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

April 23, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Apr-23 (PDF)

L040 - Mon 23 Apr 2012 / Lun 23 avr 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 23 April 2012 Lundi 23 avril 2012

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

WEARING OF TIES AND SCARVES

VISITORS

SPEAKER’S WARRANT

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

ARBITRATION

JOB CREATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

JOB CREATION

SKILLS TRAINING

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO FARMERS

TRISTAN EMIRY

ONTARIO FARMERS

NATIONAL ORGAN AND TISSUE

DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

BRAD GIBB

PROSTATE CANCER

BUTTER TART TRAIL

IMMIGRATION POLICY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VISITORS

RAY HAGGERTY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NEW DRIVERS’ INSURANCE

RATE REDUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

POUR LES NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS

NOTICES OF POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

INDUSTRIE DES COURSES

DE CHEVAUX /

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO BUDGET

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2012 ONTARIO BUDGET

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to recognize two great agricultural organizations that are with us today in the Legislature: Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I enjoyed meeting with both of these groups this morning. I hope all members will join the dairy farmers for their reception following question period in room 228, and the OFA this afternoon in room 230. I’d like you to all welcome the two organizations here this morning.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would also like to welcome my former colleagues and still current friends from Dairy Farmers of Ontario and invite you to their hospitality at noon. Thank you.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to take a moment to welcome Steve Jones, president and CEO of Prostate Cancer Canada, who is joined by the PCC board of directors and leaders of the PCC regional teams. As a prostate cancer survivor, I have a particular appreciation for these good people and the work they do.

I’d also like to join my colleague in welcoming the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, particularly Bill Emmott, the chair; and Peter Gould, the general manager; and of course the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who are joining us this morning—Larry Freeman, the zone 5 director in my home riding; Bette Jean Crews, past president; Joe Dickenson, director at large; Larry Davis, zone 3 director; and Ralph Brodie, zone 1—and finally, Mr. Speaker, a good friend of mine, Matt Jelly from Hamilton, a local community activist environmentally.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to welcome Henry Oosterhof, a dairy farmer from Leeds–Grenville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce Peggy Brekveld, who made it all the way from northwestern Ontario down here with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as well as Ralph Brodie. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

WEARING OF TIES AND SCARVES

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members of the Legislature be permitted to wear ties and scarves in honour of Prostate Cancer Canada’s first Queen’s Park Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Unanimous consent has been asked. Do I have unanimous consent? I suspect that everyone knew that everyone was wearing blue.

VISITORS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like everyone to welcome the family of page Talin Mooradian, who is the page captain today: her mother, Tracey Mooradian; her dad, John Mooradian; her older sister and former legislative page, Ara Mooradian; and friend Cesar Razuri.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome the director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Keith Currie, to the House today.

Mr. Phil McNeely: We have some guests with us today representing the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. They represent over 900 in the US and 14 here in our Legislature. Those with us from the NCEL today are J.R. Tolbert, executive director from Washington, DC; Dennis Ozment, Great Lakes program coordinator from Minnesota; and Jane Krentz, Great Lakes program coordinator and former Senator from Minnesota. I invite you all to join them for their reception this afternoon, 4:30 to 5:30.

Thank you for being here, and welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to welcome from my riding today Debra Pretty-Straathof, who is also a director with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Ms. Cassandra Ruggiero. She’s a vice-president of AIESEC, an international association of students helping students, and she’s on her way to the UK to do just that. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Mr. Speaker, she’s also my goddaughter.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome Kelly Harris back to the Legislature. Kelly’s from Central 1 Credit Union.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I’d like every member of the Legislature to welcome my big sister Susan Houghton, who is visiting in the members’ west gallery. Susan is in green. Great to see you, Susan. Thank you.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Monsieur le Président, je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue ici aujourd’hui à deux de mes commettants : M. Ronald Tourigny et son épouse, Gisèle, qui visitent Queen’s Park aujourd’hui. Bienvenue.

Mr. Reza Moridi: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome His Excellency Ali Riza Guney, consul general of Turkey; Huseyin Nurgel, president of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations; Umit Eruysal, president of the Turkish Culture and Folklore Society; Dr. Mehmet Bor, past president of the Turkish federation; Emre Dodanli, a student; and Nalan Dodanli, a teacher. They are visiting the House today and are having a reception on the occasion of International Children’s Day at the House, and every member is welcome to attend that event.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: It is my privilege to introduce Warren Scott, district 5 vice-president, in the west gallery. He’s representing the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, always fighting to find a cure for cancer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan and page Sarah McPherson, her sister, Mary McPherson, is here this morning in the public gallery. We welcome her.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Québec, Monsieur François Ouimet. Please join me in welcoming François, a good friend of mine.

SPEAKER’S WARRANT

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a ruling for us. I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of my warrant, issued in accordance with the adoption of the House of April 19 of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts respecting testimony of Dr. Chris Mazza, which was delivered in person, on my order, by the Sergeant-at-Arms on April 20, 2012.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. We believe that the core function of any good government is to spend money wisely, to get value for every single tax dollar and only buy as much government as you need, while creating the right environment for job creation in the private sector in our province. So your budget is a dramatic failure. The deficit goes up, not down. You have no plan for job creation. Basically, Minister, over the last seven months, you’ve been treading water with no action on the debt, no action on jobs.

The Ontario PC caucus stands proudly opposed to this budget because it won’t create jobs and it increases spending in the province of Ontario beyond what we can afford.

Minister, given that you’ve done nothing for the last seven months, will we see another plan, or is this all you have to offer?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our plan creates jobs, it reduces the deficit, it builds on important public services—including full-day learning and keeping class sizes smaller—and it focuses on keeping our surgical wait times low, as we move back to balance in a timely and orderly fashion. We think it’s the right plan. It is going to help move us forward while we protect the important gains we’ve made across a variety of very important public services.

We fundamentally disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. We think he’s wrong. They would much rather raise class sizes, eliminate full-day learning. They have no plan to get back to balance. Even Mr. Drummond pointed out that their revenue projections were way out of whack. They want more corporate tax cuts. We want short surgical wait times. We want full-day learning. We fundamentally disagree. We want to make this Legislature work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Ontario PCs want to see a return to balanced budgets in the province of Ontario, paying down debt and creating jobs in our province. It’s amazing, Speaker: Every time I ask the finance minister or the Premier about reducing spending, they talk about how they’re going to increase spending. That’s the core problem with this budget. It does not take us off the track of a $30-billion deficit. It keeps us on the path toward tripling the debt in the province of Ontario and has a breathtaking omission of no jobs plan whatsoever.

In 2003, you campaigned and said that the debt will only go in one direction: down. But, in fact, you’re now on the path to tripling the debt in the province of Ontario. This is not good enough. Take another swing at it. Will you bring forth a plan that actually reduces spending, balances the books and then pays down the debt in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, the debt-to-GDP ratio went down in the first number of years of our administration. In fact, we balanced three budgets. In fact, we inherited a deficit from the previous administration which, according to the Auditor General, was a hidden deficit. We eliminated that.

Then, like countries throughout the world, we were hit by a very difficult downturn in the economy. We chose to make important investments in infrastructure. We chose, for instance, to keep companies such as General Motors and Chrysler alive and operating here in Ontario.

It’s the right time that in fact gets us back to balance. It’s a strong plan, and we’re going to keep building on our important gains in health care and education while we move back to balance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here’s the essential problem with McGuinty Liberals’ approach on this: First, they set extraordinarily weak and inadequate goals toward balancing the books or creating jobs, and then they lack the managerial confidence to even achieve those goals. They set the bar extraordinarily low and then they fail to leap over that bar.

Time after time, this finance minister has failed to meet his targets. He’s on track to what: three or four more double-digit deficits? And since the time he promised to reduce the debt—not debt to GDP; reduce the debt itself—we’ve seen that the debt is going to double by next year and is on track to triple by 2017. In fact, Ontario’s deficit is greater than the deficits of all the other nine provinces combined. This is a dramatic failure. It’s an illustration of extraordinary managerial incompetence.

Why don’t you take another kick at it? Bring forward a plan that actually reduces, not increases, the deficit?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the Leader of the Opposition that in the election he adopted our timeline for balancing the budget.

This party and the third party had discussions throughout the weekend to make the budget work. What was the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus doing? They were nominating candidates. They have now nominated 90 candidates. They have enlisted 75 campaign managers.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he listen to the advice of the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, who was quoted as saying, “I always say that we almost can’t afford not to have an election,” and he’s right about that.

I think you should have spent the weekend working with this instead of getting the campaign in gear. You’re in debt, you’re under water, your caucus is divided—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We’re working on it—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’ll let the finance minister and the Premier talk about elections until they’re blue in the face. We’re talking about jobs. We’re talking about moving our economy forward, making Ontario a leader again. What you seem to misunderstand is an important part of attracting jobs and investment to our great province is getting spending under control and giving that confidence to investors. But under your watch, sir, as finance minister, we’ve had two credit downgradings. Moody’s has put it on negative outlook, and the Don Drummond report that was supposed to be your silver bullet basically was put on the shelf in record time. You never talk about his recommendations anymore.

We want to go a different direction. I know they’re focusing like our economy is going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, as are our finances; they’re focused on building a better barrel. We want to go in the opposite direction, Speaker. We want to move upstream, create jobs, get our books under control. Why won’t you?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have seen more than 140,000 net new jobs in the last year, more than 300,000 since the bottom of the recession in 2009, Mr. Speaker.

You know, the day the Drummond report was put out in the public, the Leader of the Opposition said you can’t cherry-pick the recommendations. Then three minutes later, he said, Mr. Speaker, to keep horse racing; keep subsidizing the horse racing industry. Don’t follow Drummond’s recommendation on the Niagara casinos.

He did say he wants to eliminate full-day learning. He wants to raise class sizes. He wants to lengthen surgical wait times. We just fundamentally disagree with that approach.

Last fall he adopted a 2017-18 timeline, which is the one we have. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to have it both ways. The good news is that caucus’s party is irrelevant in this discussion because they’d rather have an election than a meaningful discussion on the budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, I think we should probably put out a missing persons alert for Don Drummond—supposed to be your silver bullet, and then you cast it aside all together. The problem is, Speaker, that they brought forward no plan whatsoever to get back on track. In fact, they’re on the path to tripling our debt. They have no jobs plan. And not only do they set weak goals, but they fail to hit even those weak goals. It’s extraordinary managerial incompetence we’ve seen in the last nine years, the Ontario Liberal Party.

Let me give you some examples: $1 billion wasted at eHealth, $700 million handed over to Ornge with no oversight whatsoever, $1 billion in welfare overpayments, and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. expense scandal after expense scandal, the LHINs, the Niagara Parks Commission. The list goes on and on. Why should we trust this government even to hit its meagre goals when it continues to mess up with extraordinary managerial incompetence?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Speaker, I’ll remind the Leader of the Opposition what Patricia Croft, the former chief economist of RBC Global Asset Management, said. She said, “I disagree with Mr. Hudak. He’s talking about swift action, and swift action would mean a deep recession … swift action in terms of cutting spending even further or raising taxes. So this budget” balances “austerity with growth. That’s a very tough act but I think they’ve done a pretty good job.”

Mr. Speaker, that party is irrelevant in this discussion. They’re out nominating candidates. Nobody is listening to them. They want this Legislature to work. The Leader of the Opposition is bereft of ideas other than just to recalculate all the old nostrums that were inaccurate and were rejected by Ontario last fall.

Get down to work. Make the Legislature work. I challenge you to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: When you look at page 194 and 195 of your budget, it’s clear that the McGuinty government made its choice. You want to go down the path of higher spending. You want to go down the path of increased taxes. You want to go down the path of tripling Ontario’s debt. And what, you want us to drive the getaway car? We’re not for that, Speaker.

We want lower taxes. We want jobs in our province. We want to get spending under control. It’s the right path. If this doesn’t work, will you bring back a plan that truly does? We want to see Ontario as a leader again in this great country.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s nice to see he’s finally read the budget, Mr. Speaker. You know, he got out of the press conference—and that’s why nobody is paying attention to them except their own people on Twitter when they twit to congratulate Mr. Hudak on his nomination this week.

It’s unfortunate that they’ve neutered themselves in this debate. What they lost track of is that in fact Ontarians think this is the right budget. Now, there is room for some improvement. I applaud the leader of the third party, and the New Democrats for coming forward with constructive ideas to make it work better.

They’ve just been absent while they’re out nominating candidates, borrowing money for the buses. It’s unfortunate they chose that course.

We’re going to stand with this budget. We’re going to make changes to make it better because the people of Ontario want this Legislature to work. The only people they’re creating jobs for are poll—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Leader of the third party

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Would the Acting Premier agree that if the people of Ontario are going to accept this budget, they need to believe that it’s fair for people like them?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we brought forward a budget that is fair and balanced, and we stand by that. It moves us back to balance according to the timelines that all three parties agreed to after the last election. It puts an emphasis on expenditure cuts. It does deal with revenue. We adopted the recommendation of the third party with respect to freezing the corporate tax rate, which we felt was an appropriate recommendation that made sense in the context of what’s going on.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the leader of the third party: Fairness is important in this process and indeed in any budget. We continue to work with her and her party to make sure that it is fair. I suspect where we might differ is on what is fair and what isn’t, but we look forward to continuing to work with you today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Overwhelmingly we are hearing from people who say that that budget lacks fairness. One step we’ve asked the government to consider is asking very high-income earners to pay just a little bit more. This government has hit families with unfair regressive taxes like the HST and the health tax. Why the hesitation around this simple proposal to make taxation in this province a little more fair?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have moved on a number of areas that the leader of the third party has suggested. We thought those were appropriate. We are looking carefully at all of the recommendations, including the tax increase that she has proposed.

I’m proud of the fact that our tax system is in fact progressive. In fact, over the last three budgets, we’ve made it more progressive. We created and increased the Ontario child benefit. We reduced the rate of taxation on the first bracket of income so that it is more progressive.

We do have to move back to balance, according to the timelines outlined, while respecting the principle that the leader of the third party speaks of, and that is fairness, because it’s not fair to our children and grandchildren if we don’t deal with this problem.

We will continue to look at her ideas. We think they’ve been brought forward in very good faith. I think we all—at least two parties—want to make this Legislature work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2003, the Minister of Finance stood in this House and denounced “Tory tax boondoggles for the rich.” He bragged that things have changed, reiterating that again. But now, after a decade in power, the government seems to have lost its way. Do they plan to stand with Conservatives or the people of Ontario, who are looking for a little more fairness?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think at the time I was referring to the generous tax cuts for the horse racing industry from the previous government. I would urge caution in going down that road because, again, we need to have some consistency in tax policy.

Again, we thank the third party for continuing the dialogue over the weekend. We accept the premise that we have to make sure this budget is fair. It has to be fair not only among people today but fair to people in the future, because of our interest and debt burden. But I think the leader of the third party is operating in good faith, and we continue to listen carefully to their suggestions.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Fair’s fair. During challenging economic times, it’s even more important to share and share alike. I think Ontarians get that. The ultra-wealthy can afford to pitch in a little more to support vital services.

Donna from Cobourg advises, “The idea of having the $500,000 [a year] wage earners pay more tax and helping out the struggling workers is great ... now stick by that.”

New Democrats have been sticking by that, Speaker. Will the McGuinty Liberals?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think fairness is important. For instance, we thought it was fair that we proceed with full-day learning, and I think the leader of the third party agrees with us. We thought it was fair that we proceed with small class sizes, and I believe the leader of the third party agrees with that. It is fair that we are moving forward with the Ontario child benefit, a large tax cut for people of more modest means to support their families. We agree; I think she does. Home care: We agree. In fact, we’ve responded as best we can to her calls. I think she also agrees that we need to protect ODSP and improve child care. We’ve taken steps to that as well.

We look forward to the continuing dialogue. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked over the past weekend with the third party to make this Legislature work, to get us back to balance. I applaud her for working with us instead of nominating candidates and hiring—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s apparent from what the Acting Premier has to say that he would agree with me that this is not about ideology but it is about basic fairness. I think it’s time for me to reiterate that if belts need to be tightened, then everybody should be feeling it.

Moira from London writes, “They need to make those who are making incredible profits pay their fair share of taxes.” Will the Acting Premier ask those making half a million dollars or more a year to pitch in a little bit extra to protect the services for the rest of us?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’m also pleased that we have been able to take some 90,000 Ontarians off the tax rolls entirely. I am pleased that we have been able to continue to build on our anti-poverty strategy, which is an important step forward as we make progress in reducing particularly child poverty in this province. There are a variety of initiatives in the budget that build on those initiatives as we move back to balance, and we will respond with respect to this proposal in due course.

But I think it’s important that we continue, as a Legislature, to work together, not just in this budget but throughout the coming weeks and months, to ensure that we continue to build a stronger Ontario as we move forward together.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Most Ontarians agree that the most fortunate among us have a role to play in making this budget fairer for their fellow citizens. John from Tecumseh writes, “Let those who have the ability to pay taxes pay more. Children need to be protected, health care needs to be enhanced.” Scott from Whitby reasons, “Moderate tax increases for the people who make ... more (yes, that includes me) ... is a fairer approach.” Some senior Liberals say that they would do it in a heartbeat. Will the finance minister and the Premier take their advice and make this budget fairer?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, it’s pronounced “Tecumsee,” but I’ll say this: We discussed these matters among ourselves. We’re a caucus full of bright, thoughtful people, all of whom want to move Ontario forward, and we believe that the leader of the third party does as well, and her caucus colleagues.

We look forward to arriving at a budget that is acceptable to this Legislature, that all of us can say is fair. We may not agree with all aspects of it—we will no doubt disagree on aspects of it—but I think, to her point about fairness and working together, we accept that.

I look forward to the discussions that have been going on all this past weekend continuing today. I think the people of Ontario want us here working instead of out nominating candidates, campaigning, raising money and spending money on lawn signs.

ARBITRATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week, as Ontario’s PC labour critic, I tabled legislation to reform Ontario’s broken arbitration system. Your hand-picked economist Don Drummond made it quite clear that if you ignore one of his recommendations, you have to put another one on the table.

Our Trust in Arbitration Act echoes one of Don Drummond’s key recommendations. This bill provides a real, strong legislative framework that makes arbitrators accountable to our province’s ability to pay.

Minister, you’ve never bargained with a union that you wouldn’t coddle, and you’ve never seen a union wage you wouldn’t raise. Will you support Bill 70 to reform Ontario’s broken arbitration system?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: It’s always a pleasure to hear from the honourable member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. I’m not sure if the member opposite has had a chance to read through the budget, but there is a

section on interest arbitration. In that section, we do address the concerns that the member’s party and various municipalities have raised with us over the last few months.

The budget proposes interest arbitration provisions that provide a focused, balanced number of reforms. The reforms include accountability, transparency as well as timeliness in the interest arbitration system. At the same time, these measures would preserve the essential independence of the arbitration process. The reforms would require interest arbitration when requested by a party to provide written reasons demonstrating that they’ve given proper consideration to the statutory criteria.

I recommend that the member opposite read the budget on the interest arbitration—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: More fluff and stuff from the minister.

Minister, the people of Ontario have no confidence that you or your partnership with the third party can rein in public sector wages because you always fail the people of Ontario. Our municipal partners, police service boards and small businesses have all begged you to fix an arbitration system that has increased public sector wages by 27% more than the private sector.

Minister, you asked for ideas, and we’ve provided them. The Ontario PCs have put forward a strong, mandatory wage freeze. We’ve tabled even stronger legislation to restore trust in our broken arbitration system.

Minister, you have never been able to look Don Drummond straight in the eye. Will the minister of big debts and short change support our strong legislation to reform Ontario’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I offer a caution: The member referred to the minister in a way that is not appropriate or understood to be convention. I remind all members, please, either their riding or their ministry. Thank you.

Minister of Labour.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Thank you, Speaker. As I stated in my first answer, our government’s budget includes an item on interest arbitration provisions that provide a focused and balanced approach.

We’re going to increase accountability. We’re going to increase transparency. We’re going to increase timeliness of the interest arbitration system. These are all things that I know the party opposite has been asking for, and yet you’re going to vote against a budget and force Ontarians into an election that nobody wants. Ontarians don’t want that unnecessary election and expensive process that puts our economy at risk.

I want to say to the member opposite, if you really want to see changes to the interest arbitration system, why not support the budget and spare Ontarians the unnecessary expense of an election?

Mr. Speaker, we support an impartial system that requires participation of both parties.

I recommend the member opposite try to put his interests aside, think of Ontarians and support the budget.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Acting Premier. It’s clear the budget lacks a plan for people looking for work in this province. Minister, as you know, the unemployment rate in communities like Windsor–Tecumseh is in double digits, and nearly 25,000 people are looking for work in London.

New Democrats have proposed a tax credit that rewards companies that create jobs. Will the Acting Premier make the budget fairer for people and move forward with our job creation proposal?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I don’t know if the member was at committee last week, but I know his colleagues who were there supported our initiatives to create jobs in southwestern Ontario by voting in favour of the southwest Ontario development fund. This Legislature will have an opportunity to vote for that very bill; something that’s worked very well in eastern Ontario. Unfortunately, just like on the budget, the PC Party does not appear to be supporting jobs for southwestern Ontario.

We welcome support from the NDP, but we call on our colleagues across the aisle here to support jobs in southwestern Ontario, support investments in southwestern Ontario, by supporting this very important piece of legislation that will create exactly what the member is asking us to create today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Modelled after a plan by the Obama administration, our job creator tax credit would create more than 50,000 jobs.

It’s not just that there isn’t a plan to create jobs in this budget. Decisions like terminating the horse racing revenue-sharing program without any consultation will take a toll on jobs in rural Ontario. We propose that the government work with the horse racing industry with the goal of stabilizing that sector. Will we see a plan to retain jobs in rural Ontario today from the government?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I hear what the member is saying, but the people in southwestern Ontario want their southwestern Ontario development fund. The people in eastern Ontario want their eastern Ontario development fund. What they don’t want is an unnecessary election that’s going to stop us from being able to deliver jobs in southwestern Ontario, in eastern Ontario.

Last month alone, 46,000 net jobs were created in this province. The economy is going in the right direction. The last thing we want now, Mr. Speaker, is an unnecessary election that’s going to make things unstable and slow down the economic growth that we’re achieving.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, we look to the NDP in the next few days to show leadership and pass the budget that’s going to reduce the deficit and is going to create jobs in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario and the entire province.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Tomorrow we vote on our government’s strong budget to help Ontario recover from the global recession and get back to balance. Ontario’s budget for 2012-13 proposes extending the existing salary freeze for MPPs for another two years, for a total of five years. My constituents of Pickering–Scarborough East want all MPPs to show leadership on this and offer solutions in the best interests of Ontarians.

I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that we are in public service because we want to make a difference in our communities and create a better Ontario for future generations. Speaker, could the minister please tell this House about the Premier’s proposal?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Pickering–Scarborough East for asking this question. She is absolutely correct: These are tough economic times and in these tough economic times we are asking all of our partners, including the MPPs, to do their part, but at the same time protect the priorities that are important to Ontarians, like health, education and creating jobs. That’s why it’s important for us all to work together to resolve the issues that we are facing right now.

It’s important that we continue to lead by example, so we are asking all MPPs to take two years of additional freeze in their salaries. That would be a total of five. It’s not the easy thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do and it shows leadership.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Ontario has elected us to protect public services, eliminate the deficit and work together for all Ontarians. I was very troubled to learn in the National Post last week that the PC member from Nipissing complained that his taxpayer-funded $116,550 salary is too low.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member, I am going to offer this again generically. Government policy, please. Redirect your question, please.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I’m talking about the MPP—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not stand for others to start. Redirect your question, please.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. We know candidates run for different reasons. I can tell you, I didn’t run for a paycheque. Mr. Speaker, I am here for Pickering–Scarborough East to help deliver quality services for all Ontarians, not because of the size of the paycheque. This is about leadership. We are asking our public sector partners to do their part, yet some opposition members appear to have a problem with how much we all make. Could the minister please remind all members that a five-year MPP salary freeze as proposed in the budget is how we are leading by example to serve the people of Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member for asking the question again. I have been in this Legislature for nine years and I am very impressed with the quality of the people in this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We bring different perspectives. We come from different backgrounds. That’s what enriches the experience in this Legislature.

Most of us got into the Legislature to make a difference and serve Ontarians. Providing leadership at this point of time to balance our budget is important. The member should be focusing on how we can address the issue of the deficit, how we can address our priorities, rather than talking about the salary at this point of time. So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge him that he knew exactly what the salary was before he got into the Legislature, and not talk about—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Now, I am going to make a statement here. These kinds of questions—and I have heard them from all sides—are leading us to racing to the bottom. I’d rather us race to the top.

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Deputy Premier: Thursday I asked you about the involvement of Don Guy, Dalton McGuinty’s former chief of staff and election guru: about Don Guy’s involvement in the ever-growing Ornge scandal. Friday, I received an intimidating letter from Don Guy’s lawyer, insinuating legal action. I see this as a threat, an attempt to force my silence into the questioning of those involved in this scandal that plagues your government.

Deputy Premier, did anyone on the Premier’s staff or anyone on your caucus direct or authorize Don Guy to intimidate an elected member of this Legislature?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I think it’s about time that members on the opposition benches allow the committee to do its work. Mr. Guy, Don Guy, has been asked by the committee to appear in front of them. My understanding is that he has indicated a willingness to appear in front of the committee. I understand the clerk will be making arrangements for a number of witnesses to go forward. There is a list of witnesses. There are opportunities for opposition members and government members alike to ask questions of people and to get to the bottom of it.

Last week, I think the Deputy Premier spoke about an individual by the name of Kelly Mitchell, a very prominent member of the opposite member’s party, an individual who we look forward to questioning. Again, there was a—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Speaker. I think all concerned—we want to deal with this. I know the Premier to be an honourable man, so I’m sure he will take the opportunity to set the record straight and provide critical information.

My question, to whoever wants to answer: Can the Deputy Premier tell this House of any and all involvement of Don Guy in the Ornge file, in any way, any shape or form, while he served as chief of staff? Secondly, will you agree to table all emails and all documents pertaining to Don Guy’s involvement on the Ornge file?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s why we have a committee.

Hon. John Milloy: Exactly. As my friend the Minister of the Environment points out, that’s why we have standing committees of this Legislature. That’s why we have the public accounts committee, which is right now looking into the Ornge situation. They have requested that Mr. Guy come before the committee. It’s my understanding he has spoken of his willingness to appear and they are right now trying to

schedule him to come forward.

Last week, a motion was passed in this House to call Kelly Mitchell before the committee.

Interjection: Looking forward to that.

Hon. John Milloy: I think most people, as my friend behind me says, are looking forward to hearing from him—a very, very prominent Conservative who apparently was paid $400,000 by Ornge in order to lobby and schmooze with prominent members of the Progressive Conservative Party. I think we’re looking forward to him answering questions at the committee—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre par intérim. The vast majority of community hospitals are facing cutbacks, and it’s starting to have an effect. Niagara hospitals have to cut beds across the NHS because of a funding freeze delivered in this government’s budget. At Health Sciences North in Sudbury, patients are concerned that the care they need will simply not be accessible to them.

Will the Acting Premier put local health care before millionaires?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to take this opportunity to actually say thank you to the people who work in our hospitals: our front-line workers, our nurses, our doctors, our environmental services staff; all of the people who make Ontario’s hospitals amongst the best in the world.

We have invested enormously in hospitals in the eight years that we have been in government. This year, we made a very strategic decision to invest in home care. We know there are too many people who are in hospital beds who do not need to be there, who do not want to be there, who could go home if the supports at home were available.

We have made a strategic decision. We will continue to increase funding for hospitals, but the bulk of our new investments are in the home and community sector. I think that’s where they need to be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: There are more rural, northern and community hospitals facing the budget crunch. Élisabeth Bruyère health centre in eastern Ontario is looking at cutting rehab and palliative care beds, as well as the staff that goes with them.

Our modest tax increase for those who have taxable incomes of over half a million dollars would help make sure that those health care services remain in those communities. It is reasonable. It is responsible. It’s the right thing to do.

Will the Acting Premier do the right thing and put front-line health care over millionaires?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our action plan is very clear and very deliberate. We need to invest more in community care, more in home care. We have a finite amount of money that we can spend. Our decision to focus on home care and community care is the right decision. It is supported by such experts as Dr. Zalan in Sudbury. I know the member opposite is familiar with the work he is doing.

I can tell you that across the province, I have had very strong support for the initiatives in our action plan. We can do better, and I’m leading that change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. Member from Guelph.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Speaker. My question, through you, is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I have recently read an open letter sent to you by the member for Oxford with regard to the Risk Management Program. Apparently, he is somewhat confused about the program.

I have been receiving very positive reaction to the budget from the agriculture stakeholder community because they are pleased about the continuation of the program for the 2012 crop year and the work that you have begun with stakeholders on a new iteration of the program for the 2013 crop year.

However, the letter alleges that farmers are confused about when changes to the program would take effect. Minister, could you please clear up the member for Oxford’s confusion? Is the RMP capped for the 2012 crop year?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s certainly a very important question. I want to be perfectly clear in answering the question, as I have been with farmers and in discussions with my good friend the member from Oxford on this very point.

For the 2012 program year, the 2012 crop year, the program remains the same. Farmers are still enrolled in the demand-driven program they signed up for.

For the 2013 program year, as we announced in the budget, we are working with farmers to revise and enhance the program to bring greater predictability to both farmers and the government.

Here’s what Dan Darling, president of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, said: “Farmers have been assured that the 2012 year will be funded and administered as presented without a cap on funding.”

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you, Minister. I know that farmers across Ontario will appreciate having you set the record straight.

The letter also quotes several farm organizations on whether they correctly understood the budget and your discussions with them about the program.

Minister, our government worked extensively with farmers to implement the Risk Management Program, So it’s important that farmers have a clear understanding of the intent of the government for RMP. Minister, can you share with this House any of the reaction that you’ve heard from the agriculture stakeholders you’ve been working with on this program?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thanks again for that question. Mr. Speaker, Lorne Small, the president of the Christian farmers organization said, “The organization is satisfied with the government’s message today that the made-in-Ontario Risk Management Program will be continued.…”

The Grain Farmers of Ontario said this: “For the 2012 program year, our organization has been assured that the existing guidelines will remain in place and RMP will not be capped. The details of the 2013 program year will be part of an ongoing discussion....”

Mr. Speaker, it’s clear that our farmers understand, and it’s also clear that they don’t want to be confused, knowingly or unknowingly. I think it would be fair to say that the last thing they want is to see this program put at risk with an early and unnecessary election.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Last week, work in my Burlington and Toronto offices ground to a halt as a result of a malicious, cowardly smear campaign, one that the Premier and Minister of Health unleashed on the people of my riding. Angry, confused and shocked Burlingtonians were victims of Liberals’ automated robocalls, calls that falsely linked expansions of Joseph Brant hospital with the 2012 budget.

The Minister of Health took an oath to promote and protect the well-being of all Ontarians. That she would engage in such behaviour is truly disappointing. Speaker, will the Minister of Health confirm that she and the Premier put the fortunes of the Liberal Party above the health of the citizens of Burlington?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite, I believe, is aware that on page 40 of the budget, Speaker, it says, “The government will continue its investments in more than 30 new major hospital” capital “projects, in addition to the 25 major”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I repeat my previous comment, and that is that I would rather us race to the top than race to the bottom. Please come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. So I quote from the budget, page 40: “The government will continue its investments in more than 30 new major hospital” capital “projects, in addition to the 25 major projects currently under construction.” The Burlington hospital, Joe Brant hospital, is one of those 30 major capital expansions.

Speaker, I know it’s difficult for the member opposite to have to have to choose between her loyalty to her party and her loyalty to her community, but I think this hospital expansion is important in the community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health, my, my, you are rather liberal with the truth, aren’t you? This budget does nothing—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the member to withdraw that.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I withdraw.

This budget does nothing to repair the economy. It does nothing to correct your carefree spending. Hour by hour, you are increasing spending and deepening our debt. That is the real threat to projects like the Joseph Brant expansion.

Minister, you are a walking case of political opportunism and bad judgment. You were too busy campaigning to read the auditor’s report on Ornge. You’ve endorsed dirty tricks and deceitful robocalls. And you have the nerve to sit there with a self-righteous smirk on your face.

Are you so out of touch with reality that you thought you could get away with not—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m disappointed that the member opposite is stooping to such personal attacks. But I do have to say that the member opposite, even in her question, illustrated the conflict that I’m hearing across the way. They’re saying, “Spend more on hospitals,” but they’re saying, “You’re spending too much.” They can’t have it both ways. They need to choose a lane.

The member opposite knows that if this budget does not pass, we will be forced into an unnecessary and expensive election. The member opposite also knows that this government remains firmly committed to the expansion at Joe Brant hospital. We are on track. We do not want to jeopardize that progress by an unnecessary and expensive election.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Sarah Campbell: My question is to the Acting Premier. Families in northwestern Ontario are concerned about a Liberal budget that has let them down on jobs. There is no plan to create jobs in our communities and no commitment to invest in infrastructure that’s needed in the Ring of Fire. Making things worse, cuts to tourism information centres will make it harder for already struggling tourism outfitters to grow their small businesses. Will we see the government move on our proposals to make the budget better for people, with real action on job creation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, I am very, very proud of this government and this government’s budget. Their commitment to northern Ontario is voluminous, when you think about the opportunity that this budget creates for northern Ontario.

Not only do we continue our investment in the northern Ontario heritage fund—that’s to the tune of $100 million—a fund that has created, to date, 18,000 jobs and co-op placements; a fund that has invested in 4,300 projects; that has leveraged more than $2.4 billion to northern Ontario. This government has a commitment to northern Ontario that far surpasses the commitment of the two opposition parties when they were in government, when they stripped opportunity for northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: The truth is, the facts tell a different story. Given the choice, this government won’t even hire Ontario workers. We’ve recently found out that people working for Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources aren’t based in northwestern Ontario. They’re not even based in southern Ontario. They’re not even based in Canada. No, the MNR has taken call centre jobs that should be in Ontario and put them in Tennessee—this, on top of the McGuinty government’s plan to further cut MNR jobs as announced in their budget.

If the Ontario government won’t even employ people living in Ontario, how does it expect anyone else to employ Ontario residents? Will we see a proposal today from this government that takes action on jobs in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to follow up on the northern Ontario heritage fund for a second, because the member’s riding of Kenora–Rainy River has had approval of 384 projects. We’ve approved $90,438,000, which has leveraged $239,897,000 and has created 2,290 jobs in Kenora–Rainy River alone.

This budget protects the 170,000 jobs in northern Ontario and commits $618 million to improving northern highways. Now, I say that’s commitment. Are you going to support that tomorrow?

SKILLS TRAINING

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We’ve been talking a lot about making sure that our students are ready for the 21st-century economy by making sure that they get affordable, high-quality post-secondary education, and we have done a great job on that, including our 30% tuition grant, which is making it more affordable. The proof is in the pudding because today, Ontario has among the highest rates of graduation when it comes to post-secondary education in the OECD countries.

We need to also talk about people who are already in the workforce and facing layoff. What are we going to do to help them? They’ve got a lot of skills, a lot of work experience and transferable skills. Can the minister tell us what we are doing to help these people transition?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member for Mississauga East–Cooksville is quite correct: We’re going through a very challenging time. My friend the member from Essex raised this same point earlier. When we went through a global recession, there was a fundamental change in our economy. We have lost some jobs, as everyone else in the western economy knows, and the jobs that have been created, which are now over 350,000—70% of those require a university or college education.

Our Second Career program has been aimed at trying to ensure that people who lost lower-skill jobs in the economy can get into the new higher-skill jobs within the economy. We have now put over 53,000 Ontarians who lost their jobs into high-skill jobs as a result of this program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister. My supplementary is: It’s important that we continue to train our workers who are leaving one industry to be matched immediately with employers in another industry. But what I’d like to know is: What are we doing to ensure that Ontarians are not only entering but completing Second Career programs and then landing good jobs?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you very much. In fact, 95% of the clients complete their skills-training program and about 75% are getting a job within six months, which is quite extraordinary.

The commitment of this government across the province has been quite extraordinary. The UOIT, which my friends opposite in the Durham region would know, has seen its budget increase under this government 386%. Part of the reason for that is that many of our colleges and universities have taken the spirit of this program and dramatically increased it.

If you want to work at GM or Chrysler, with about 9,000 jobs that have been created in that area alone, you now need a background in robotics or software development. Our colleges and universities, which have an over 86% placement—these jobs now in the new economy, whether they’re apprenticeship, trades or college-based, require that higher education.

Families who have lost their jobs get $28,000 per family throughout their training so that they don’t end up in further poverty.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, three gasoline retailers in my area recently entered guilty pleas for price-fixing charges. I commend the federal Competition Bureau for sticking up for motorists feeling the pain at the pump, but my constituents think something is missing. They think Ontario’s consumer services ministry is asleep at the switch.

People like Steve Connors of Kemptville are writing me to ask me a simple question. Other than watching the Premier drive up the price of gas with tax grabs, what is your ministry doing to protect consumers from being gouged?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this Ontario Legislature to address issues relating to consumer protection. This government is committed to protecting Ontario’s consumers, and we certainly look to the people on the opposite side to stand up for Ontarians. They don’t even want to stand up for the budget. They don’t even care about Ontarians. They have no interest whatsoever in the budget, Mr. Speaker, so it behooves me that these people could get up and ask a question about consumer protection when they don’t even care about Ontarians. They didn’t even read the budget before they decided that they weren’t going to support it. So, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: I appreciate it, Minister. This is a very touchy subject and difficult for you to answer. After all, it was your government who hit motorists with an 8% overnight increase thanks to the hated HST. No one knows consumer gouging like the McGuinty government.

Speaker, the Brockville Recorder and Times recently conducted a poll about gas prices, and 97% of respondents thought there was something fishy when it comes to how they fluctuate. So I ask you, Minister: Are you with the 97%, or is your head stuck in the sand with the 3% who think everything is okay?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the member opposite should realize that an unnecessary election would kill the proposed legislation to crack down on cellphone issues and contract issues. I want to say, our government is committed to addressing issues relating to consumer protection, and we are indeed a strong ally of consumer—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises an issue that the federal government needs to address as well. We have made improvements in protection for consumers when they buy cars, make funeral arrangements, when they book their trips, and in various other aspects of consumer protection. We continue to work with our consumers in the province of Ontario to raise awareness, because we want smart consumers—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Your decisions to divest the Ontario Northland commission and shut down the rail line is going to put shippers along the route at risk. Companies like Lecours Lumber, Columbia Forest Products, Tembec in Hearst, Cochrane and other places, Agrium out of Opasatika, and Xstrata out of Timmins rely on the Ontario Northland as a cheap and efficient way of moving their goods. By shutting down the Ontario Northland, you’re going to force them to go to road, which is going to cost a lot more money. Why are you putting the jobs in these plants at risk yet again in northern Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, it’s very, very important that everyone understands that the goal of this government is to ensure that we have a modern, effective, efficient transportation system in place, not only for today but for tomorrow. I think everyone in this House understands that we cannot sustain a $100-million subsidy to the ONTC. So the government took the very, very difficult action it took when it decided that we will divest the ONTC. That doesn’t mean that we are going to have an inferior system in place. We are very, very confident as we move forward that we are going to have a much more superior system of transportation in place. That’s our goal; that’s what we work towards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The problem is, nobody has confidence in this government when it comes to anything you’ve done in northern Ontario. I think the reality of this government is that you have the Midas touch when it comes to anything you touch.

I have a very simple question for you. People in northern Ontario are hopping mad at what this government has not done when it comes to forestry and other industries. You’re now about to shut down the Ontario Northland, and it’s creating a situation in northern Ontario where people are actually talking about seceding from this province. Is this a legacy that you want to leave in northern Ontario when it comes to the record of your government—more northern alienation?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, I’d like to read a letter. The letter is from Mike from North Bay, and he writes: “The NDP Was No Friend to Ontario Northland.” He goes on to say, “When in power, the Ontario NDP reduced bus service from Timmins to Chapleau and Wawa, docked the new ferry in Tobermory, cut norOntair service from 21 to six communities and sold off Star Transfer, the trucking firm of the ONTC,” putting those people out of work immediately.

Our plan for the ONTC is to divest the assets, not foreclose those assets, as the NDP did. We will divest to a system of transportation that will be in place, that will be sustainable, affordable, efficient and effective, not only for today but for tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? The member from Nipissing.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I stand on a point of order. Earlier today in question period, the member from Pickering–Scarborough East made a statement about an

article in the National Post, to which I was attributed a comment. Speaker, I did not ever say that comment. It is untrue—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. While that could be made—it’s not a point of order because, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on one’s perspective, only a member can correct their own record.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, can I rise again?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, please do.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: How can I ask her to correct the record? As a new member, I would be interested to know that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I actually figured that one out. I wanted to check with the Clerk just to make sure.

The member can ask the member, and if the member chooses to speak to the member about that, you are absolutely free to do so.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It gives me great pleasure, and I ask the entire House to welcome my guests. I have Gary Sran here, Gagan Kaur, Harjiwan Singh, Baldeep Singh, Harman Singh, Harbaljeet Singh and my brother Gurratan Singh. You can all stand.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We always welcome our guests. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that they’ve arrived yet. We’re expecting a grade 5 class from Innerkip public school to join us here in the Legislature today. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature along with the teachers and the parents who are here supervising today and wish them all a good and happy day here, an educational day here at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. We do welcome the guests.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Today, we have two great agricultural organizations with us here at Queen’s Park: the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Our farmers contribute greatly to our province’s economy. In 2009, Ontario farm outputs contributed $22 billion in gross economic stimulus. More than 80,000 Ontarians make this their living on farms, and 718,000 Ontarians work in the agri-food sector.

Our farmers work hard and they deserve our support, but there are a number of government policies that hurt our agriculture industry. Our farmers are struggling with too much red tape. Government needs to consult with farmers before they introduce legislation that impacts them. We need to find real solutions when the Endangered Species Act causes problems—such as the bobolink—not just postpone the problem; and to challenges like the OSPCA having huge powers on farms and over farm animal welfare without having the proper training and accountability.

We’ve heard from the OFA and other organizations that this government’s decision to end the slots-at-racetracks partnership will cost tens of thousands of jobs on farms and in our agri-businesses. This afternoon, Tim Hudak and I are looking forward to meeting with these organizations to discuss their challenges and priorities.

We were pleased to work with farmers for years to get a risk management program. Farmers, agricultural organizations and the PC caucus asked for an insurance program that farmers could depend on. We will continue to work with them during the review to make sure that farmers have a program that works.

I want to thank both organizations for coming to Queen’s Park to update us today.

TRISTAN EMIRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: I am honoured for the opportunity to recognize a young man from Algoma–Manitoulin, Tristan Emiry, who has won the prestigious Loran Award.

The Loran Award is the largest undergraduate merit scholarship in Canada. Tristan will receive up to $80,000 to pursue his post-secondary studies when he graduates from Espanola High School this June. The Loran Award will include four years of funding and a comprehensive enrichment and mentoring program.

I am proud that one of my constituents is one of the 30 students from across Canada to receive this award. Tristan has been an active student as the Prime Minister of the student Parliament for the past two years, as well as Deputy Prime Minister in grade 10.

Tristan spearheaded the Spread the Net campaign in his high school with impressive results, leading to their school being featured on the Rick Mercer Report as the top fund-raising high school in Canada. This year, the school, with Tristan’s leadership, tripled its donation, raising over $31,000 for bed nets to help protect children from malaria in Africa. Once again on the Mercer Report a few weeks ago, Tristan was named the youth ambassador for Spread the Net.

Tristan plans to study either economics at McGill University or agriculture economics at Guelph. Whichever program he chooses, they will be fortunate to have him.

Tristan has earned the respect and admiration of many of his school and community members, and I want to pass along my congratulations and best wishes for him in his future.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Jeff Leal: I rise today to recognize the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the members who are participating in their visit to Queen’s Park today.

The DFO works to ensure a consistent supply of milk is available to provide high-quality dairy products to consumers at reasonable prices while ensuring that producers receive a fair return. I think all members of this House can truly be proud of the work that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario do so that Ontarians can enjoy delicious, locally produced dairy products.

I’d also like to recognize the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and their members who are visiting the Legislature today as well. The OFA is Ontario’s largest general farm organization. We on this side of the House appreciated the contributions that the OFA made in developing the risk management and the self-directed risk management program. I’m certain all members of this House will take this opportunity to thank the OFA and their members for providing some of the good things that grow in Ontari-ari-ari-o.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m glad you didn’t sing it.

NATIONAL ORGAN AND TISSUE

DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Norm Miller: I rise today to speak to a very important issue and an event of which we should all be aware. This week is National Organ Donor Week. One individual can save up to eight lives through organ donation and enhance the lives of 75 more through tissue donation.

Unfortunately, more than 4,000 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant to save their lives and, in 2010, nearly 230 Canadians died while waiting for a transplant. For every million Canadians, 16.3 donate organs. Clearly, there is much more we can do.

It begins with awareness. The Torch of Life relay organized by the Step by Step Organ Transplant Association is currently crossing the province, encouraging Ontarians to become donors and save lives. In fact, today, and for the rest of the week, they are passing through the riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Last year, along with the members for Newmarket–Aurora and Durham, I took on a challenge to raise the number of registered organ and tissue donors in my riding. The numbers in each of our ridings have since increased by 3%. I note there’s now a new website that rates the towns, and the town of Parry Sound comes in at 48% as compared to a provincial average of 21%.

I encourage each of my colleagues here to take on a similar challenge, to visit beadonor.ca and educate themselves and others, register their consent to become an organ donor and help bring about the day where no Canadians die while waiting for a transplant.

BRAD GIBB

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I rise today to acknowledge an achievement and a prestigious award that was won by a member of my community, a native of Amherstburg. Brad Gibb was named the program director of the year for a medium-sized market by the Canadian Music and Broadcasting Industry.

The list of winners at the recent Canadian Music and Broadcast Industry Awards includes Mr. Gibb, who’s 35 years old, and won for the program director of the year for medium-sized markets and works at FM-96 in London. Gibb is the son of Sharon and Carl Gibb and got his start while growing up in Amherstburg.

The awards ceremony was held March 22 at the Fairmont Royal York in Toronto and resulted in the biggest award that Gibb has won in his career to date. He said it was a reflection of the people whom he works with and it’s a special award as he was recognized for doing something that he loves to do.

A number of factors are considered in this award, including ratings and the commitment to developing Canadian talent, including on-air talent as well as Canadian musicians. Having a good relationship with members of the Canadian music industry is also a component.

Mr. Gibb spent 14 years working in the radio industry but traces his roots back to the days of General Amherst High School, where he and Alex Storino would do morning announcements, similar to morning show radio hosts.

Jack Sorenson, a teacher at General Amherst, took them to the Windsor Press Club one day, where they met people employed in the radio industry, and things took off from there.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them on this achievement and wish Mr. Gibb much success in his career going forward.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Viewers might be aware that all members today are wearing the same tie or the same scarf, and that is because today is Prostate Cancer Awareness Day. During their lifetime, one in seven Canadian men will develop prostate cancer, and virtually all of us here in this House know someone who has had to confront this disease.

In recent years, though, we’ve made progress. After seeing a rise in the 1980s and 1990s, the rate of prostate cancer mortality fell in Ontario, and by 2009, it reached its lowest level in 25 years. It just proves that investments in our health care system do make a difference.

Our government has shown leadership on this issue. In 2008, we expanded OHIP to provide publicly insured PSA tests for eligible patients at a community lab. To date, the total volume of PSA tests for 2011-12 is over 400,000. Yet it’s still a massive challenge. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, prostate cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer in our entire province. Sadly, Speaker, last year an estimated 1,550 men died of this disease.

Even now, few men and their families know about the risks of developing prostate cancer. That’s one of the reasons for today, Speaker, Prostate Cancer Awareness Day: to educate about the risks and remember those who have had to fight prostate cancer, and to remind us all that there’s a lot more work to be done.

BUTTER TART TRAIL

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Any visit to Wellington county wouldn’t be complete without a tasty treat: the great Canadian butter tart. The township of Wellington North created a tourism sensation when, five years ago, it created the Butter Tart Trail. Publications including the Toronto Star and Canadian Living magazine have featured the Butter Tart Trail.

Winding through Wellington North, the trail includes stops at various antique shops, farm markets, artisan studios and, of course, bakeries that serve butter tarts. Some favourites include the butter tart served with a scoop of ice cream and the official goat butter tart, made with real goat milk butter. It’s not just delicious, but it’s also a community-based economic development that has proven to be very effective.

The Butter Tart Trail comes from the idea that to promote local economic development, you need to build on existing community strength and capitalize on your assets. That’s what happened in Wellington North, and we’ve seen that community leadership goes a long way.

I want to commend the council and staff of Wellington North, the tourism committee and all our local businesses that take

part in the Butter Tart Trail. Their success is a clear sign that the spirit of enterprise is alive and well in Perth–Wellington. For that and for contributing so much to our communities, they should be congratulated.

I want to encourage all MPPs to pick up a copy of the map of the trail—I have it in my Queen’s Park office—and I hope you’ll join me as we “simply explore” the Butter Tart Trail.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank the member for making me drool. I appreciate that very much.

The member for Etobicoke North.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Speaker, I’d like to inform you, and through you the people of Ontario and members of this chamber, of a social engineering and ethnic selection experiment that I believe is currently being exacted—possibly perpetrated—against the people of Ontario, as well as Canadians in general, by the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

As you’ll be aware, Speaker, hundreds of thousands of immigrants who in good faith have applied for the past eight years, up till 2008, have simply been told that their applications have been dismissed. They are to reapply under a new social engineering experiment. Their applications have been discarded, cleansed and thrown out. As an example, that leads to the doubling and tripling of time for family unification, spousal reunification.

Who will they accept? Well, Speaker, I would like to put on notice that my Canada includes the world, and as an example, the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration is reducing the number of centres that are offering services in Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Farsi, Tamil and Arabic. They’re even reducing the number of centres that offer services in French.

As was said today in the Toronto Star, one immigrant who applied says that we’ve lost “our youth, our life and our dreams.”

This is an Americanization, an Albertanization, a Wildrose-ing of Canada, and I sincerely hope, Speaker, that this far-right Republican Tea Party mentality does not become Canada’s mentality.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I rise today to share with the House the concerns of the Huron Manufacturing Association. They wrote to me about their concern about the loss of manufacturing jobs in our riding. They’re concerned that manufacturing will not survive this Liberal government’s unaffordable and unsustainable energy policies. Speaker, in their note to me they said, “We have to fight the McGuinty government because they are going to kill manufacturing as we know it in the county today.” They also refer to an

article from the magazine Canadian Manufacturing that says that, according to the Fraser Institute, “Renewable energy could cost Ontario electricity users an extra $18 billion over 20 years.”

Speaker, the Fraser Institute estimates that Ontario consumers will pay $285 million more annually for residential electricity and Canada could lose an additional 41,000 full-time-equivalent jobs over a 20-year period because of the McGuinty government’s subsidization of renewable energy.

The Fraser Institute said, “If other governments choose to emulate Ontario’s energy policies, they too will see higher electricity prices for homeowners and businesses, a need to build costly new electric transmission infrastructure, and the likelihood of job losses in the manufacturing sector as companies relocate in search of” lower electricity costs.

I too am concerned. So I urge the McGuinty Liberals to stand up and show some concern for our people, our jobs and our industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Given this morning and now: In the old days—very old days, by the way—there was full-time kindergarten, but they had to take a nap at noon hour. I just thought I’d let you know that.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during the introduction of visitors, I mentioned that the Innerkip Central public school grade 5 class would be with us. They weren’t here at the time, but they are here now, so I’d like the Legislature to recognize them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not a point of order, but we are welcoming them, and I can ask you if you had your nap at noon hour today too. So we’ll have to carry on with this.

RAY HAGGERTY

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that up to five minutes be allowed to each party to speak in remembrance of the late Ray Haggerty.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, this is the time we always hope doesn’t come about, and that is that someone is going to pass away, but it’s inevitable for all of us.

I knew Ray Haggerty extremely well because he was in a riding very close to mine, and he was one of my mentors.

He was first elected in 1967. You have to remember that from 1967 to 1975, there were no constituency offices, so your house was the constituency office. There were no buffers—no staff there to answer the phones or to help with the writing out of answers and so on. You were it—you and your spouse, usually. Marie was a gem because she worked with Ray and members of the family on issues of great importance to the people of—well, the riding had many names: Welland South, Niagara South, Erie. It had a number of names over the years.

Ray was a consummate constituency person. I know we always say that when we’re paying tribute to people, because we’re all constituency people, but Ray was it, I’m going to tell you. This guy, back in the days—and I knew other members who did that—he went to a WSIB hearing with the constituent, or one of the other panels that a constituent would appear before, and helped with the actual preparation of the case and so on. So Ray was very, very hands-on.

He always felt that it was important to go to the fire halls. He said that that’s where you really learn what’s going on, because, of course, being in a kind of a rural riding, for the most part—there were some towns and cities. But in rural ridings, the volunteer firefighters would certainly provide for you, as well as the professional firefighters, what was going on in the community. So Ray was very good at that.

He helped out youth groups. He worked extremely well with the schools. I was talking to my brother, Ted Bradley, a little while ago, who knew Ray very well and lived in Port Colborne and was a school principal in Sherkston at one time. He said that Ray was just marvellous to work with the schools. Anything the schools wanted, anything the kids wanted, Ray was there to help out. My brother was also a commanding officer of sea cadets in Port Colborne, and again, he said that Ray and his brothers would really help out with anything that would happen in terms of fundraising for organizations such as theirs.

He was not a man of few words. At one time in the House, there were no limits on speeches. We would threaten—our party—if the government were becoming too difficult, to have Ray give a four-hour speech if perhaps they wouldn’t see their way to moving some issue along the way we would like to move it along. Ray was great. He could actually speak for four hours on everything and everybody in his constituency. So he was the kind of person who really knew everybody in the constituency.

He also used to love driving his tractor. I think he was the president of the plowman’s association in his part of the province as well.

I went to the funeral. I went to the visitation as well. What you saw there were people of all different political affiliations and no political affiliation. Every one of them had a Ray Haggerty story of what Ray had done for them individually or for the constituency in one way or another.

He always had a smile on his face, always a greeting, a little quip, a little joke from time to time to lighten things up. I know that people missed him when he decided to retire in 1990. He had had various positions: parliamentary assistant to a number of ministers, for instance; critic, when he was in opposition. But he will always be remembered as the Niagara person, particularly the Niagara South person, and as a friend of so many within the community.

He came from a different era of MPP. There was no television in the House until 1975, so I guess you could send back the Hansards, and people, if they didn’t have anything else to do, would read those Hansards. But you would find a significant contribution from Ray Haggerty.

I would like to say this about Ray: that he could be called Landslide Ray. He was elected in 1967 by 107 votes, in 1971 by 438 votes. He built it up as he went along, of course, and picked up the kind of support he needed.

To his wife, Marie, we offer our thanks for sharing Ray with us, because he was a great guy. Laurie, his daughter; Dennis and Tim, his sons; Craig Miner, who was his son-in-law; his brothers, Jim and Dick Haggerty, who worked with Ray so often; the grandchildren, Tim, Shane, Andrew and Michael—to all of them, we offer our thanks.

The constituency he represented and the people of the province of Ontario were better because of the kind of service that Ray Haggerty provided to his constituents and to our province.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I humbly stand in the Legislature today to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the PC caucus to offer tribute to former Niagara South MPP Ray Haggerty. But before I begin, I’d like to recognize the members of Mr. Haggerty’s family—his wife, Marie, and his daughter, Laurie—and give my respects to the rest of Mr. Haggerty’s family who are watching from home today.

Whenever we take the time to remember a colleague who has left us, I think it’s important for us to keep in mind the friends and the family who so proudly carry on that person’s legacy. Certainly any mark that any one of us here in the Legislative Assembly manages to leave on their communities is due, in no small part, to the love, support and patience of our loved ones, the people who helped us door-knock, shuffled papers at the office and waited up when we were late at the office serving our constituents.

From what I’ve learned about Ray, I can imagine that he spent more than a few late nights at Queen’s Park. From nearly every single account of the man, even in the opinions of his opponents, he was a guy whose popularity in the Niagara region was never, ever in doubt.

He worked hard, and his constituents rewarded that hard work by sending him back to the Legislature in six consecutive elections. That’s a run of 23 years. An entire generation of Niagara South residents grew up, attended grade school, then high school, went on to jobs and university, all under the watchful gaze of Mr. Haggerty. That’s a longer political career than Franklin Roosevelt, longer than Pierre Trudeau, and nearly as long as Pope John Paul II. In the current Canadian political climate, that’s no small achievement.

But Ray’s success shocked exactly no one. Forgive me for quoting from a Progressive Conservative in honouring a Liberal MPP, but I think the following passage is important: “Ray’s so well-liked in this riding that it could really work against us if we tried to go around saying he hasn’t done a good job. His representation has been solid.” That’s from the St. Catharines Standard, on the eve of the May 1985 election. Even his opponents knew what they were up against: A veteran MPP that had already spent many political lifetimes ensuring that his constituents were having their voices heard in the Legislature.

Two years later, Ray would win again with the most impressive result ever—over 11,000 votes, more than double those of the opposing candidates. This was in a brand new riding, not the familiar old Erie riding that he knew so well.

By all accounts, Ray stuck closely to his small-town roots outside of Queen’s Park duties. A machinist by trade and a staunch union man, Ray fashioned his own hand railings around the House and served as a volunteer firefighter in Port Colborne. When he retired in 1990, his intent was to keep up with his hobby of restoring antique trucks.

He was something of a rebel within his own party, much like the modern-day Liberal member from Niagara Falls, Mr. Craitor. It must be something in the water.

Ray almost sounded downright Conservative at times. He once was quoted as saying he disagreed with most of the parties of the day, even his own, in how to go about creating jobs in Ontario. He didn’t believe government could “go around just giving out handouts to industries.”

In 1980, he addressed the Legislature on the subject of national unity. It was a contentious time, as many of us will remember. The Prime Minister was attempting to bring the Constitution home, and not everyone was pleased about it. The “long knives” were out, as René Lévesque said. Yet Ray stood in the House to declare his support for a unified Canada, and even went so far as to call for an elected Senate, a topic that still resonates today.

I say this not to claim Ray as a closeted Ontario PC member, though I am certain there were many on the opposite benches that would have liked to have counted him among their number. I say this because he was truly an MPP who not only took pride in his Liberal roots, but managed to harmonize those beliefs with his own gut feelings. I can tell you, being from a small-town riding myself, people notice that. You can’t fake sincerity of self; if you tried, the folks in a small town, whether it’s Port Colborne or my home town of Chatham, will notice.

Ray knew, in his final election, that he would soon be hanging up his boots. He went out on top, leaving room for the next generation of eager MPPs. One of those who would follow was our own PC leader, Tim Hudak. I know Ray took time to offer advice to Tim, who was a rookie MPP from the Niagara region in 1995. I know that, being a rookie MPP myself, I would gladly have accepted Ray’s advice if I’d had the chance to meet him. It’s clear from his track record that this was a man who knew how to serve his constituents, how to listen and how to sympathize.

One thing I do share with Ray, however, is the pride of serving as a labour critic in the opposition. It’s not a glamorous role, but it is an important one, one that requires the ability to connect with the workers that have built this province. As a builder himself, Ray clearly would have had that touch. I hope I can approximate that.

I’d like to thank my fellow members for giving me the opportunity to speak to the legacy of our colleague Ray. And of course, thank you to his family for sharing him with us and the people of Ontario. You know, regardless of party or politics, every one of us hopes to live up to the very high standard that he set in the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Cindy Forster: On behalf of the NDP caucus, I’m happy to get up here and speak about Ray Haggerty today. In fact, two municipalities in the former Erie riding are actually part of my riding today as we’re here.

I met Ray only once or twice in my life, when I was kind of lobbying with labour here at Queen’s Park. I found him to be gracious and humorous. He was a good listener, and he was a fighter for health and safety issues for workers in this province.

He passed away in April last year, but in life he represented for more than 30 years constituents in his riding, parts of my riding and probably parts of other people’s ridings. He was a councillor for Bertie township. He was also on Welland council as a councillor. For all those years, he represented vigorously and with determination. He didn’t just talk about the issues.

His family, as we’ve heard, is watching on television today: his wife, Marie; his two sons, Tim and Dennis; his daughter, Laurie, and her husband; and the grandchildren. When I was having a look at this stuff, I noted that he often talked about his missus, Marie. The St. Catharines Standard quoted him in 1985 as saying, “We should get Mrs. Haggerty in there to manage Ontario’s money the way she runs mine, then we wouldn’t have all these deficit problems.”

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to Marie and Tim—Tim I’ve known for many years—because I wanted you to know about Ray the man, and I didn’t know a lot about him myself. He grew up in Port Colborne. He moved to Sherkston, a rural part of the Erie riding along the lake, and he bought a home with 25 acres of property. He called himself a farmer, but his son says he was a gentleman farmer. He planted tomatoes, which he sold to a local cannery. He planted corn, which he sold to the Americans that populated the lake in the summer. He raised chickens for brooders as well.

He was a steelworker, a machinist by trade, a union man who held positions of union steward and shop steward in workplaces he had before politics became his job. He was a member of the Odd Fellows, a volunteer firefighter for Port Colborne in the early days, chair of the Niagara South Plowing Match and Niagara Antique Power. Over those years, he acquired seven antique tractors, which still sit on his farm property in Sherkston, one for each of his grandchildren, although they don’t know what they’ll do with them.

The family says that Marie was his right-hand woman and that she was the glue that held the family together while he was at Queen’s Park doing what he did so well. She said it was difficult raising three kids and farming 25 acres, but his brothers and their families helped out a lot. She said that life as the wife and family of a politician can be lonely, but they picked up the threads on the weekend, in her words, and Ray never brought his Queen’s Park disagreements home.

She said he could fix anything because he was a machinist, a millwright; however, trying to get him to do it was another thing. She often had to threaten to call someone, and it would cost money, and then he would get down to business. She said it was an interesting life, with many friends from all political stripes. They attended many events. The best thing was that she didn’t have to cook on the weekends.

His son told me he was a God-fearing man, never drank or smoked, and was set in his ways. He loved golf, and often his golf cronies would pick him up in Niagara Falls at the train station, and they’d go off for a golf game before he even headed home on a Thursday night or at the end of his week.

Both of his sons got the political bug: his son Tim, three rounds of council for Fort Erie; and his son Dennis, four elected terms in Port Elgin. His daughter, Laurie, was very active in all of his campaigns.

Tim laughed, though, when he told me a story about a speech at an event a few years ago. He was talking about when kids leave home. Generally, it’s the kids who leave home. They go to school, they get married or they go out and find a job. He said, “In my family, it was Dad who left home in 1967, and he never returned again until politics was over.” He said he got quite a chuckle about that.

During his years at Queen’s Park, he pushed hard on a lot of issues. He was, I guess, in part responsible for the Good Samaritan Act, WSIB reform, health and safety reform; and public access to our beaches here in Ontario, which was a big issue for him.

He was a politician who worked with all political parties to get something achieved in the House. He was well respected, well loved by his family and his constituents, and our caucus sends our condolences to the family, to his friends. Thank you for sharing him with us and the province for all those years.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank all the members for their kind and generous words to bring praise and honour to a former member, and also your kind words to the family. I will make steps to ensure that those kind words are relayed to the family members on all of our behalf. I thank you for that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NEW DRIVERS’ INSURANCE

RATE REDUCTION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TAUX D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

POUR LES NOUVEAUX CONDUCTEURS

Mr. Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act to provide for lower insurance rates for new drivers / Projet de loi 71, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances afin de prévoir des taux d’assurance-automobile moins élevés pour les nouveaux conducteurs.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Speaker. The bill requires a risk classification system used by an insurer to determine rates for automobile insurance to provide for lower rates for new drivers by crediting new drivers with additional years of driving experience. A new driver is disqualified from receiving additional years of credit in a number of circumstances, including if the driver has been convicted of certain driving offences or has had his or her driver’s licence suspended for non-payment of a certain fine.

In a nutshell, Speaker, the bill speaks of giving our young people, first-time drivers, a chance to be proven innocent until proven guilty. So far, our young people have had a rough ride when they first get a driver’s licence. To try and get insurance has been very difficult and very expensive, and I hope that, with the consent of the House, we can finally do something for our young people in Ontario.

NOTICES OF POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have received three notices of intent to raise points of privilege. One was received this morning, and I am prepared to hear that motion. The other two were received just this afternoon, one just since I’ve been sitting at the Chair, and as they are quite lengthy, I’m not prepared to hear those immediately. Since they are both dealing with matters that occurred starting several days ago, I trust it will not be too much of a problem to deal with them tomorrow.

In addition, we have of late engaged in a practice that I agree with of sharing the notices with the other parties. There is no indication at this time that that has been done, and I would ask Ms. McKenna or Mr. Leone that if this has not occurred, to share that. If it has, I apologize for not knowing ahead of time.

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m recognizing the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka for his point of privilege.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege for which I gave verbal notice on Thursday, April 19, and written notice today, April 23, to both you and the House leaders.

The question of privilege relates to comments by the Deputy Premier, the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, in response to a question from the member from Newmarket–Aurora during question period on Thursday, April 19, 2012, related to my role as Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Hansard will show that in his response the member from Windsor–Tecumseh implies a lack of impartiality on my

part in fulfilling my duties as Chair.

As you also know, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently undertaking hearings on the Auditor General’s special report on Ornge, and it is my legislative duty to preside over those hearings.

Again, there can be no mistaking the message inferred by Mr. Rivers’s tweet. You may recall that it was the subject of a question put by the member for Nickel Belt, Ms. Gélinas, during question period on April 3, 2012.

I should note that the tweet has since been re-tweeted by Warren Kinsella, Bryan Leblanc, the Nickel Belt Liberal riding association and, I’m sure, others.

With respect to the point of privilege I’m asserting, I am supported by parliamentary authorities. House of Commons Procedures and Practice, second edition, 2009,

section 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum,” “Reflections on the Chair,” states: “Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity and impartiality of a presiding officer and if such comments are made, the Speaker will interrupt the member and may request that the remarks be withdrawn.”

In addition, page 500 of the Parliament of Australia’s House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, under “References to and Reflections on Members,” states: “Offensive words may not be used against any member and all imputations of improper motives to a member and all personal reflections on other members are considered to be highly disorderly.”

Furthermore, reference is made to the accepted procedure for making such an imputation: “The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, is that members can only direct a charge against other members or reflect upon their character or conduct upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House.”

The authority for this principle is derived from Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd edition, page 387, which states: “No charge of a personal character in respect of these categories of person can be raised except on a direct and substantive motion. No statement of that kind can be incorporated in a broader motion, nor, for example, included in a reply to a question.”

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a similar case and the December 17, 2009, ruling of Speaker Boudreau of New Brunswick. I’ll read directly from the statement by Speaker Boudreau:

“While I am on my feet, I will give my decision on the question of privilege raised by the honourable Minister of Tourism and Parks, on Tuesday of this week, concerning statements made by members of this assembly outside the House which cast doubt on the impartiality of an officer of the assembly, namely the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Miramichi-Bay du Vin.

“I want to thank both the Minister of Tourism and Parks and the member for Rothesay for their comments.

“I have considered the remarks in question and the allegations of bias made against the Deputy Speaker by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Saint John Portland and published in The Daily Gleaner, the Telegraph-Journal, and the Times and Transcript of December 12, 2009, and in the Miramichi Leader of December 14, 2009.

“I have reviewed the parliamentary authorities, and there is no question regarding the seriousness of reflections and allegations of this nature on chair occupants. Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker or other presiding officers have been ruled to be breaches of privilege.

“Remarks critical of the Speakership, be they uttered inside the House or outside the chamber, particularly when uttered by a member of the House, are very serious and in themselves have been ruled to be breaches of privilege as noted in citation 168(1) of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition at page 49:

“‘Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.’

“Allegations of bias are in themselves a form of intimidation or attempted intimidation. I would like to quote from Marleau and Montpetit’s House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, where it is stated at page 116:

“‘The intimidation or attempted intimidation of the Speaker or any other chair occupant is viewed very seriously by the House. On three occasions, the House has viewed criticisms of the impartiality of the Chair as attempts at intimidation and, therefore, as privilege matters. On December 22, 1976, the House adopted a motion finding that a statement made in a newspaper

article about Speaker Jerome was “a gross libel on Mr. Speaker and that the publication of the

article was a gross breach of privileges of the House.” On March 23, 1993, Speaker Fraser ruled that a member’s comments about the impartiality of a chair occupant constituted a prima facie case of privilege, noting that an attack against the integrity of an officer of the House was also an attack against the House.’

“Colleagues, as the Speaker, it is my duty to protect this institution and the officers who serve and represent it. They must be protected against reflections on their actions.

“Only by means of a substantive motion, for which the required two days’ notice has been given, may the actions of the Chair be challenged, criticized or debated.

“I therefore find that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.”

I believe that Speaker Boudreau’s decision speaks to both the comments raised by the member from Windsor–Tecumseh and the issue of the tweet by Mr. Rivers.

I am further supported by parliamentary authorities and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where O’Brien and Bosc stated that “Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its members free from intimidation.”

Speaker Lamoureux stated in a 1973 ruling that “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”

O’Brien and Bosc conclude that:

“It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a member’s reputation ... the intimidation of members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.”

Citation 93 of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states, “It is generally that any threat or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a member, is breach of privilege.”

In Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Maingot provides for the novel aspect of cases dealing with the publication on the Internet, including through Twitter. At page 225, Maingot notes, “While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of obstruction are constantly being devised and Parliament must be able to invoke its penal jurisdiction to protect itself against these new forms....”

Maingot also offers an articulate review of the balance to consider between free and democratic expression—or even critical speech—and a breach of privilege or contempt. At page 235 he states:

“All interferences with members’ privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of members in their parliamentary work.... But any attempt by improper means to influence or obstruct a member in his parliamentary work may constitute contempt. What constitutes an improper means of interfering with members’ parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.”

I am also supported by parliamentary precedent. Speaker Parent, on March 24, 1994, stated, “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no member of Parliament can do his duty as expected.”

This brings me back to the comment by the Deputy Premier, the member for Windsor–Tecumseh. The comments by the member from Windsor–Tecumseh in this House damage the reputation for fairness and integrity that I have earned over the past decade since I was elected as the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka in 2001. It implies I acted improperly by meeting with a public agency, despite no evidence being offered by the member from Windsor–Tecumseh. I believe it is an attempt to intimidate me.

If the member from Windsor–Tecumseh has evidence instead of innuendo, let him produce it. If the Premier’s office or government caucus believes I should recuse myself, let them have the courage to say so and bring a substantive motion.

Rather than act honourably, they impugn my integrity and reputation and, in doing so, unduly interfere with my work as Chair.

Upon your ruling that a prima facie breach of privilege exists, I’m prepared to move that the matter be referred to an appropriate committee of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Please be seated.

On the same order, the member from Trinity—the member from Timmins–James Bay. I start with the letter and I lose it. The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s no problem. I get names wrong, Ralph.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker, for bringing me to order. Everybody laughs in my caucus because they know, in fact, I’m really bad at names.

I just want to put a couple of things on the record from our perspective here in the NDP caucus, and that is that I think that the point the member raises is a valid one. I’m just going to go through the reasons why I think it’s important that you give this serious consideration, which I know you will, but I want to add to it.

If you look at what was said—and I’m just going to quote from the Hansard—Mr. Duncan, on that particular date, said, “That motion that I referred to to call Mr. Mitchell to committee was in fact a government motion, and the Conservative Chair of the committee deferred dealing with it until next week.” I think he’s sort of trying to imply that somehow or other that’s being partisan.

We all know in this House that the Chair of a committee has a very important role. We form the committees by way of motion in the House. The committees then, by way of election amongst their own, elect a Chair, and that Chair is there to do a number of things.

I want to go to, in the orders and precedents, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and draw your attention to pages 1030 and 1031. I’m not going to read it all because it’s too long. I just want to come to the important part. It says, under “Procedural Responsibilities”:

“Chairs preside over committee meetings and oversee committee work. They recognize the members, witnesses and other people who wish to speak at these meetings; as in the House, all remarks are addressed to the Chair. They ensure that any rules established by the committee, including those on the apportioning of speaking time, are respected. They are responsible for maintaining order and decorum in committee proceedings, and rule on any procedural matter that arises, subject to an appeal to the committee.”

It says, under “Administrative responsibilities”—and this is the point: “Committee Chairs have considerable administrative responsibilities, starting with those involving the committee’s program of activities. In compliance with instructions from the committee or an order from the House” itself—and it says, second point:

“—decides on the agendas for the meeting;”

What was at subject here is when the committee was going to deal with an actual item, it’s clearly within the purview of the Chair, in consultation with the committee, obviously, to decide what the agenda is going to be.

“—cancels scheduled meetings or modifies agendas if an unexpected development makes this necessary”—and if there are no committee meetings before the meeting, they need to be cancelled or whatever. Clearly, there is a responsibility on the Chair to ensure that things are dealt with that are following the standing orders, that follow the precedents and also allow the committee to deal with things in an orderly fashion.

I think that’s what the member was trying to do, and I think for the minister to somehow say that he was being partisan was a bit beyond the pale.

I end on this note: The minister does say, “I don’t want to offend the sensibilities of the Chair or the House. I won’t use some language, but it appears as though they won’t want him at committee.”

That is a pretty serious statement. All of us here are partisan to a degree: I am; you are; everyone is. But once we get into the position of Chair, as you as our Speaker, we take on a different responsibility. I think for the integrity of this House and to ensure that there is no grey when it comes to that particular understanding that all members here are honourable, and when they take the position of Chair of a committee or they chair this House, as you are, Mr.

Speaker—that we give them our confidence and understand that, at times, I may not agree with you, Speaker, on what you’ve done as far as a ruling or whatever, but you are the Chair and as long as you follow the rules of the House, I have to live with that and I have to accept it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader on the same order.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ve had an opportunity to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I listen carefully to everyone, and I’ve got to hear them, please.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had a chance to read the hand-delivered letter that was sent to yourself and to all the House leaders a number of hours ago from the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I had some comments on the case that he has outlined in his letter and also in the Legislature today.

I want to begin, however, by stating very clearly and unequivocally my respect, and the respect of members on this side of the House, for the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. He is a long-standing parliamentarian. He is someone with an outstanding reputation, and there was no attempt to tarnish that reputation through any of the matters that were put forward.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I’ve had a chance to look through the arguments. The question that is being put forward today is one of whether the member’s privileges were, obviously, breached by the exchange within question period. Having had, as I say, a chance to examine and to look at the source material, I think that if anything, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka may want to claim that the comments that were made raise a question of order but certainly not one of privilege. I’d like to just go through a number of authorities which I think say that the point of privilege that is being raised is not valid, according to parliamentary rules and customs.

The member for Parry Sound–Muskoka relies, for example, on O’Brien and Bosc, page 614: “Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other presiding officers. It is unacceptable to question the integrity and impartiality of a presiding officer and if such comments are made, the Speaker will interrupt the member and may request that the remarks be withdrawn.”

The Speaker will be aware that the Chair of a standing committee is not a presiding officer of this House, and therefore the passage that has been cited has no application to the current circumstances. Sections 3 to 5 of the standing orders state that the presiding officers of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario include the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, and the Deputy Speakers. The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka is not a presiding officer when he serves in his capacity as Chair of the public accounts committee.

The member for Parry Sound–Muskoka further cites page 500 of the House of Representatives Practice from the Parliament of Australia. The Speaker will note that this passage does not speak to matters of privilege but rather matters of order. It therefore has no relevance to the claims asserted in the point of privilege that has been put forward by the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Finally, the member cites page 387 of Erskine May’s second edition to assert that a member may make no “charge of a personal character” except by means of a direct and substantive motion. While this passage may speak to the proper proceedings for making such a charge, it neither demonstrates that the Deputy Premier made such a charge, nor, if he did, that it constituted a breach of privilege.

In sum, the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka has failed to cite any relevant authority to suggest that the comments of the Deputy Premier constitute a prima facie case of privilege. I suggest this because the Deputy Premier’s comments do not fall under any of the recognized categories of privilege as set out in the various authorities commonly referenced in this House.

I conclude, though, Mr. Speaker, where I began, which is that we’re having a debate about the technical rules and conventions of Parliament in terms of what is a point of privilege versus, perhaps in this case, a point of order. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate on behalf of the government and on behalf of myself our continuing respect for the member, and the fact that he enjoys an unimpeachable reputation as a member of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank the members for their participation in this very important issue, and I will endeavour to delve into this and report back to the House sharply. Thank you so much.

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, and it reads as follows—the member from Norfolk would have got in:

“Whereas there is a growing body of evidence confirming industrial wind development has serious adverse effects on host communities;

“Whereas over 135 people in Ontario have reported serious negative health effects from industrial wind development, and at least a dozen families have been bought out of their homes” to silence them;

“Whereas Ontario’s Green Energy Act has ended local planning control by stripping municipal councils of their rights;

“Whereas 80 municipal councils, representing two million Ontarians, called on the government to put in place a full moratorium on industrial wind development until an independent epidemiological health study is completed, proper environmental regulations and protections are put in place and local democracy is restored;

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

“Immediately put” in place “a moratorium on all industrial wind proposals; fund an independent epidemiological health study to develop safe setbacks; legislate those findings; develop stringent environmental protection standards for natural areas; and require all projects to comply with regulations based on science and local planning,” and not on McGuinty policies.

I’m pleased to sign and support this, and present it to William, one of the pages here.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m pleased to submit this petition with another 1,000 signatures.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission provides services which are vital to the north’s economy; and

“Whereas it is a lifeline for the residents of northern communities who have no other source of public transportation; and

“Whereas the ONTC could be a vital link to the Ring of Fire;

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

“That the planned cancellation of the Northlander and the sale of the rest of the assets of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission be halted immediately.”

I hereby sign the petition and give it to page Katarina.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My petition is in regard to escaping domestic violence.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas all Ontarians have the right to a safe home environment;

“Whereas the government of Ontario works to reduce all barriers in place that prevent victims of domestic violence from fleeing abusive situations;

“Whereas the Residential Tenancies Act does not take into consideration the special circumstances facing a tenant who is suffering from abuse;

“Whereas those that live in fear for their personal safety and that of their children should not be financially penalized for the early termination of their residential leases;

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

“That Bill 22, the Escaping Domestic Violence Act … be adopted so that victims of domestic violence be afforded a mechanism for the early termination of their lease to allow them to leave an abusive relationship and find a safe place for themselves and their children to call home.”

Speaker, I agree with this petition and affix my signature, and send it to the table via page Georgia.

INDUSTRIE DES COURSES

DE CHEVAUX /

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

M me Lisa MacLeod: À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario, par l’entremise de l’honorable Madeleine Meilleur et l’honorable Bob Chiarelli :

“Attendu que l’industrie ontarienne des courses et d’élevage de chevaux génère à elle seule plus de 2 milliards de dollars en activité économique; et

“Whereas more than 60,000 Ontarians are employed by Ontario’s horse racing and breeding industry;

“Whereas 20% of the funds generated by the OLG slots-at-racetracks program is reinvested in racetracks and the horse racing and breeding industry, while 75% is returned to the government of Ontario;

“Whereas the OLG slots-at-racetracks program generates $1.3 billion a year for health care and other spending, making it the most profitable form of gaming in the province for OLG;

“Whereas the government has announced plans to cancel the slots-at-racetracks program, a decision that will cost the government $1.1 billion a year and threatens more than 60,000 jobs;

“Compte tenu de ce qui précède, nous, soussignés, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

“Call on the Ontario government to protect the $1.1 billion of revenue the government received annually because of the OLG slots-at-racetracks program; direct OLG to honour the contracts with racetracks and protect the horse racing and breeding industry by continuing the OLG slots-at-racetracks revenue-sharing program.”

Speaker, last evening my colleagues from Leeds–Grenville and from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry accepted 25,000 signatures—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Petitions? The member for Nickel Belt.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

M me France Gélinas: I had the pleasure to meet a great number of young families in my riding who gave me this petition, and it reads as follows:

“Where