got the inside scoop and won the contract. Premier, who gave Anzen the information and encouraged them to submit a second bid on that contract?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague. My colleague is more than intimating—he is in fact publishing—allegations that there may very well have been, as he calls it, bid-rigging and price-fixing.

I think it's important to accept the auditor's report in its entirety and not just parts of it. Furthermore, in his scrum he was specifically asked about the issue of fraud or criminal activity, as my honourable colleague is alleging, and he specifically responded to that question and said, "We saw no evidence of fraud or criminal activity here."

There was a finding. We accept every one of those findings. We will adopt every single one of those recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, quite frankly, what Ontario families would appreciate is a name. Tell us who gave Anzen that additional information.

Sometimes, as Premier, sir, you have to ask the hard and difficult questions to get to the bottom of these situations. You know that Anzen's original bid was 500% higher than that of other qualified bids, but Anzen was selected and then asked to submit a second, lower bid. That certainly smacks of collusion and bid-rigging.

The public has a right to know who gave Anzen that favourable treatment. Who is the Premier trying to protect?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate my honourable colleague's perspective on this, but I think for impartiality and objectivity, we should continue to look to the Auditor General.

Again, he was asked if there was any evidence of fraud, and he specifically said, "We saw no evidence of fraud or criminal activity." He went on in the scrum, and when he was asked, "If it wasn't fraud or criminal, then how would you describe it?" He said: "I would basically say, when you get a lack of oversight, you get broken rules. It goes together like a horse and carriage. That's the best way to put it. The controls just weren't there."

The auditor is right: The controls just weren't there. That's why we're adopting every single one of the recommendations put forward by the auditor, and that's why, prior to receiving the report, we have now specifically prohibited uncompetitive contracts when it comes to consultants in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, quite frankly, Ontario families that funded your boondoggle don't want crocodile tears; they want a name of who was behind it in handing out these sweetheart deals.

No wonder you were dubbed this weekend as "Canada's Worst Government." Your incompetence has exposed taxpayers to civil claims by bidders who saw that favouritism, and civil claims may only be the beginning. The Premier knows that bid-rigging is a breach of public trust and is punishable under the Competition Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. The auditor can only go so far as his mandate allows to point out this misconduct of the McGuinty Liberal government.

Ontario deserves answers. Why is the Premier afraid to call an inquiry to pick up where the auditor left off?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can understand that it's in my honourable colleague's political interest to pursue this, but we're charged with upholding the greater public interest. That's why we asked the auditor to accelerate his look at eHealth, that's why we have willingly embraced every single one of the recommendations put forward by the auditor, and that's why we've even gone beyond that and put in place a number of new rules. We now require competition for contracts with our consultants. Consultants can no longer charge for hospitality and food. They must have their expenses approved by the Integrity Commissioner.

We are also continuing to reduce the use of consultants. Under our government's watch, they've dropped overall by 34%, but within eHealth and the Smart Systems for Health agency, we've reduced the use of consultants in comparison to previous governments by some 40%. We think it's an improvement. Obviously, there's still more work to be done.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Come on. These untendered contracts go up some 4,000% at eHealth under the McGuinty government. I know that this is a Premier who does not like to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions of his minister. It's clearly a Premier who would rather look the other way, but taxpayers want answers, Premier.

We know this goes all the way to the cabinet table. In 2008, the auditor reveals, the McGuinty Liberals gave themselves a three-month waiver from Management Board rules restricting untendered contracts. Premier, who gave the Management Board the orders to waive the regular rules?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague, with this continuing line of questioning, is saying that he lacks confidence in the auditor's report, that the auditor was less than thorough, and what he did produce he's prepared to accept in part but not in whole.

I put it to the people of Ontario: You can rely on the partisan perspective of the official opposition or you can rely on the findings and specific recommendations on the auditor. I'll put the auditor's opinion, perspective, findings and recommendations up against the official opposition's any day, and, I would submit, so would the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Lost confidence? I tell you, Premier, it's the people of Ontario who have lost confidence in a Premier who would rather look the other way in this billion-dollar boondoggle.

On June 17, the Premier announced new rules around untendered contracts. In your press release, you said that ministers at Management Board would be responsible for administering the new rules. But, Premier, it was Management Board in the first place that broke the rules. This is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse.

I'll ask you more directly, Premier: Was it your Deputy Premier, Minister Smitherman, who encouraged Management Board to break the rules and go on this untendered-contract spending spree that benefited Liberal friends?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To be clear, what treasury board did on that particular occasion is the kind of thing that has been done by previous treasury boards in previous governments. We've now changed that rule so that it can't happen again. All governments may have done it, but this government has put a stop to it. We're now requiring that if a consultant wants to enter into a contract with the province of Ontario, with the government of Ontario, it must be part of a competitive bidding process. We think that's fair, we think that's reasonable and we think it's in keeping with both the spirit and the specific recommendations of the auditor's report.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, five straight questions and five times the Premier refused to give a name. He refused to say who was behind this billion-dollar boondoggle. This is clearly a Premier who would rather sweep this under the carpet than get answers for taxpayers who are working hard and saw $1 billion get flushed down the drain.

It has become very clear that after six years in office, this is a government that won't give up its dirty secrets willingly. The $30-million IBM sweetheart deal had to be discovered through freedom-of-information requests. Who knows what other contracts were slipped through that four-month Management Board holiday?

Premier, we need, on behalf of working families in our province, a full public inquiry so that we can understand what role your Deputy Premier and your government played in handing out these sweetheart deals to Liberal friends.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I thought we had a very thorough review of the matter at hand by the auditor. I accept that, I respect that and I endorse that, and we adopt it in its entirety.

I believe that my honourable colleague is more interested in engaging in political games than he is in accepting the auditor's report in its entirety. On this side of the House, we have decided that our responsibility lies in bringing the auditor in, in giving him complete leeway to conduct his investigation and in accepting fully and wholeheartedly his recommendations. We adopt each and every one of those. We have faith in the auditor. I only wish that my honourable colleague would do the same thing.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. When it comes to health care, there are two different worlds in McGuinty's Ontario. In one world, our health dollars pay $2,700-a-day salaries for recording voice mail messages; in the other, local hospitals close, services are cut, and waits for long-term care keep growing and growing.

On Friday, I sent a letter to the Premier urging him to ask the Auditor General to conduct spot audits on the use of consultants at the Ministry of Health, at the LHINs and at hospitals. My question is a simple one: Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from the leader of the NDP. I think it's worth reminding ourselves that the reason the auditor originally decided to take a look at eHealth was of his own accord. It was not the subject of a request coming from any party that forms part of this Parliament. He also has the authority to conduct these spot audits whenever he thinks it's appropriate to do so, and I would encourage him to do whatever he thinks is appropriate in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve to know where their precious health care dollars are going and how they are being spent, especially when the McGuinty government is cutting health care services in this province.

In the gallery today is a woman named Christine Wines from Grimsby. The surgery she needs is an OHIP-listed service, but her local hospital says they cannot afford to provide it for her. Can the Premier explain to Christine why this government is keeping well-connected insiders in the lap of luxury when it can't find the funding to provide the surgery that she so desperately needs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Although there's a lot of creativity in here—and I appreciate that, as the son of a professor of poetry—the facts are not unimportant. The fact is, we've increased funding, since 2003, for health care by 42%. That is a dramatic increase in funding for our hospital care. As a result of that, we're now funding 1.69 million new procedures, which are leading to reduced wait times. Nine hundred and seven thousand more Ontarians now have access to family care. We have 14 new MRI machines and double the number of MRI hours of operation.

We have almost 1,800 more doctors practising in the province of Ontario. We have 150 family health teams now caring for 1.9 million Ontarians, with more of those family health teams on the way. We are certainly investing more in health care.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier talks of creativity, and all we see out of his mouth is callousness. The Premier tells Ontarians like Christine to accept health care cuts in these very tough times, but he refuses to take steps to end the health care consultant gravy train.

The Premier has another chance to show Christine he cares about how precious health care dollars get spent in this province. I've also called on him to ask the Auditor General whether it's appropriate for senior health care bureaucrats to get their paycheques from hospitals in what appears to be an effort to skirt the pay guidelines. Will he agree to do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to this issue as well. That is a practice, in my understanding, that's been around for a long time. It was there under the NDP, the Conservatives and now, under our government. If it doesn't offend the letter, it certainly offends the spirit of the salary disclosure legislation. That's why we have undertaken—I believe my honourable colleague knows this—to ensure that if you look up the salary of a senior bureaucrat working inside the Ministry of Health, that will be reflected under the Ministry of Health column and not buried away in some other hospital. Like my colleague, I disagree with that practice and that's why we're going to change it.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier as well. After six years under the McGuinty government, Ontario has lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs and seen a massive increase in the welfare caseloads. Can the Premier explain why, when people need help more than ever before, he's shutting down job training programs like the self-employment benefit?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Actually, sadly, there is a growing demand on our retraining programs and the support we provide to people generally who have lost their jobs because of this terrible economic dislocation caused by this global recession.

If I can speak about our Second Career program momentarily, we had anticipated that it would take about three years to have that program fully subscribed. We thought we might take three years to have 20,000 Ontarians who lost their jobs enrolled in that. We've now reached that limit in about 16 months. What I've now charged Minister Milloy with is, I've challenged him to come up with a way to ensure that we can continue and maintain that program under different guidelines that are affordable to Ontario taxpayers but, at the same time, meet the needs of families who are losing those jobs.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the gallery today is Paul Mundra from the Durham region. Mr. Mundra was an applicant to the SEB program and was scheduled to start in November. He went through an extensive screening process and attended numerous interviews and presentations. Now, the program has been abruptly cancelled.

Can the Premier explain to Mr. Mundra how the government can find millions for consultants and other insiders but is unable to help him get back to work?

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

Hon. John Milloy: As the Premier indicated, we've had tremendous success in terms of Employment Ontario services that have been offered to Ontarians over the last year. We have about 21,000 people who have come forward for Second Career. At the same time, we continue to offer a variety of core services to individuals.

As the Premier indicated, we want to make sure that the services that are offered are the most effective possible, that they are reaching those individuals who are most in need, so we're undertaking a review of a variety of services. The core services remain. The self-employment benefit: We have about 3,000 people who are part of that program. They will continue to receive support, but we have announced for the time being that we will not be taking in any more applications as we go through and review this program.

I would remind the honourable member that when the Auditor General took a look at this—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: With 350,000 jobs lost, the need is enormous in this province for help for these workers, and it's not just the SEB program that's being cut. The Second Career program is leaving new applicants in limbo for months, job action centres are being shuttered across the province, and important programs like targeted wage subsidy and the Ontario skills development program are being gutted.

In the midst of an unprecedented jobs crisis, as unemployed Ontarians struggle to get back on their feet, why is the McGuinty government cutting them off at the knees?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it incredible that the leader of the third party, a party that has done nothing but mock and make fun of the Second Career program, is now standing up with crocodile tears. We have welcomed 21,000 Ontarians into the program. We are committed to ensuring that the Second Career program continues. We continue to process and approve applications for that program, albeit on a limited basis while we undertake a review. We hope to have an announcement shortly, aimed at the January intake.

We have been offering services to a range of unemployed Ontarians, and we have hundreds, if not thousands, of stories of people who are redoing their lives right now by participating in these programs.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Premier, who blocked the Auditor General from investigating the McGuinty government's waste of $1 billion in the eHealth scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I believe my honourable colleague is talking about a reference in the auditor's report, which was a troubling one, where he said that he had been blocked by some senior bureaucrats with respect to the investigation. I have made it clear to the secretary of cabinet and to all our ministers and deputy ministers how important it is for us to co-operate fully with the auditor. In fact, the secretary of cabinet has just recently sent a letter to Mr. McCarter, our Auditor General, effectively affirming that.

I want to reassure the auditor that we want to maintain our perfect record, apart from this particular issue, of co-operating fully with the auditor when it comes to these kinds of investigations.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: With respect, that still doesn't answer the question, because since he was first asked, the Premier has had a week and a half to find out who was obstructing the Auditor General in his probe, but he's still hanging on to his dirty secret. Premier McGuinty deflected and stonewalled the Auditor General for six months before he got access to the records, but even then, the Auditor General has said that some of the records are missing. That's of great concern to us, given the magnitude of this scandal.

If the Premier shares our concern about who blocked the Auditor General and what was missing in those records, then he will call a public inquiry to let the people of Ontario know what has happened. Will the Premier do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's the first I hear that the auditor did not get all the material that he thought was appropriate to his work. If there is additional material that he needs, obviously we will do everything to ensure that he receives that.

I do want to again share with members of the House a letter from the secretary of cabinet, Shelly Jamieson, sent on the 16th of this month to Mr. McCarter, our Auditor General. She says, "I note that"—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As I have made comments in the past, it's always helpful that members are sitting in their seats if there are going to be interjections; as well, though, that members show some restraint in some of the comments and not to have this constant comment being shot across the floor.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to make reference to a letter sent by the secretary of cabinet, Shelly Jamieson, on the 16th of this month saying the following: "I note that in your report you raise a concern that your access to ministry records was on occasion insufficiently expeditious....

"I assure you of my commitment and that of my deputy ministers to full and timely co-operation with your office."

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Children's aid societies held a press conference last week to sound the alarm about the McGuinty government's $23-million cut to child welfare and protection services. After blowing $1 billion on an eHealth boondoggle, why is this government cutting funding to services to some of Ontario's most vulnerable children?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very, very pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this most critically important issue.

Kids in the protection of children's aid societies are some of the most vulnerable kids in our province, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring that every opportunity is given to those kids. Very early in the privileged role that I now have, I had the opportunity to speak to the leadership of the children's aid societies, to reach out to those organizations and let them know that we are ready, willing and able to work with them through this period of time when they must find a pathway to sustainability in their budget. I look forward to continuing to work with them.

These are important steps that we are undertaking. There is much more work to do and we are absolutely committed to doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They don't need a reach-out; they need a lifeline—a financial lifeline. They're cutting services to kids. That's what's happening in this province right now.

The government is ignoring the very agencies entrusted with looking after Ontario's most vulnerable children, and it's ignoring First Nations leaders who are seeing the impact of these cuts first-hand. They're telling me everywhere I go in this province that it is a frightening situation. Why won't the McGuinty government recognize the error of its ways and commit to restoring the funding before more young lives are at risk?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let's be clear on what the facts are in this case. Over the last decade, CASs have seen an increase in their budget in the amount of $1 billion. That type of increase year over year is simply not sustainable. But let me also be clear that our standards to protect kids are tough in Ontario, and they must and will be met. That is why we are working through regional offices across the province to find long-term plans and develop partnerships and, at the same time, are putting in place a commission to ensure that we find a pathway to sustainability. There are 30 million more dollars in this year's budget than in the last. That is being distributed across CASs.

I am absolutely committed to working with the CAS leadership. I will be sitting down with them later this week. We will find a pathway through this circumstance, because kids are the most important resource in this province. I'm—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Revenue.

On TVOntario's program The Agenda last week, the NDP said that the HST was going to be a job killer. Understandably, many people are hesitant of a blanket statement made by the NDP on economic matters—albeit a different perspective. This hesitation was reconfirmed when on The Agenda the NDP misquoted a report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce saying that Ontario would lose 10,000 to 40,000 jobs in the short term and more in the long term as a result of the HST.

Len Crispino, the president and chief executive officer of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who was also on The Agenda, refuted the NDP's misquote, saying, "Look carefully on page 36 of our report, which clearly says there is no decrease in the current number of jobs."

To the minister: To quote a question from the NDP, "I want to know: What kind of jobs are being created" by the HST?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question.

Twenty-first-century jobs: That's what's being created. We're going to take our tax system, which was created in 1961, in a different decade, and we're going to reform that so that in the 21st century, right here in Ontario, we can compete and win for the jobs, the jobs that our people need in this province—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want the good people of Ontario to know that on this side of the House we are committed to ensuring that the jobs of the future, the jobs that we need today in the 21st century, the jobs that we need for our children, are going to be there, and we'll do that by reforming our tax system. Despite the allegations made by other parties, I can assure you that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which has called on this tax reform for over a decade, is supporting us and our move to ensure that there are jobs in the 21st century for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: I don't want the Tories to be unloved, so on The Agenda the Conservatives stated they are not looking at the HST with an eye to business or the manufacturing community. After years of cutting social services and downloading to the municipalities, the Conservative Party is now trying to convince Ontarians that their main concern is the everyday Ontarian. They claim that the HST will negatively affect the low-income Ontarians.

This is in stark contrast to what the poverty groups in the province are saying. Groups such as the Ontario Association of Food Banks and Daily Bread Food Bank support the HST. The Daily Bread Food Bank stated, "We expect that that harmonization will actually mean people will have more money in their pocket. We think the new enhanced sales and property tax credit for low-income Ontarians will be additional sources of income that will help offset ... additional taxes...."

Who do we trust—the Tories or the people on the ground—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I tell you, on this side of the House, we just have one—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The Minister of Transportation.

Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would say to the good people of Ontario, the people who have just one position on this file—members opposite who go on and on about small business are telling small businesses that we should not cut the small business tax, that we should not eliminate the small business deduction. They are telling us that—in our proposal, of course, they pay less. I thought that they were for small business.

I say to the members of the NDP, when we're on the same side as the Daily Bread Food Bank, when we're on the same side and you're on the opposite side, you just might want to check where your position is on this issue.

The most important thing that we need to do is ensure that we modernize our tax system, that we drag it out of the 20th century, despite the fact that we have the twins of the status quo over there—status and quo—and understand that in this 21st century we will compete and win for new jobs.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Now that we're back into real question period, I'd like to ask the Premier of Ontario a real question.

The auditor didn't have a mandate or the resources to subpoena witnesses—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The auditor didn't have the mandate or the resources to subpoena witnesses or go beyond the paper that was left for him. Even so, the auditor found favouritism in how the McGuinty Liberals handed out contracts. My question is very simple: In addition to John Ronson, Karli Farrow and Geoff Smith, who else in your billion-dollar eHealth scandal is connected to the McGuinty Liberals?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would caution the member in her line of questioning of implying motive for decisions that are made, and just ask that you be a little cautious.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is simply no foundation in fact for what my honourable colleague is suggesting. Again, I would draw to her attention that part of the auditor's report where he discussed this very issue. He said, "We were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but we saw no evidence of this during our work."

Again, I think if you're going to accept the report, you should accept it in its entirety, as we have in government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier quotes his set of facts. Let's quote some other ones.

John Ronson ran Liberal election campaigns and founded Courtyard Group. They received millions in untendered contracts from the McGuinty Liberals. Karli Farrow is Minister Smitherman's former chief of staff. She was also the Premier's own health adviser. She took a position with Courtyard before the end of the cooling-off period set out in

section 19(2) of Public Service of Ontario Act. Geoff Smith is the Premier's own bagman and was appointed to the eHealth board—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

Geoff Smith is also a point person of interest and was appointed to the eHealth board and handed out taxpayer dollars to Liberal friends in all these untendered deals.

So the question remains: Why is the Premier refusing an inquiry that would tell us who else got rich on the scandalous use of taxpayer dollars and how they are affiliated to the McGuinty Liberal government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I would encourage my honourable colleague to read the report and to read it in its entirety and then to accept it in its entirety, as we have in government. There is simply no better way to put it than the auditor himself did, and I'll read the same extract again. He said, "We were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but"—again, this is important—"we saw no evidence of this during our work."

I think that's pretty conclusive. We accept that and I would encourage the opposition to do the same.

SMOKING CESSATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour le premier ministre. In the last year your government has cut almost a third of the funding to the smoke-free Ontario strategy, from $60 million to $42.8 million this year. Meanwhile, $1 billion was spent on eHealth with very little to show for it. My question is simple: Can the Premier explain why he cut $17 million from this life-saving strategy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government remains committed to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and committed to protecting the health of Ontarians from the harmful effect of smoking and second-hand smoke.

The public health units and their tobacco enforcement officers also play a key role in achieving and maintaining high compliance levels with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

We have invested over $37 million in cessation programs involved with smoke-free Ontario. In fact, we have also passed legislation prohibiting smoking in motor vehicles with children under the age of 16.

We continue to prioritize the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and we continue to work hard to improve the health of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The facts remain: Virtually every program within the smoke-free Ontario strategy has seen cuts—from prevention to cessation to public education. The only significant increase was in administration. The way we look at it is that the government is cutting $17 million in prevention that keeps people from developing an addiction to tobacco while we continue to pay $1.7 billion in treating people who develop an addiction to tobacco. The numbers don't seem to add up too well here.

Can the minister explain how this makes any financial sense?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Our government, again, is committed to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and we are committed to the health of Ontarians. We have seen a significant drop in smoking rates in this province and we are in the process of setting new targets for reduction in tobacco use in the province of Ontario. We are also developing a smoking cessation strategy to help specific populations of smokers, more particularly our young people and our ethnic communities and aboriginal communities. Smoke-free Ontario remains a key priority for this government.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I understand that this week, October 18 to 24, is Local Government Week. This is the second year of the program, and many schools across Ontario will be participating in educational activities to learn more about the role of local government in Ontario. Just as we did last year, I understand the province is partnering with the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and AMO to organize this year's event. I also understand the ministry is celebrating its 75th anniversary.

Minister, could you please talk more about Local Government Week and what your ministry is doing to educate the public about this very important level of government, that being municipal government?

Hon. Jim Watson: As the member mentioned, it is the start of Local Government Week in the province of Ontario, a time for us to celebrate the achievements of municipal government. In celebration of Local Government Week, as I said earlier, I had the opportunity of inviting former Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing with us. I'd like to welcome them to the Legislature, for those members who did not see the introduction.

Despite some ideological differences, we have one thing in common: Each of us has tried to improve the lives of our fellow Ontarians by providing municipal governments with the tools they need. The work that municipal representatives do has a direct impact on our daily lives, from garbage collection to snow removal, but today they are also the first point of contact in delivering social services, social housing and countless other benefits. The work is never easy; the challenges they face are ever-present. This week is a time for us to honour that work and to say thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister, for updating the House and highlighting this important week and the important work that municipalities do. As you know, Ontario municipalities still need our help. They are doing their best to manage in tough times and are asking us to do what we can to ease the burden that they carry. Infrastructure investments improve the quality of life and, certainly, promote economic growth across Ontario by creating jobs for Ontarians and providing needed repairs to public infrastructure. There is an ever-constant need for not only new affordable housing but repairs to our existing stock of affordable housing.

I also know that one of the ways we can gain greater value for municipal governments is to provide them with a greater ability to respond to the needs of their communities. Minister, how is your ministry helping communities do just that?

Hon. Jim Watson: A year ago this month, we signed a very historic document with AMO and the city of Toronto called the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review. It was an exercise that was based on consensus and goodwill, and the uploads that will take place over the course of this agreement will see $1.5 billion per year benefit our 444 municipalities. With these uploads, Ontario municipalities will have increased ongoing support from $1.1 billion when we had the honour of taking office in 2003, to $3.8 billion by 2018—a 250% increase.

In our proposed budget, we also committed $32.5 billion over the next two years for infrastructure—that will help support 300,000 jobs—and $1.2 billion with the federal government to build 4,500 new houses and repair 50,000 units. We're there in partnership with our municipal sector.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, the Ombudsman has said that not funding the life-prolonging cancer drug Avastin is bordering on cruelty. In his report, he recommended that your government fund Avastin past the 16-cycle cap for colorectal cancer patients who are showing positive results. Your predecessor did not take the Ombudsman's advice, nor did your ministry staff. The decision is up to you. Will you do the right thing today and commit to funding Avastin past the 16-cycle cap?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First and foremost, of course, my deepest sympathies go to anyone who is dealing with cancer of any type and to their families. Colorectal cancer is a very difficult disease to deal with, but I want to talk about your request to expand Avastin beyond the 16 cycles that are currently funded. We have a system to determine what drugs are covered, and it is not political. I don't think politicians are best equipped to make decisions about which people get what drugs and when. That's why we established the Committee to Evaluate Drugs.

It is charged with recommending which drugs should be funded and for how long. It relies on clinical experts to give them the very, very best advice on what to do. I think it should stay with the experts, not with the politicians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, your job is to make decisions in this House. You know full well your ministry's stand on this issue, so this decision is yours.

The Auditor General's report is scathing on eHealth and it exposed $1 billion that went to waste. Extending the funding for Avastin will cost approximately $9 million a year, a fraction of that $1 billion your government has wasted. The Ombudsman says that the decision to cap Avastin was dictated by cost concerns and was in fact contrary to the accepted standard of medical care in this province. Isn't it sad that there is nothing to show for the $1 billion, and now you say you cannot fund Avastin past the cap?

I'm asking you again: Will you today commit to funding Avastin past the 16-cycle cap?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: With respect, my job is not to make clinical decisions. My job is to make sure that the right processes are in place and that funding is there. That's why we've invested $1.5 billion in new drug funding since we took office in 2003. Since 2006, we've added 26 cancer drugs to the formulary. We've increased funding for cancer drugs from $72 million in 2003 to $188 million. It was our government that started funding Avastin to improve treatment options for colon cancer. This year, more than 1,300 patients will be receiving it.

I think it's also important to note that there is an option under exceptional cases to extend beyond the 16 cycles.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. More than $60 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money has been shovelled into the Navistar truck plant in Chatham. As a thank you to Ontarians for their generosity, Navistar has shifted production to Mexico and laid off all of its 1,200 Chatham workers. When will this government stand up to Navistar and demand it live up to its obligations to Ontario workers and Ontario taxpayers?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important to note that right now, we know that Navistar is busy having negotiations with its workforce, and that is one area that the Ontario government does not interfere with.

I will tell you that not just this current government but the one previous stepped forward to work with Navistar to ensure that they would have a footprint here in Ontario. We are looking forward to some positive outcome with negotiations between the CAW and Navistar. We are maintaining contact with the company and asking for that presence to be maintained in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has already thrown in the towel. Last week she said, and I'm going to quote, that there is "no role" for the McGuinty government to play in resolving this Navistar issue. With 1,200 jobs and $60 million of public money on the line, how can this government let Navistar off the hook so easily?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I will reiterate again: There is no role for the Ontario government between a company and its union in negotiations at the table. Any government—in particular, an NDP one—would have learned a lesson in that regard.

Now, let me agree with the member opposite in this way. When we put money on the table for Navistar, it was particularly geared to items that would have a legacy effect in Ontario: first, R and D based at the University of Windsor that is significant for a scientific base, and that continues today and will in the future; second, for the training of workers at Navistar. That is funding geared to training for people that will maintain those skills in the future in this province. That is an important place for the Ontario government to be, to make that kind of investment with Navistar.

FOOD SAFETY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Food safety and quality are of paramount importance to both the agricultural sector and the broader general public. As a province, we pride ourselves on the quality and safety of the food that we produce here. Because it is essential to maintaining that good reputation, agricultural representatives have been asking for some time now that we implement animal health legislation, as seen in Alberta and Quebec.

Having myself been closely involved with farming for many years, I know that protecting farm animal health is important both in terms of food quality and safety, and the economic future of our agricultural industry.

Minister, could you please inform the House about the benefits of the animal health legislation that was brought before the House on October 5?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Certainly, the honourable member, who is a very strong advocate for the industry, has talked with representatives from the agriculture sector and knows very well that this is an important issue. Our industry partners have indeed been asking for this type of legislation to protect animal health, as we know that focusing on animal health in the livestock and poultry sectors will strengthen consumer confidence in our agriculture products. We know that when they have confidence in what is produced in Ontario, we have better marketability, not just in Ontario and Canada but internationally.

Should an outbreak of disease occur on an Ontario farm, both the public and our agriculture partners want to know that we will be able to act in order to ensure food safety and the protection of our industry. That's what this legislation—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: As the next generation comes onto our farm, I'm keenly aware of the positive impact that this will have on the safety and quality of our food, the future economic well-being of farmers, as well as on our ability to protect our food system from the potential outbreak of disease.

As discussions have unfolded with farmers in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, as well as with industry representatives, I can say that the ability to trace the origins of food products consumed by Ontarians is critical to consumer confidence. Should disease or food contaminants be found, traceability allows us to locate the source of the problem in a timely manner.

In a recent issue of the Ontario Farmer weekly, a concern was raised by a fellow member about the cost of establishing a food traceability system being borne by farmers. Minister, could you provide for this House more information on traceability and clarify the issue of the cost of establishing such a food traceability system?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Traceability is a very important issue in the agriculture sector. In fact, it was one of the key issues that we spoke about at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting. What the provinces of Canada have stressed with our federal minister is that, should there be a move to go to a mandatory traceability system, there should be federal funding to accompany that. That is a view held right across our country.

With respect to this legislation, it is enabling legislation that will be consistent with any requirements that may come from the federal government. We will also be consulting with our industry partners on this enabling framework. We believe that we have struck the right balance here and that should the federal government choose to fund a traceability system nationally for our food, we'll be—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, Haldimand County Hydro pulled the plug on a young hog farmer, Wayne Bartels, for an unpaid bill of $11,000. Calls to your office for over a year now about the Bartels' predicament get nothing but sympathy letters and a briefing note that reeks of your failure on this file.

Minister, the lights are back on this morning on Bartside Farms thanks to federal dollars but no thanks to you. What exactly are you doing for young and beginning farmers frozen out of provincial help? I'm referring specifically to farmers like Wayne Bartels.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I would remind the honourable member that this government has been there for the livestock sector. We did provide a $150-million ad hoc payment.

With respect to the challenges that there are in the livestock sector, particularly in hogs—and the individual that was identified by the honourable member is a hog producer—the province of Ontario made it very clear at our federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting that there needed to be a national response. That is why, on October 15, all of the provinces were relieved that the federal government finally came out with a program to assist and support those in the industry who are in difficulty. A very important part of that is a transition funding piece, so that those who are having difficulty making money in the hog sector can transition to a sector that is—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, I'm pleased that you are again so supportive of our federal Conservative government. But the farmers need more than a cheerleader from the Ontario government; they need someone to step up to the plate and do something. Other provinces have added to the federal program, but the Ontario hog farmers have received absolutely nothing from Ontario.

Minister, this is just the first of many farmers that will face this situation and be forced off their farms if you don't help. Is this how you plan to downsize the hog industry—by forcing new and beginning farmers out of business?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Actually, I think that it's important that the honourable member pay attention to what the Canadian Pork Council brought forward to the federal government, and it is in response to that ask that the federal government has made the investments that it has. One of those investments is $75 million for a transition program.

Interjection.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It would appear that the honourable member already has the answer and isn't interested in the one I'm giving. But at the end of the day, all of the provinces in Canada urged the federal—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member just had the opportunity to ask the question, and I would really appreciate it if he would listen to the answer.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the—no, leave the clock running. The honourable member from Oxford, it's not appropriate to be jumping up like that. If you're dissatisfied, you know the standing orders. If you are dissatisfied with the answer, you have the opportunity to call for a late show.

Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Thank you, Speaker. All of the provinces across Canada urged the federal minister to come forward with a response to address the pressing needs, particularly in the agriculture sector. On August 15 of this year, the federal minister did pay very close attention to what all of the provinces in Ontario said that we needed to do, and that was to consider what the hog industry presented and provide a program that accommodated for those asks. The federal government has done that. I think that it's important that hog producers in Ontario pay very close attention and participate in—

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

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. With record unemployment levels, thousands of good jobs destroyed, and employment insurance claims soaring across northern Ontario, can the Premier explain why the McGuinty Liberals have cut off the funding of local job action centres in northern Ontario communities like White River, Nipigon and Terrace Bay?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

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

Hon. John Milloy: Our ministry has been very happy to go into communities where there have been layoffs and work with those factories and with those employers as well as the unions to set up job action centres. Those job action centres help employees to access Employment Ontario offices. The contracts that are signed between Employment Ontario and those job action centres are for a period of time to allow workers to be adjusted. They're reviewed on a regular basis, and when they're no longer needed, they are wound up.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty Liberals want people across northern Ontario to believe these job action centres are no longer needed. I say that the McGuinty government is completely out of touch with what is happening. In some of these communities, the unemployment rate is greater than 50%. Things like suicide happen because workers have been laid off and have no opportunity. Not only that, but they've been told that the self-employment benefits have been halted as of October 9, and that targeted wage subsidies, the skills development program and the Second Career strategy are in limbo.

People seriously consider suicide; other people have nowhere to go. Why are the McGuinty Liberals cutting the funding for these kinds of strategies at the very time when people need them most?

Hon. John Milloy: I know the member would never want to leave the impression in this Legislature that a job action centre is tantamount to Employment Ontario services. Employment Ontario exists throughout this province in every single community. It offers a range of services to 900,000 Ontarians. It offers training; it offers employment support; it offers resumé writing.

Yes, we are in the process of reviewing a number of the programs that are moving forward, but the self-employment benefit the member references has been suspended; we will not be taking any more applications.

He also speaks about Second Career. We are, right now, still accepting applications and processing them, and we hope to have an announcement shortly of a new program.

We are still providing employment supports to people throughout this province.

HEALTH PROMOTION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. We all know that the promotion of health and wellness of Ontarians is a good investment. That is why the Ministry of Health Promotion was created in 2005 to focus government efforts by providing effective programs to address chronic disease and obesity, but we know that there is no silver bullet for these problems. Instead, we must address the multiple preventable risk factors that affect the health of Ontarians, such as poor nutrition, a lack of physical activity and substance abuse.

In the past, Minister, your ministry has had several preventive programs funding local and provincial initiatives which addressed each of these health risk factors, but I'm sure you will agree that our focus should be more than just addressing these conditions and behaviours on an individual level. What is the government doing to support local organizations to better promote health within their own communities?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member from Ottawa Centre for his question. I know that member is a person who works diligently to advance the interests of community. I concur with his point that there are many preventable factors that affect our health. A person who eats well but drinks excessively is not maximizing their health. A person who is physically active but takes up smoking is not maximizing their health. Each of these risk factors should not be addressed in silence, as we recognize that they are interconnected.

To this end, I'm pleased to talk about the $16 million that our government is investing annually through the new healthy communities fund. This new fund is helping local partners promote physical activity, healthy eating, intervention, tobacco control and mental health promotion. It will help organizations build and maintain important partnerships across risk factors and increase the work they are doing to improve the health of Ontarians.

PREMIER'S WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of the Legislature to wish the Premier and his lovely wife, Terry, a happy 29th anniversary today. Premier, all the best.

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

The House recessed from 1148 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: This past week, I spoke with many of my constituents who have come through my door seeking help and answers regarding the strike at DriveTest. Every group is affected. Our youth cannot obtain their drivers' licences at all. Numerous other individuals of all ages cannot renew or retry their licence. Livelihoods are being seriously compromised.

Out-of-province or out-of-country new residents cannot exchange or apply for their Ontario licence and, without that licence, cannot buy or insure a vehicle. Driving schools and instructors for cars up to tractor-trailers are losing business and must lay off their staff to try and compensate. Without a driver's licence, individuals cannot get a job, keep a job or even upgrade to do a better job.

In this time of high unemployment and uncertainty, adding to the problem when we can help fix it is irresponsible. The striking employees of Serco-Des perform highly skilled and often dangerous jobs. They issue government ID and are responsible for ensuring proper documentation for new Canadians and do all the testing and retesting required for all classes of drivers.

This strike is not about money. Employees are seeking security—a minimum number of hours a week without the threat of supervisors doing the work of employees.

The jobs require consistency in order to maintain the high standard that the Ontario government requires. This cannot be achieved working in an environment of uncertainty from season to season.

In the interests of public safety, with people on our highways without a truly updated and tested licence, it is the government's duty to step in and not only end the neglect of public safety, but also assist our Ontario residents in continuing their livelihoods by achieving a fair and equitable settlement.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Bob Delaney: Even though Ontario's roads are North America's safest, in our daily lives we can see the things that people do, deliberately or inadvertently, to place their own safety and that of others at risk on our roads and highways.

The Minister of Transportation has introduced a bill to ban the use of hand-held devices while driving. This law comes into effect on October 26. It will begin with a three-month period in which Ontarians will learn through warnings about the new law. Police will issue tickets as of February 1, 2010.

Our constituents, all of us, overwhelmingly support making it illegal for drivers to talk text, type, dial or e-mail—or do all of them at the same time—using hand-held cellphones or other hand-held communications and entertainment devices while driving a vehicle.

Paramedics, police and firefighters may continue to use their devices while on duty, and drivers may use their cellphones, obviously, to call 911.

I've tried doing all of the things that the bill proposes to ban, and I'm surprised at how distracting and dangerous these activities truly are.

I commend my colleague from Durham for his own leadership role on this legislation. We all need to pay attention to the road and put away the gadgets while we're driving.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps that could be extended to the Legislature as well.

The member from Durham.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker, for that comment.

The Speaker of this House needs to know that the cattle, hog and horticulture payments missed a large number of farmers, especially those who are new and expanding.

I also draw to the attention of the minister the case of Andrew Frew, a young farmer from my riding of Durham and a leader in local agriculture. The Frew farm marketed almost 7,000 finished hogs in 2007, yet under the rules of the program, this farm still did not qualify for funding.

I urge this House to review the cattle, hog and horticultural payments program to ensure it provides fair access to all hog producers.

The farms and agri-businesses of my riding are highly innovative and responsive to the needs of today's marketplace. Examples of innovation and excellence in Durham riding include Algoma Orchards' processing, storage and retail operation, about to celebrate its opening.

Ontario's farmers are making investments, introducing new ideas, adding value and achieving excellence. It's time for the McGuinty government to show equally high standards in establishing policies that do not overlook any qualified producer, not just in my riding but in Ontario.

Agriculture is the food basket of Ontario, and I commend the minister, who will probably attend Algoma Orchards' opening in my riding of Durham in the coming weeks.

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING IMPAIRED

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise today to welcome the parents, children, volunteers and professionals who are at Queen's Park to draw attention to issues of access to education for hard-of-hearing and deaf children across Ontario.

Project Kids HEAR is committed to ensuring that all Ontario school boards offer standardized supports to their hard-of-hearing and deaf students, whether they attend school in Toronto, Windsor or Thunder Bay. Supports such as amplifiers used by teachers, physical sound buffers and more captioned learning material must be available in every classroom where students need them.

I wholeheartedly agree with James Borer when he states, "The province should set clear and consistent standards so that children have equal opportunity to learn, whether they use sign language, hearing aids or cochlear implants."

All over the province, children with special needs are being placed in regular classrooms without adequate support. This is not just happening to hard-of-hearing and deaf students; it is happening to autistic children, students with learning disabilities, those suffering from ADD and many others.

I urge the government to quickly address the imbalance that exists in Ontario schools today and immediately implement provincial standards of support so that all of our children, no matter what their abilities or their disabilities, have a firm and great chance to learn in this province.

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING IMPAIRED

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'm pleased to rise in the House to express my support for Project Kids HEAR, with members and families here at Queen's Park today to raise awareness for the issues of children across Ontario who are deaf and hard of hearing. Their message is very simple: that all children across the province deserve equal opportunity to reach their potential and be fully participating members of society.

Children who are deaf and hard of hearing face different challenges in achieving that goal, but these challenges are not insurmountable. With the proper resources and access to educational and medical facilities, these children can perform at the highest level and to their full potential.

For the families of these children, it is imperative that we provide them with as many options as possible to ensure their children have the highest quality of life. Whether these families choose to use signing, cochlear implants or other devices, the goal of Project Kids HEAR is to make choices available to raise the quality of life for their children.

This government has done some great work for those who are deaf and hard of hearing, and we realize there is much more to do. I'm very pleased that I've had the opportunity to advocate for this group here at Queen's Park and to let these families know that we believe our children have the right to hear and to be heard.

Project Kids HEAR has 150 members and families at Queen's Park today meeting with various ministries and MPPs. I encourage my colleagues here, if you don't have a meeting today, to please take the time to attend the reception at 5 p.m. today in the legislative dining room. Mostly, I encourage all of us to stop and listen to the stories that these families have to tell and realize the impact we can make for their children.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

Mr. Norm Miller: I rise today to recognize and congratulate credit unions, which celebrated International Credit Union Day on October 15.

Ontario's 219 credit unions and caisses populaires serve 1.7 million residents through 687 locations, directly contributing to the economic and social development of communities across the province. They employ more than 7,000 individuals, with over 80% of these jobs created outside the GTA. They provide access to financial services in 43 communities where they are the only financial institution, and ensure competition by providing the only local alternative to a single bank in 37 other Ontario communities.

One dollar in every $4 on deposit at Ontario credit unions and caisses populaires is invested in financing small and medium-sized businesses and agriculture in the province. And many credit unions dedicate far in excess of 1% of annual pre-tax profits to community initiatives.

In Parry Sound—Muskoka, Kawartha Credit Union is an example of a credit union with a strong community focus. The direct contribution of Kawartha Credit Union to the local economy exceeded $9.6 million in 2006, with the credit union providing 148 direct and 72 indirect jobs. Through their community involvement program, Kawartha Credit Union has also financially supported dozens of local agencies and initiatives.

Credit unions and caisses populaires are important partners in our communities. I congratulate them all for the important service they provide.

HELLENIC COMMUNITY OF OTTAWA

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I'm pleased to rise today and share with the House an important anniversary being marked in Ottawa this year. The Hellenic Community of Ottawa is celebrating 80 years of strengthening and servicing the Greek community in our nation's capital since their inception in February 1929.

In the early years, the association was instrumental in establishing Greek Orthodox religious services for the Greek community in Ottawa and facilitated networking with other Greek communities throughout North America.

By the early 1940s, the Hellenic Community had opened a Greek language school, established a church to worship, become incorporated in the province of Ontario and gave assistance to occupied Greece under the Canada War Relief program.

By the late 1960s, the Greek population in Ottawa swelled, and the Hellenic Community of Ottawa moved their facilities to their present-day location on Prince of Wales Drive, not far from my home.

Throughout all their eight decades, the Hellenic Community of Ottawa has been instrumental in keeping, nourishing and promoting the vibrant Greek culture, faith and language.

The Hellenic Community of Ottawa is also the centre of attention every August with a GreekFest that is a major part of Ottawa's impressive festival lineup. During GreekFest the entire Ottawa community is invited to participate in a week of festivities rich with the spirit of the community and the celebration of Greek culture. GreekFest is an event which anyone of any background can appreciate, and there's some pretty good food too.

To my friends of the Hellenic Community of Ottawa, especially President Pinelopi Makrodimitris-Karlis and Friar Alex Michalopoulos, I wish to congratulate you on long-standing and distinguished service to your community and your outstanding contribution to our city. Congratulations.

POAG JEWELLERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the 50th-anniversary celebrations of Poag Jewellers, which is a fixture in Strathroy. One block of Frank Street was closed for this top-drawer event on a Sunday afternoon.

James Poag Senior first opened the shop in 1959 after launching his career by working in a jewellery store at the age of 13 and later completing a five-year apprenticeship in watch- and clockmaking. He met his wife, Judy, while she worked at an insurance office across the street, and after their marriage, Judy also became part of the store.

Sons Jim and Jeffrey began helping at Poag's as soon as they were able to see over the display counters. As any parent will confirm, Jim and Judy can take pride in the fact that both of their children have made the commitment to follow in their parents' footsteps. Today Poag's is still a family business run by both sons: Jim, a certified appraiser, and Jeff, a goldsmith and diamond setter. Jim's wife, Denise, runs the china department.

James and Judy can still spend about two or three afternoons in the store. Staff members often find them selling an engagement ring or a wedding ring to the children and grandchildren of their first customers.

I can personally attest to the hometown quality of their workmanship and friendly approach to doing business in a rural community, as well as their citizenship in the Strathroy-Caradoc area.

I hope all of you will join me in congratulating Poag Jewellers on their 50th anniversary and wish them another 50 years of success.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Seventeen new families will soon own their own home in York South—Weston thanks to Habitat for Humanity and the whole Habitat for Humanity team. I was very proud to take

part in the groundbreaking ceremony that gathered members of the Habitat for Humanity board of directors, volunteers, home donors, corporate sponsors and partner families. It was a very special event.

From every standpoint, Habitat for Humanity showed what great things can be achieved despite limited resources, but with clear vision, with unparalleled resolve and a unique sense of solidarity. The work they do is targeted for people who also have limited resources—but that is the only limit partnering families have, because in far more important resources, partner families are rich. They are rich in determination, in dignity and in their aspirations. When these qualities meet the organizational ability of Habitat for Humanity, leaps forward are attained.

But this time, the great Habitat for Humanity team went even further, because the new homes built in York South—Weston also respect the values of sustainability, energy efficiency and environmental sensitivity, as they are the first green homes built by Habitat for Humanity in the whole of Canada.

It is my hope that, in and out of York South—Weston, their example will be appreciated and followed.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding committee membership changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that the following amendments be made to the membership of certain committees: The member for Richmond Hill replaces the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore on the Standing Committee on General Government, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga replaces the member for Richmond Hill on the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding sign language interpreters for certain proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, during introduction of visitors and oral questions on Wednesday, October 21, 2009, as well as during statements in the afternoon, sign language interpreters may be present on the floor of the chamber to interpret the proceedings to guests in the galleries.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH /

MOIS DE L'HISTOIRE DES FEMMES

PERSONS DAY /

JOURNÉE DE L'AFFAIRE « PERSONNE »

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I rise to acknowledge this month as Women's History Month and October 18 as Persons Day.

Je prends la parole aujourd'hui pour souligner que c'est le Mois de l'histoire des femmes et que le 18 octobre est la Journée de l'affaire « personne ».

On October 18 in 1929, women were declared "persons" under the British North America Act. For the first time, women had a legal identity and the right to serve in the Senate.

This year, on the 80th anniversary of this historic time, the Famous Five—Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Emily Murphy—have been so appropriately named posthumously to Canada's Senate, the first time in history for such an honour to be bestowed. These fearless and passionate women envisioned a future that could be more equitable, more just and more secure for Canadian women. They cleared the way for women to participate as equal partners, decision-makers and equal beneficiaries in our society.

J'ai le plaisir de dire qu'il y a de nombreuses femmes en Ontario qui s'investissent, avec autant de passion et de détermination que les « Célèbres cinq », pour que la province soit un endroit plus équitable.

Three Ontario recipients of the 2009 Governor General's Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case come to mind: Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, who successfully fought for 15 years to regain her Indian status after she married a non-aboriginal man; Bev LeFrancois, a social activist for women's rights since 1970 who helped establish community, women's and rape crisis centres and shelters for battered women; and Pauline Fogarty, a young woman from Thunder Bay who designed a girls' collective and is actively involved in social issues such as youth in the mental health system.

Their stories make us pause to realize the accomplishments of women in our communities, in our courts and in our Legislatures. Women's History Month gives us pause to appreciate the advances made by women in many areas.

As our country is in the final stages of preparing to host the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, it is fitting that this year's theme for Women's History Month—Women in the Lead: Winter Sports—is shining a well-deserved light on the Ontario women who have broken down barriers in winter sports, women who have broken ground for others, ranging from Isobel Stanley, daughter of Lord Stanley, who helped form the first women's hockey league in 1894, to Karen Blachford, a Paralympic gold medal winner who in wheelchair curling proved that we can all participate in sports, and most recently Veronika Bauer, who took aerial skiing by storm, winning five World Cup gold medals in one of the world's newest winter sports.

L'histoire des réalisations féminines en Ontario est haute en couleur et édifiante. Ce sont des réalisations par des femmes de tous les horizons et des quatre coins de l'Ontario.

To the women who have made Ontario rich through your accomplishments, I say thank you for leading the way. To today's women leaders, on behalf of all of us in Ontario, I say congratulations on your achievements and thank you for showing young girls what can be accomplished with skill, hard work and a dream.

Thank you. Merci.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

M me France Gélinas: It is a pleasure to add my voice to Women's History Month and Persons Day.

J'aimerais commencer par vous dire que j'ai une grand-mère extraordinaire, une grand-mère qui n'est pas née « une personne » parce qu'à ce temps-là les femmes n'avaient toujours pas le droit de vote, mais elle faisait

partie des suffragettes, des femmes qui se présentaient pour avoir le droit de vote. Finalement, comme il était mentionné par ma collègue, en 1929, les femmes ont été déclarées des personnes, et un peu plus tard, elles ont commencé à avoir le droit de vote. Je vais continuer à vous parler de ma grand-mère parce que je trouve que c'est un exemple typique des batailles qu'elles avaient à faire.

Ma grand-mère a eu 14 enfants, ce qui était assez commun dans son temps, qu'elle a décidé d'éduquer. Cela voulait dire qu'elle a dû retourner au travail. Ma grand-mère était professeure. Lorsqu'elle a eu 25 ans—on la considérait une vielle fille—elle s'est mariée, et parce qu'elle était mariée, elle a dû laisser aller son travail. Mais au fur et à mesure qu'elle a eu ses enfants, le salaire de mon grand-père, qui travaillait deux « shifts » par jour, sept jours par semaine, n'était pas suffisant pour envoyer ses 14 enfants à l'école. Ça fait qu'elle est retournée à l'école.

À ce temps-là, il y avait des écoles pour—c'était affreux—les « arriérés mentaux ». On les appelait comme ça, mais c'était vraiment des gens qui avaient des problèmes de développement. Ils ne pouvaient pas trouver de professeurs, donc ma grand-mère a fait une tournée là. Elle est devenue leader syndicale pour son école et son conseil scolaire. Elle a eu à défendre toutes sortes de cas bien spécifiques aux femmes.

Les femmes à ce temps-là avaient le droit à deux semaines de congé de maternité. Donc, si tu as accouché, tu avais le droit à deux semaines, et si tu travaillais, tu devais revenir au travail. Il y avait une femme à son école qui était enceinte mais qui n'était pas mariée. L'école a décidé qu'elle ne lui paierait pas ses deux semaines de congé de maternité parce qu'elle n'était pas mariée. Les défis que les femmes ont rencontrés se sont multipliés tout au long de la carrière de ma grand-mère.

Maintenant, je me vois ici comme députée. On est 107 députés, mais seulement 27 de nous sont femmes. Si on avait la parité, 50/50, je suis certaine que les choses seraient très différentes ici à l'Assemblée législative. Si on regarde du côté fédéral, les choses ne sont pas mieux.

Je siège présentement à l'Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, et même ça—je suis sur un comité qui s'appelle le comité des femmes. J'ai dû m'y reprendre à deux fois pour venir à bout de faire adopter une proposition qui changerait le langage vers un langage neutre. Au comité des femmes, on utilise ce langage : « les droits de l'homme ». Qu'est-ce qu'on est en train de dire par ça? Que le langage n'évolue pas? J'ai dû m'y reprendre à deux reprises avant que le comité des femmes accepte d'utiliser un langage neutre et de parler des droits de la personne plutôt que des droits de l'homme.

Je reviens là. I want to come back and talk a little bit about this place, the Legislative Assembly. My office is on the first floor, by the east door. When you come into Queen's Park you have this array of walls covered with very severe-looking men. What greets me every morning when I come to work? A row of 30 such men, each looking more—how can I say—severe than another. And none of them will crack a smile, because these are paintings, so they don't change from day to day. But it just sets the tone that this is a place for men. Everywhere you look, you see pictures of men. I kind of get tired of this, Mr.

Speaker. Your office is very close to mine. I wish we could redecorate, and the first thing I would put in is—those monstrous pictures of men that I have to look at every morning are very nice and everything, but we need a little bit of variety. Pictures of women in this House would be a big step.

I cannot talk about Women's History Month without talking about pay equity; pay equity is a women's issue and needs to be addressed. Minimum wage, $10.25 an hour now, is also a women's issue—and I'm running out of time. Merci, monsieur le Président. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Today, I'm very pleased to rise on behalf of the PC caucus to recognize Women's History Month and also October 18 as Persons Day.

It was 80 years ago that the British Privy Council decided that women were persons under Canadian law, and we owe that landmark decision to five outstanding, determined and very persistent women who took their fight all the way to the Privy Council in England, the highest court in Canada at the time. The Famous Five—Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Nellie McClung—changed the lives of women of their generation and of all future generations. These women opened the door of potential political opportunity to women who would later take up the challenge.

Persons Day falls in October, during Women's History Month, and it is an appropriate time to celebrate the contributions of women in the past and in the present who have shaped Canada in so many ways. In business, in the arts, in sports and in politics, women have increased their presence and their influence, and have demonstrated that they can excel in non-traditional fields.

This year's theme is women in winter sports. This theme shines a well-deserved light on the women who have changed the face of winter sports. With Canada hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it is the time to celebrate the many Ontario women who have achieved outstanding success in sport. Ontario has had many female leaders who have competed and left a very significant legacy. As with all firsts, they have paved the way for future generations of women, and we are proud and thankful for their contributions.

I was interested to read that hockey was one of the first venues for women to actively participate in. The first women's hockey game was played in 1892. Back then, they took to the ice, long skirts and all. Since then, Ontario women have continued to excel in winter sports such as figure skating, speed skating, aerial skiing and wheelchair curling. We salute all these passionate, successful and determined women, who serve as role models and who continue to pave the way for future generations.

Last month in my community, we celebrated the accomplishments of women during Oktoberfest week, and we nominated and selected women to be, for example, professional of the year, volunteer, youth,etc., for their outstanding community and personal accomplishments.

This month, we need to remember the progress that women have made. More women than ever before are pursuing post-secondary education, thus increasingly becoming economically independent. More women today are owners and operators of very successful small businesses. In all areas of life, women are working extremely hard toward independence and self-sufficiency, and we celebrate and recognize those outstanding women.

Having said that, we know there are still challenges ahead and barriers to overcome. We still need more women at the parliamentary level, whether it's in the provincial Legislatures or federally, and we need to continue to encourage competent, capable women to seek public office.

However, today is a day of celebration. We have a proud history in Canada; we have a proud history in the province of Ontario. To all those who have led the way, to the women who have gone before us, I say congratulations on your many, many achievements and thank you for showing us and those who will follow what we can accomplish with dedication, with a lot of hard work, with a dream and with teamwork.

PETITIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is conducting a review of the province's underserviced area program (UAP) that may result in numerous communities across rural and mostly small-town Ontario losing financial incentives to recruit and retain much-needed doctors" in rural Ontario; and

"Whereas financial incentives to attract and keep doctors are essential to providing quality front-line health care services, particularly in smaller communities; and

"Whereas people across Ontario have been forced to pay Dalton McGuinty's now-forgotten health tax since 2004, expecting health care services to be improved rather than cut; and

"Whereas taxpayers deserve good value for their hard-earned money that goes into health care, unlike the wasteful and abusive spending under the McGuinty Liberals' watch at eHealth Ontario;

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

"That the McGuinty government not reduce or eliminate financial incentives rural communities and small towns need to retain and attract doctors."

I'm pleased to present this petition to one of the new pages, Elliott, and approve of it.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the good people of Nipissing, who are asking for a PET scan.

"Whereas the Ontario government is making positron emission tomography, PET scanning, a publicly insured health service.... ; and

"Whereas by October 2009, insured PET scans will be performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

"Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with the Sudbury Regional Hospital, its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital, thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario."

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

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition from a number of constituents from Toronto and Ottawa, and it 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 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

TAXATION

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

"Whereas residents in Dufferin—Caledon do not want a McGuinty Liberal harmonized sales tax (HST) that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' 13% blended tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' 13% blended tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas this McGuinty Liberals' tax will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased to affix my name to this.

TOM LONGBOAT

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition in support of the Tom Longboat Day Act and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Tom Longboat is one of Canada's greatest long-distance runners; and

"Whereas Tom Longboat is a great role model for all Canadians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass the Tom Longboat Day Act into law so that we can honour this remarkable athlete and courageous Canadian, who is a great role model for all Canadians."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and support all those from my riding who have signed it.

TAXATION

Mr. John O'Toole: I have literally thousands of petitions on this particular topic. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty is increasing taxes yet again with his new 13% combined sales tax, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it; and

"Whereas by 2010, Dalton McGuinty's new tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day. A few examples include: coffee, newspapers and magazines; gas for the car, home heating oil and electricity; haircuts, dry cleaning and personal grooming; home renovations and home services; veterinary care and pet care; legal services, the sale of resale homes and," to end it all, "funeral arrangements; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election. However, in 2004, he brought in the" dreaded "health tax, which costs upwards of $600 to $900 per" person. "And now he is raising our taxes once again;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

I'm pleased to sign and support this and hand it to Kira, one of the new pages.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition from a number of citizens of Windsor, Ottawa and Peterborough. It 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 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition signed by a great number of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents of Oxford do not want Dalton McGuinty's new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to home sales over $500,000; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families, farmers and low-income Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario families."

I affix my signature as I agree with this petition.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: Again, I have a number of petitions from Kirkland Lake and Essex. It 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 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

As I agree with this, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Toby Barrett: A petition regarding the negative impact of industrial wind turbines on our neighbourhoods, with signatures from Port Rowan, Clear Creek and along Lakeshore Road:

"We, the undersigned citizens, who live in the area of the Erie Shores Wind Farm, are concerned about one or more of the following issues and are asking that you take immediate action to address and remedy these negative effects created by the operation of the industrial wind turbines:

"(1) intrusive noise, low-frequency emission and strobe effect created by the turbines' rotating blades;

"(2) negative impact on physical and mental well-being;

"(3) loss of enjoyment of day-to-day life in the previously peaceful environment;

"(4) affected neighbours were not informed of the final location of the turbines; and

"(5) the resale value of our properties is below the already depressed real estate market."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

CEMETERIES

Mr. Jim Brownell: Again, a petition from taxpayers from Barrie, Collingwood and Cambridge. It reads as follows:

"A petition 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 149, the Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act, 2009, to prohibit the relocation of inactive cemeteries in the province of Ontario."

Once again, as I agree with this, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

TAXATION

Mr. John O'Toole: Again, I have hundreds of petitions from my riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the proposed harmonization of the Ontario retail sales tax (RST) with the federal GST has the potential to increase costs to many small businesses and their customers; and

"Whereas these added costs would have a devastating impact in difficult economic times, and organizations such as the Ontario Home Builders' Association have estimated harmonization would add $15,000 in new taxes to the price of a new Ontario home;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, reject the harmonization of the GST and the RST unless there are exemptions to offset the adverse impacts of harmonization, so that the outcome will be a reduction in red tape, not higher taxes."

I'm pleased to endorse this, sign it and present it to Rushabh.

TOM LONGBOAT

Mr. Jim Brownell: Again, I'm pleased to present a petition in support of the Tom Longboat Day Act. This is signed by a number of my local constituents, who, every year, participate in the Tom Longboat race at Canada's oldest fair, in Williamstown, in my riding. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Tom Longboat is one of Canada's greatest long-distance runners;

"Whereas Tom Longboat is a great role model for all Canadians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass the Tom Longboat Day Act into law so that we can honour this remarkable athlete and courageous Canadian who is a great role model for all Canadians."

As I agree with this, I shall sign it and send it to the clerks' table.

TAXATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: This petition is entitled "Scrap the 13% McGuinty Sales Tax."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the 13% McGuinty sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services; and

"Whereas the 13% McGuinty sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for coffins, coffee, haircuts, gym memberships, newspapers, lawyer and accountant fees and meals under $4;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

The signatures are from Selkirk, Cayuga, Dunneville and Lowbanks area. I affix my signature.

TAXATION

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to present another petition here. Thousands of them come in daily. This one reads as follows:

"Whereas residents of Etobicoke do not want a provincial harmonized sales tax (HST) that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the 13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I'm pleased to sign and support this and hand it to Jeremy, one of the new pages.

TAXATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I would certainly like to thank the members of the Mississauga community called Effort for collecting the signatures, and particularly Khalid Qureishi and Sadia Khalid. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a retail sales transaction in Ontario should not be subject to two separate taxes, at two different rates, under two sets of rules and payable to two different levels of government; and

"Whereas Ontario will implement a comprehensive package of income and business tax cuts in 2010 which will especially benefit working families and retired seniors; and

"Whereas the income taxes of Ontarians will be cut permanently, seniors will receive double their former property tax credit and other permanent savings will flow to Ontarians; and

"Whereas the cost to businesses to produce goods will go down permanently as embedded sales tax is permanently eliminated from the business cycle, enabling those businesses to lower business costs and pass savings along to their customers; and

"Whereas these measures represent the most comprehensive tax reform in a half-century, enabling Ontario to be the most competitive place in North America to create jobs, move, grow and operate a business;

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

"That the government of Ontario and the members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly support measures to swiftly enact Ontario's comprehensive tax reform procedures, including the move to a single sales tax in Ontario, as proposed in the province's 2009-10 budget."

I agree with the petitioners. I'm pleased to sign and support this petition and to ask page Bethany to carry it for me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SANTÉ ANIMALE

Mrs. Dombrowsky moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 204,

An Act to protect animal health and to amend and repeal other Acts / Projet de loi 204, Loi protégeant la santé animale et modifiant et abrogeant d'autres lois.

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to what I believe is a very important piece of legislation. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. He has brought a good deal of enthusiasm to his new role and to this office, and I very much appreciate the information that he's bringing to me from the agriculture community in his riding.

It really is an honour to be a part of a government that has proposed the Animal Health Act, 2009, and to have the opportunity to make, for this assembly, some points in its favour. I want to remind you why we have introduced this very important piece of legislation. People in Ontario may or may not know—certainly those in the agriculture community know—that the agri-food industry contributes some $30 billion each and every year to the economy in the province of Ontario. In addition to that, this industry employs over 700,000 people. Now, I'm talking about the agri-food sector, so, while we do not have 700,000 farmers, we have 700,000 people involved in providing safe, quality food products.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Seven thousand or 700,000?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: No, this is 700,000 people. One of my colleagues was questioning the number. But that would relate not just to those people who plant and harvest the crop but the people who process the food product as well. These people are responsible for enabling this province to say that we provide the safest and best-quality food of anywhere in the world.

Ontario's livestock and poultry sectors generate more than $4.5 billion in farmgate activity each year. That's just the livestock and poultry sector, and we know that there are many other sectors that contribute significantly to the Ontario economy and even more specifically to our rural economies. We have the largest poultry industry, the second-largest swine and dairy industries and the third-largest beef industry in Canada, so in many sectors we are significant producers at the national level as well.

The presence of animal disease in any of these sectors can have a very serious consequence on the economic health of the agri-food industry and therefore the economic strength of the province and the very well-being of all Ontarians.

I share these figures in this assembly today so that folks can truly appreciate the significant interest the people of Ontario have in ensuring that we're doing everything possible to protect animals' health and well-being and in ensuring that we have measures in place to protect animals in the province of Ontario. We know as well that there is a link between animal health and human health, and protecting our animals can help us better protect the people in our province as well.

The proposed legislation would provide measures to assist in a number of things. It will assist in the prevention, detection and response to and control of animal diseases and other hazards. It also includes a framework for a traceability system that will be able to track food from the field where it's produced to the fork, where our consumers enjoy it so very much. It will fit within any national traceability framework that may be developed.

As yet, we do not have a national traceability framework, but we are, in this legislation—and we certainly are looking forward to debating it in this Legislature, going to committee with it and getting feedback from our stakeholders, particularly on this traceability piece. I would say that it is an enabling piece of legislation.

We also look forward to that time when the federal government will announce its financial support for a national traceability system. When that happens, the province of Ontario will be ready to walk out the door with them on that, in that we have the framework legislation in place.

An efficient traceability system allows for the quick identification and control of disease and food safety hazards related to animal products. In the industry, there has been a good deal of discussion and conversation about traceability. Traceability also contributes to our province's ability to demonstrate to the world, not just to our consumers in Ontario—I believe they have been convinced—that we do have the safest and best-quality food of anywhere in the world. That is why the Buy Local initiative has taken off. That is why farmers' markets are doing so well across the province.

There is definitely a sense and an understanding that locally grown Ontario food is safe. But we also need to be able to demonstrate to the national and international markets that we have safe, quality food, and a traceability system will enable producers to be able to do just that on the world stage. This will in turn, of course, help the agri-food industry be more competitive.

While this legislation would give us the tools to work within a national traceability system, we also continue to support Ontario farmers and food processors, as many of them have already made their own traceability investments. That is definitely a credit to our farmers and food processors in Ontario, because they have recognized why this is an important announcement: It does give them a competitive edge. So there has been some significant investment in this area already.

Three years ago, we helped create OnTrace. OnTrace is an organization that provides traceability systems to producers in Ontario. In May of this year, I announced that our food safety and traceability initiative, which is a four-year, $2.5-million joint investment—when I say "a joint investment," this is an investment in which we will be partnering with the federal government again. These are things that we are able to do because we have signed an agreement with our federal partner to work on these sorts of initiatives that the industry has said are important and that they need.

So, in May of this year, I announced the food safety and traceability initiative, which is a four-year, $2.5-million investment. This will enable Ontario farmers and Ontario food processors to continue to put in place the building blocks for a traceability system.

That event happened in Guelph, and there were many industry participants there. They were very, very grateful for the fact that we've recognized this is something they need to be competitive and sustainable going forward, and they very much appreciated that.

Under this new food safety and traceability initiative, individual farms and businesses are able to receive up to $20,000 to develop or improve their food safety and traceability programs. So many businesses have taken advantage of this that we are providing more than $3.9 million this year alone, and we l