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

March 11, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Mar-11 (PDF)

L004 - Thu 11 Mar 2010 / Jeu 11 mar 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 11 March 2010 Jeudi 11 mars 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

JOB CREATION

HEALTH CARE

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

MINING INDUSTRY

SCHOOL BOARDS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HYDRO RATES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS

STEEL INDUSTRY

WORLD KIDNEY DAY

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

PARLEMENT JEUNESSE FRANCOPHONE DE L’ONTARIO

WOMEN OF LAKEVIEW

KEN EINBODEN

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NUTRITION MONTH

PETITIONS

CLIMATE CHANGE

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

FIREARMS CONTROL

TAXATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

HEALTH CARE

CLIMATE CHANGE

CEMETERIES

RAILROAD BRIDGE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENINGITIS AWARENESS

DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA MÉNINGITE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SPORTS FUNDING

MENINGITIS AWARENESS

DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA MÉNINGITE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SPORTS FUNDING

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 10, 2010, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The ushers are very good at locking that door as I try to open it. Anyway, I’m a bit out of breath; if one of them could bring me some water, that would be great.

I stand today to talk about the throne speech, and I want to preface my remarks with a few comments about the Lieutenant Governor, David Onley. David Onley and I go back a long way. We went to university together; we were on the student society at Scarborough College at the University of Toronto. We had many debates as politicians, or hopeful politicians, and I admire him very much for his career, his life, his contribution on the airways and the role that he plays as Lieutenant Governor.

There has been much said in the Legislature in the last couple of days about his reading of the throne speech and whether or not there was proper decorum in the House at the time. I think it’s very difficult to talk about the motives of individual members and whether proper decorum was given to the Lieutenant Governor. But I do want to say that he read the speech with great sincerity. He did so in a manner befitting his office. Whether or not he agreed with the contents, I have no way of knowing, but I do know that he read what he was given and that we have an obligation as legislators to listen intently to what he said and not to ascribe to him the contents.

Anything I have to say from this point on, I say not for the Lieutenant Governor and not for what he said or how he said it, but for the government who obviously wrote it. I just want it to be very clear that I, for one, recognize the institution for what it is and admire the institution and the man who holds the office.

Having said that, though, I don’t like the content of what the Lieutenant Governor had to read. I listened to the content intently—it was about 44 minutes long—and if ever I have heard a speech that I could describe as ethereal, this was it. It seemed to me to be snatched out of the air, to talk about a whole bunch of airiness and lack of content.

I know my friends opposite think that it contained great insight, but it was like reading a tome of an ancient religion. That’s what it was, with all of these thoughts of angels and all of this stuff that’s floating around, rather than the real, practical politics and economies of the situation.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: There’s an angel right there.

Mr. Michael Prue: I see that my friends opposite see angels everywhere. This is what I took from this: that this is a bunch of true believers. They are caught up in what Eric Hoffer once said was the state of the true believer. No matter what the facts are in front of them, they still believe; no matter what scientific proof they have, it doesn’t matter. They believe and they continue to believe, in the face of everything that has changed.

One of my favourite quotes that I use from time to time is by Goethe, and it’s a very simple quote: “What is the hardest thing for a man to see? That which is before his very eyes.” That’s what I think the Liberals have failed to see—what is before their very eyes. They talk of what they want to do in terms of new job development; they talk about the Ring of Fire. I’m excited about the chromite deposits and that one day there may be a mine there that will help the First Nations communities. I’ve not been to all the First Nations communities around, but I have been to the one that’s closest: Marten Falls Ogoki. I’ve been there twice.

Mr. Norm Miller: Webequie is closer.

Mr. Michael Prue: Okay; whatever. Webequie is closest, I’m being told. I have been to Marten Falls Ogoki, which is one of the closer towns to the Ring of Fire. I’ve seen the destitution and the poverty of that place. I have sat down on several occasions in Toronto with the chief of the First Nations community and talked about what they want. There is no road or railway into the place, and there is nothing for the children to do.

The council got some money from the federal government and they built a hockey rink, hoping that the First Nations kids would have something to do. However, the very first season, before it could even be played on, an ice storm came and smashed it to the ground. There was no money from the federal government; there was no money from the province; there was no money from anyone. To the best of my knowledge, although something could have happened in the last few months, it’s still smashed to the ground.

It is a place without hope. You go into the store in Marten Falls and you see the huge prices that people pay for every common thing. Everything has to be flown in. A bag of milk for $12, a bag of potatoes for $15. All of the things that we take for granted, they can’t have.

There are no jobs. I talked to the people who were there. There are virtually no jobs, and they rely upon hunting, fishing and other things to feed themselves and their families. What they want most of all is to be able to develop their community into something that is sustainable, that gives their people hope. I hope one day that the Ring of Fire and the chromite deposits do something for them.

But I also know that when this government reaches out and announces the Ring of Fire and the chromite and how this is going to be the new wave of mining in Ontario, I have to take this with a grain of salt, because I’ve also been to Attawapiskat and I’ve seen what De Beers has done in proximity. They’ve done a good job, but that took 10 or 15 years of hard slogging—first of all, to negotiate with the First Nations communities, then to build the infrastructure, then to bring in the workers and then to start the diamond mine. We all know about the diamonds, because there are two of them sitting right there in the mace, but that was not something that happened overnight.

When this government talks about creating jobs in the Ring of Fire, where there is nothing on the ground, where there is no railway, where there are no roads, where there are no negotiations with the First Nations communities, then I have to wonder what kind of dream this is. What kind of thing have they pulled from the raw ether that this is going to get people to work? It is going to take eight or 10 or 12 years to get this off the ground, if it happens at all, and this is one of the four major planks that you have put forward. I’m wondering if that’s going to get Ontarians back to work.

In the next eight to 10 years, is it even going to give any hope and opportunity to the people of Marten Falls or the other three communities that surround the Ring of Fire?

What else is in here? They start talking about water. I don’t know where there’s going to be money to be made from water. Are we talking about shipping our water off? Are we talking about technology on how to produce clean water? I wish this government would invest some money in clean water technology. We have 100 communities in this province under boil-water advisories—100 of them—and most of the First Nations have no clean water.

I remember going once with my colleague Gilles Bisson to Attawapiskat. We went there to look at the water purification facility because people were getting sick. We went there and looked at a facility that was, in my view, not being properly managed at all. There was a guy inside the water filtration facility as we walked through it, and my colleague Gilles Bisson looked at the man and said he didn’t think they were doing a very good job cleaning that water for the people of Attawapiskat. The guy took umbrage at that.

But Gilles did something, and I still remember it to this day; he challenged the man to take a glass right from what was being pumped out into the town and drink it, and the man refused to do so—he refused to do so—because he knew, as the water purification guy, that the equipment he had and the facilities he had were not good enough to make sure that that town had clean drinking water, and I don’t think they’ve been improved.

I wonder: We’re talking about exporting our technology around the world; we can’t even export it up to James and Hudson Bays. We can’t even export it to our First Nations communities, and we won’t give it to them. So I wonder: “That’s a great idea; let’s export our knowledge.” But if we can’t even use it at home, who do you think is going to buy it? Who in the world is going to come running to us when we don’t even have the wherewithal to use it ourselves?

Then I heard another thing. Another part was the whole talk about health care: “Let’s start making the hospitals competitive.” This is the new idea: Blairism coming to Ontario. “Let’s make the hospitals bid. Let’s recognize excellence. Let’s have all the hip and knee replacements in this hospital, because they can do it cheaper and faster and better. Let’s have the heart surgery done in another one, because they can do it cheaper and faster and better.”

But I have to wonder. I live in Toronto. Is it going to cause me any great deal to leave Toronto East General Hospital and go down to Mount Sinai because one does it better than another? Probably not. It’s probably no big deal to me and to the 2.5 million people who live in this city. But what about people in smaller-town Ontario? I’ve listened to the government. Are they going to compete, too? Are they going to have to compete, and little hospitals are going to have no place at all because they can’t compete with the big ones?

Are people going to have to travel hundreds or thousands of kilometres to get the service from whoever bids for it cheaper? I don’t know, and I don’t hear the government talking about this at all.

But I do know that if you ask the people of Great Britain about this whole plan that Blair brought in while he was Prime Minister, they will tell you that it was an abject, total and utter failure. This is a province and a government that is trying to emulate the failure in Great Britain. You are trying to do the same plan with almost certainly the same results, and I think this is a desperation plan.

Then I heard the fourth plank, which was to ask the federal government to finally pony up some more money. This is the old bugaboo, “Let’s get the federal government to pay for all of this.” I have watched—

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Michael Prue: My friend across there says, “What’s wrong with that?” What’s wrong with that is that the federal government doesn’t have the responsibilities in the two areas that you want them to pay for. The first one is child care. The last time I checked the British North America Act, the Constitution of Canada, social services are the responsibility of the provinces.

I welcome the federal government, and I’m sure all socially progressive people welcome the federal government, trying to get into the child care game so that we can have an even playing field across Canada. We know that medicare worked to considerable greatness by levelling it out so that people can go from one end of this country to the other and get similar, if not exactly the same, services. And those provinces that were not able to afford it now have the luxury of equal or nearly equal care to Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta. I recognize that, and I welcome any kind of daycare activity by a federal government that will do that, but it is our responsibility.

This government chose, when the Harper government was elected nationally, to sit down with them and accept $63.5 million, spread out over four years, as Ontario’s contribution. I would not have chosen that. I would not have done that. I would have built some daycare centres and done some other things as opposed to the operating costs, because at the end of the time, the $63.5 million runs out. There will be no money for daycare. I will hazard a guess that, come the end of March, when we hear the budget from the finance minister standing in this place and talking, there will be no money for daycares.

All nine of the daycares in Windsor have been shut down by the city council because they know there’s no money. The city of Toronto has told me that they are closing 2,050 daycare spaces this year; and next year, another 3,000 spaces.

Mr. Dave Levac: They found $100 million.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: They found $100 million.

Mr. Michael Prue: They’re yelling at me that they found $100 million, but they’ve already earmarked it because there is no ongoing funding. There is no ongoing funding from this government because this government has never taken daycare seriously. The only thing that it has ever done is passed on the federal money. Tell me how much of this government’s own money it has spent on daycare. I will be shocked if it’s anything at all. All they do is pass along the federal money, and when that federal money dries up, they have absolutely no plan except to tell the federal government to give us more money for something that is our responsibility.

The second one they talked about was immigration. Ontario has equal jurisdiction with the federal government. That’s why we have a minister responsible for immigration in Ontario. But we spend next to none of our own money on immigration procedures. We take the federal money and we pass it on. We complain that it isn’t enough, but we don’t do what is necessary.

I think the federal government would take us far more seriously if we invested some of our own time and resources and ran some of our own immigration programs. We know that other provinces that have done that—especially Quebec, but increasingly Manitoba—have had spectacular results in integrating new immigrants and have been able to choose those immigrants who are best for the economy and bring them here more quickly than if they were coming to Ontario. But Ontario invests none of its own time.

To simply stand back and say to the federal government, “Give us more money for child care, which is our responsibility, but we don’t want to spend any of our money on it,” or to say, “Give us more money for immigration, which is equally our responsibility, but we don’t want to do what other immigrant-receiving provinces are doing, and that is setting up our own system to allow immigrants to become part of the Canadian cultural fabric,” I have to say, is not much of a dream, and it’s pulled out of thin air as well.

Getting back to health care, I had an opportunity to go to Toronto East General Hospital—or just adjacent to the hospital—the other night. People there were upset because the physiotherapy unit at Toronto East General Hospital is being shut down. When I talked to Rob Devitt, the very capable CEO of that hospital, he told me that he doesn’t like to have to shut it down, but what choice does he have? This government has already told him that he’s getting 0% or 1% or 2%, but he’s budgeting that it’s likely to be 0%. He has no choice but to cut out what he thinks are those services that are non-essential or that may be provided elsewhere.

As I listened to the people who were there, all of the people who use the physiotherapy services are poorer people. They’re people who do not have their own insurance and do not have the financial wherewithal to go out and have it done privately. They are very upset that their hospital is doing that.

When I listened to the nurses—there are some 100 nurses who are on the chopping line in the latest round—who are being told that they too might be released, I wondered: Where is the government’s grand vision? Is this vision only about paying for performance, or is this vision about the people who are going to be affected? I didn’t hear anything about the people being affected.

I listened to the whole thing about education and about making international students come to Canada and pay more. I’m wondering how that is going to help our educational institutions and the people who don’t have the money to get in there in the first place. We charge the highest tuition fees in Canada. On a per capita basis, we are 10th out of 10 in funding our students. I didn’t hear any vision about this. All I heard was: Bring in more foreign students who can pay the full rate, and that’s somehow going to help us and make us some kind of centre of excellence.

I think we have an obligation to the 13 million people, especially the people leaving secondary school, to give them the kind of education that will make us great. I am not convinced that bringing in foreign students to pay the full rate is going to allow for that. I am not convinced that that is in the best interests of Ontario, although I do understand it’s a bit of a cash cow for this government.

I was most disappointed that there was nothing about poverty. In 2007, this government ran on eliminating poverty. The 2007 throne speech was filled with how you were going to eliminate poverty, and you’ve done next to nothing since 2007 except set up some committees. I hope the committees report, but you’ve done absolutely next to nothing in eliminating poverty.

When I ask the question about diet supplements, I know that cut is coming. I know from the attitude and the reaction that that is coming. When I ask about the disabled, I know there’s no money, and I wonder where this government’s priorities are. Pick things out of the air and do nothing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the comments by the honourable member. I also appreciate the comments in regard to decorum. I understand that sometimes our ideologies may differ, but I think people’s intentions are good. The bottom line is that we have to recognize that.

Speaking of intentions, the throne speech is visionary. To my colleague’s comments, it does take time and it’s not meant to be something that takes immediate reaction. But we have to do things concurrently. It is, after all, a five-year plan, and we recognize that we have to establish the foundations now in order to reap the benefits in the future.

Some of those benefits that have to be instituted have to start now; that is, around water treatment technology and about selling Ontario’s expertise around the world, just as we’re trying to do with renewable energy and other sources of technology; and to incentivize those businesses and companies to come to Ontario to do that R&D and do that manufacturing so we can export some of that expertise around the world.

In regard to hospitals and hospital care, we have been measuring wait times, which had not been done before: wait times in terms of surgeries and wait times now in emergency care. We are measuring it, and now we have noted that in Ontario we’re exceeding the national average. It’s important to measure it so that we can indeed make the amendments and the improvements necessary when it comes to hospital care. We have more doctors, we have more nurses, and we have to ensure that we maintain that, especially with the influx of more Ontarians coming to the province.

In regard to all-day learning, post-secondary and education generally, we’ve made those improvements too, and it’s important that we invest in education going forward. Some 62% of Ontarians have post-secondary education; we’re trying to move the bar up to 70%. These things are required in order for us to be competitive.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York. I enjoyed listening to him. I will echo a few of his sentiments and maybe amplify some of them and disagree with some of them.

The member didn’t like the content of the throne speech. I have a little bit of a different take on that: There was no content in the throne speech. It was very difficult for me to judge the content when there was absolutely nothing there. But it’s clear that the members opposite are true believers in this non-substantive document.

I think it’s very obvious to anybody who actually reads it that the government has the ability to tremendously understate the obvious and overstate the abstract.

On page 1 of the throne speech, about halfway down, it says: “Companies have downsized, some have moved, some have closed their doors for good.” Well, it hasn’t been “some” companies. This hasn’t been a little drip of companies; it hasn’t been a sliver. It has been 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of companies have closed their doors, not “some.” We have had 62 mills in the north close up; 45,000 people in forestry out of work. And this government says some have downsized, some have closed up, some have moved on.

Maybe the members on the Liberal side think that’s just “some.” I think it’s a tremendous failure of this Liberal government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I was very glad to hear the opening comments of my colleague from Beaches–East York. I came to the throne speech. The House was full of visitors. Many, many cameras from everywhere were shining on us. It was a time for us to shine, a time for us to show that, as MPPs, we are leaders in our communities, we represent the entire population of the province of Ontario, we follow our procedures and the Lieutenant Governor reads the throne speech.

We were not 10 minutes into it when the heckling started. I can’t tell you how disappointed I was in the behaviour of my colleagues. I haven’t got the personal relationship with the Lieutenant Governor that my colleague from Beaches–East York has, but I respect the position, I respect the man and I respect the procedures that we have in this House. The least we could have done was sit down and listen to what he had to say.

We have plenty of time to speak about what we think about the content—and you’re about to get an earful as to what I think about the throne speech—but that particular Monday afternoon was not the time. I’m happy he brought it up. This is the kind of behaviour that gives all of us a bad name. When people make jokes about politicians being at the bottom of the list, it is behaviour like this that paints us all with the same brush. This is behaviour that I do not condone.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to make comments toward my colleague opposite. He gave me the perfect opportunity to make comments on the Lieutenant Governor’s throne speech the other day. I thought he did an excellent job in his 44 minutes of presentation. I suspect it’s rather difficult for any Lieutenant Governor to provide a throne speech to this House and the guests who were here. He has to make it known as to what’s in the speech but not to show any emotion as to what he is stating, and I thought he did that perfectly with the right tone and manner, as all Lieutenant Governors have done.

Talking about decorum, it would have been nice for us, I think, if we could have clapped once in a while for what was in the throne speech because we do believe in what we have heard from it, but we know on this side of the House that we don’t do that. Although it was tempting on some occasions—although we disagree on the content—to want to clap in certain situations, at least for me—I would not speak for other members—but I did not do that.

The member opposite says that we don’t see what’s in front of us, or something in that regard. I beg to differ. We do see what’s in front of us and what the new economies will be. I think if the member were to travel down my way near Chatham-Kent, let’s say if he were to go to Bob-Lo Island some day, he would see a lot of wind towers in my riding. I think there are another 50 or so going up shortly. The municipality is very keen on this particular endeavour, one that we envisioned some years ago. The landowners, who might not be farmers, also appreciate it very much.

Of course, it is a green technology, which one cannot argue with. I welcome him having a visit to Chatham-Kent, on his way to Bob-Lo perhaps.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Beaches–East York has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank my colleagues from Mississauga South, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Nickel Belt and Chatham–Kent–Essex for their comments. I thank them, as well, particularly the members for Nickel Belt and Chatham–Kent–Essex, for the comments about the Lieutenant Governor. From time to time this can be a very raucous place, and I understand it and I appreciate it and I also see the humour in it many days, but I’m not sure that that can be done when the Queen’s representative is in the chair. We should all, on those days, be on our best behaviour. I thank you for your comments enforcing what I had to say.

For my colleague from Mississauga South, for sure he is a true believer. Anyone who can truly believe in the comments from the throne speech and amplify them and believe them must really be a true believer in all that is Liberal. I say that with no umbrage and no malice, but the press, the newspapers, the assorted radio show programs are all talking about this document as being very fluffy, that it contains almost nothing. I do understand the need for long-term planning. I appreciate that need, but the short term is what people are looking at.

People are not looking at whether or not the Ring of Fire can be developed 10 or 15 years from now, although I am sure there is some hope that it can. People are not looking at long-term benefits of selling water purification; they are looking at whether or not their small community in northern Ontario can have its water purified.

I think the government has not looked at the immediate and has not looked at what is before their very face in order to try to look to some kind of ethereal, long-term future.

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak on the opportunity that we have from the throne speech, and more importantly, the Open Ontario plan and the Ontario government’s new initiatives outlined in the throne speech.

I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member from Davenport.

I’d just like to make a brief comment on the comments of my friend from Beaches–East York. I was always taught the old adage at home: “If you can’t say something nice about someone, don’t talk about that person.” Having said that, I will not make any comment about the hecklers.

I would, however, be quick to indicate that we would certainly agree most positively with the very positive comments about the Lieutenant Governor, David Onley. He definitely brings a new dimension to this Legislature, and I, and I’m sure everyone else here, thank him for that.

Since the previous throne speech, our government has come a long way in providing funding for services that we in Ontario need. Sometimes the opposition may speak in generalities, but I have to tell you, I believe our government has demonstrated real, tangible, positive results in what has been brought forward, certainly in this last term of the Legislature.

The results can be seen throughout my riding. This past November, just a couple of months ago, I was pleased to be part of the ribbon-cutting ceremony for an extremely expanded emergency department. The emergency department was originally built for 20,000 annual calls; it was now servicing about 45,000 annual calls. The expansion is complete, in place and open for 60,000 calls a year, well above the current level. So we have not only brought it up to date; we have looked to the future in our health care services. Indeed, we have tripled the capacity for accommodation for Ajax–Pickering and Durham region residents.

This expansion will not only bring more jobs to the community but it certainly brings down wait times, and that’s one of the government’s criteria. This project cost $100 million. It’s the largest single expansion in the municipality of Ajax in its history, and Ontario pays 90% of the expansion. Our government has also announced, literally at the same time, an additional $2.6 million for complete training, hiring of new nurses, for our local hospital.

Actually, when I called out to say, “We have funding, it has come through immediately and all of your needs will be met to train new people and to bring on additional staff,” they said, “Joe, are you sure that that money is for Ajax–Pickering?” I said, “I believe I am, but let me go back and check.” Sure enough, it was as I had indicated: Ajax–Pickering. They were pleased, as was I.

I have to tell you, though, that any member of any party, whether it’s the government, the opposition or the third party, probably just does what I did, and that is, the requests go in early, requests are followed up regularly and good results always follow. So that’s not just the government; all parties do that.

I can tell you that our next phase, which is called the complex continuing care unit, is under way as well, and we’re on the road to the largest expansion ever in the history of our town.

In addition to that, we had more good news from the Ministry of Health, health being one of our two key components, certainly health and education—and of course in this new economy, a global economy, it’s jobs, jobs, jobs. But at our hospital, we were fortunate enough to receive two additional intensive care beds for newborn children and also an additional two at our neighbours’ hospital in Oshawa to ensure that newborns can get better care closer to home.

Our Minister of Health, Deborah Matthews, remarked on how crucial it is to give Ontario’s most vulnerable babies the critical care supports they need to get better faster. The CEO of our Central East LHIN, Deborah Hammons, indicated that the additional four new—

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With all due respect to the member from Ajax–Pickering, this is a debate on the throne speech. I’ve not heard anything about the throne speech other than his local hospital—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Traditionally, during the throne speech debate, we allow a wide range of topics. I do believe the honourable member was on topic.

The honourable member.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that. I do have a number of items that I am addressing that were certainly addressed throughout the throne speech. This new investment in our community ensures that our health care system, our hospitals, will be able to provide advanced and often life-saving care to newborns closer to home.

Further, I’d like to talk about investments in jobs. The first one that comes to my mind is called a “three in one” project in the city of Pickering. It’s going to be something that the mayor and his council have actively chased for about eight years now. Pickering, as most people know, is kind of the gateway into Durham region. The three items that are going to be built, with our government’s assistance and different levels of government’s assistance, are, first of all, a 500-car garage to take transit riders’ vehicles and have them parked.

It will be a direct drop-off for GO Transit as part of the new Metrolinx plan. It will include a third part, and that will be a gigantic new office tower. I can tell you that the government of Ontario is involved, the federal government is involved, and GO Transit with Metrolinx. The city of Pickering, the major proponent, has done a great job on it. The construction company is 20 Vic.

The nice thing about this is that it’s not going to impact the existing GO train station; it’s going to be built on the other side of the highway, with a walk-across bridge. That’s at the area of Liverpool and the 401, as you drive through beautiful Durham region.

Other investment items: We all sit here with bated breath, and I know some of my colleagues in Durham region in the opposition do as well, in reference to how General Motors goes. It’s a different world—it will never be the same—but we have some good news from General Motors. Of course, they have a line going now, the Camaro line. I think Mayor John Gray of Oshawa took the first vehicle off that line. We have a line planned to bring back 700 of the 1,200 laid-off members, and that will be for the Buick Regal. That should be going later this year. They’re looking at a November time frame.

Also, they’re considering the Impala with the new high-performance, 300-horsepower engines, and down the road they’re also looking at the Cadillac XTS, a very beautiful car.

Things continue to improve there. I can tell you that our government was the first non-national government to stand up and say, “We’re going to stand up for the automotive industry, and we’re going to stand up for manufacturing in general.” At one of the last events I was at in Oshawa—in the GM Centre, as a matter of fact, with my wife—the mayor came over and said, “Please pass on our thanks to the Premier and to the entire government. You stood up before the Prime Minister did and before the American President did, and you committed to our industry.”

Mr. Jeff Leal: Joe, are you buying a new Camaro?

Mr. Joe Dickson: I can’t afford a new Camaro; I drive older cars. But all of the vehicles I have are North-American made, I can assure you of that—a lot of them right in Oshawa.

There have also been a lot of questions on what’s happening with our nuclear power, what’s going on in Darlington and what’s going on in Pickering. There’s a big change taking place. It has been expected to come, and it’s going to be here in the next 10 years. The Pickering nuclear plant is going to be tuned up, but it’s going to be phased out in about 10 years’ time. Minister Brad Duguid was at the GT Marketing Alliance international leaders’ breakfast at the Ajax Convention Centre last week. He made clear the fact that there will be additional nuclear in Darlington.

I’ve got so much to say, but I have an excellent partner in this venture this morning, so I’m going to stand down to him and let him carry on in the next 10 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Davenport.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for permitting me to make a few remarks on the throne speech.

I’d like to also welcome some international students who are watching this televised debate this morning. I hope you will find it very interesting. It might be confusing to you, because you will find that literally all members of the opposition, without exception, will be highly critical of the throne speech. If you listen to them very carefully, you might even think that the sky is falling, and they see nothing whatsoever of benefit to the people of Ontario in this throne speech.

What’s interesting is that, actually, we’re paying them to criticize us. And when we were in the opposition, of course, we got paid to criticize them, too. What an interesting institution. This is called British parliamentary democracy. It’s an interesting concept. Here we are this morning, expecting them to criticize us and for us to say that this throne speech is a good idea.

In the end, it’s a question of trust. Yes, there are very many details that have to be fleshed out. Of course, that will be done by the budget that we will be hearing within two or three weeks. In the end, as I said, it’s a question of trust. The details will be different, but the details will flesh out the throne speech, and the details will flesh out what our government will be doing in the next few months—in fact, in the next five years. It is a five-year plan.

But when I say, “In the end, it’s a question of trust,” I mean that, and the question will be this: Who do you trust, in the end, to come up with the best idea that will steer the ship away from the rocks of an economic depression, a recession, into a safe harbour? Who do you trust, in the end? Who will steer the ship in the right direction? There’s no doubt, whether we are true believers or otherwise—and even the opposition will have to agree—that the best captain is the Premier, and the best team is this team of the government. I hear no objections from the opposition, so this must be true.

We say that we trust our Premier and our team to come up with this five-year plan to take Ontario in the right direction, because things have really changed dramatically. The whole world, economically, has changed. How did this happen in the first place, that our whole manufacturing sector, to some degree, is being decimated? But it isn’t just in Ontario; it’s all over Canada. It’s not just in Canada; it’s really in every country.

Today you listen to the news, and what do you find? You find that Greek workers are going on strike. There are thousands and thousands of people right now in Athens who are striking against the government’s austerity measures. So we in Ontario, in Canada, are really lucky, because we at least have some resources, and that, to some degree, is our history. We’ve always been identified in the past as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The towers of financial institutions, in fact, are really a sign of that history.

As some of the members of the opposition pointed out just yesterday on this throne speech, the trick is, how do we take our great resources that we have in Canada and add value and add work to these resources before we ship them out? It can’t just be that we ship out logs and in return import back Kodak fine paper.

So the question really has been, and the trick has to be here, to ensure that our workers add value to the resources—

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We do not have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I’ll ask the Clerk to check if there’s a quorum.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): A quorum now being present, the honourable member for Davenport has the floor.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: The question I was raising was: How did this happen? How did this world change suddenly and so dramatically?

I remember that my own brother, just about 12 years ago, worked for a company, and this company was subsidized by our government to not only export our know-how but even export equipment that then could be used to compete against us. So we were subsidizing, to some degree, our own demise.

But having said that, we should also know that Canada is a very generous country. This generosity, in fact, has been shown everywhere that we do try and help people. We’ve said to those developing nations, “Here we are, we’ve got some expertise in Canada, and we’re ready to help you out.” Of course, now the world has changed, and the very people that we’ve helped are now competing against us. The question should be: Is this the way it should be? Or should we cut them out and only keep our wealth, our information and our technology for ourselves? Now the world is different. Now we have to make sure that we are supporting our innovative products.

The Premier and our team are absolutely correct when they say that there are two ways out of this. I can’t think of any other way out of the recession and out of this sometimes depression. There are two ways out of it, and one of them you always keep saying to us in caucus: education, education, education. Yes, he is the education Premier, and it’s working. We’re going to have the most highly educated workforce that we’ve ever had in Canada. Class sizes are down. Test scores are up. Graduation rates are up.

The five-year Open Ontario plan will make sure that we will be the first North American area to implement a full-day learning program for four- and five-year-olds. Great. Do we hear any applause from the opposition? No.

Our plan also means new opportunities in our colleges and universities. We’ll be increasing spaces in colleges for 20,000 students. This five-year plan, Open Ontario, will also open up new post-secondary learning opportunities for Ontarians. We’ll create a new online learning institute to give the Ontarians an opportunity to learn online from the best professors and best teachers. Do we hear any kudos from the opposition? No.

Finally, Open Ontario will open up Ontario to new foreign-born students, who will bring new, innovative ideas to our province and generate new revenues that can then be used to reinvest in colleges and universities.

It is clear that this is a good plan. This is a plan with details. This is a plan that can be followed, and this is a plan that will bring us out and help us when this recession is over. While we’re here right now, we know that the recession—it’s just baby steps to get the recession over with. Education is a way out, because only education will bring us the good jobs and the innovative experience.

I want to talk about innovation. Let me simply say this: We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. What is new and what has to be done in Ontario is to ensure that there will be marketable new products, new inventions and new innovation. How do you do that without education? Education has to be the key. It will be the key to bring Ontario out into a competitive market. How are our kids going to compete against Chinese kids who are willing to work harder, stay in school longer, and yet we say, “Well, we want to compete in a way that is fair and in a way that we get value for our money”?

But how are we going to compete when we want $10.25 an hour and the same Chinese worker gets 60 cents to 80 cents an hour? That marketability, that kind of an economy, is over, and the Premier recognizes that. So the only way out—the only good way out—is to try to ensure that we are leaders in education. We’ll have to look for those opportunities, but the basic thing has to be an educated workforce that is the best, not just in North America, but one that can compete internationally.

Are there storm clouds on the horizon? Yes, there certainly are. We’re living in the midst of climate change, and we’re still going to the altar of growth and we’re worshipping there. We say that we need growth, we need more jobs and we need an educated workforce. But we have to change. There’s a change taking place, and it has to be done and it has to be led by us, hopefully. It may just be that the human growth area may be changed or may be over, that now we have to move away from individualism to a much more co-operative structure through the united nations in the world. That’s our way to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It was interesting listening to the member from Davenport. I think it really illustrates the contradictions of the Liberal Party. At the beginning of this speech, he said that the details would come out, the details would be fleshed out, the details would be different. Then at the end, he said, “This throne speech is full of details.” Full of details? But at the beginning, it was not.

I think it also exposes the false premise of their understanding of the problems. Here, he was talking about education: “All we need to do is be smart, all we have to do is be well educated, and that is how we will compete with foreign countries and build our economy.” I’d like to mention to the member from Davenport that it takes more than just education. All he has to do is look up at Timmins, look up at Xstrata. We have a copper smelting firm that is leaving this province.

This tremendous industry is not leaving for China, Mexico or India; it is leaving for the province of Quebec, not because the people in Quebec are smarter—as the member from Davenport suggested, “All we have to do is be well educated”—they’re leaving because the cost of doing business is cheaper—not the labour rates, but the cost of energy is less; the cost of the regulatory burden, the red tape, is less. We are not losing our jobs to China; we’re losing them to Quebec in this case.

This throne speech does nothing to address the economic failures of this Liberal government, and indeed—although the member thinks that the sky may be falling for some, and that this is false, it has fallen tremendously for very many.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was rather interesting to listen to the member from Ajax–Pickering talk about the tremendous amount of joy and support that the new neonatal unit had in his riding. It was in stark contrast with what I heard in Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Welland and St. Catharines. One of the deputants actually said it best when he said, “How it could be that Niagara Falls, being the province’s, the country’s and, I would say, the world’s honeymoon capital, does not have a maternity ward anymore?

How could it be that there will never be another Ontarian born in Fort Erie?” There will never be another Ontarian born in Port Colborne because their maternity ward has been closed. There will never be any more. Nobody will be able to say, “I was born in Port Colborne,” or, “I was born in Fort Erie.” There will be no more babies born there because the maternity wards have been closed.

What the member was describing is a situation that pits rural areas against bigger centres. The role of community hospitals is being eroded.

I’m happy for his constituents, that they were able to hold onto a service as basic as being born in your hometown. Isn’t this something that a town of 30,000 people should be able to have, to have babies in their own town? Well, it’s considered rural Ontario and it’s no more.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was indeed a pleasure to listen to the remarks from my two very distinguished colleagues, the member from Ajax–Pickering and the member from Davenport.

Indeed, I was very concerned with the decorum on Monday when the Lieutenant Governor delivered his speech. I think it was summed up particularly well in a statement that was made in this House yesterday by Mr. Levac, the member from Brant, outlining the long-time tradition that we have in this country, something that we inherited from Westminster: respect for the crown. When the crown delivers the throne speech, we ask people to be on their very best behaviour out of respect, first, for the individual and, secondly, for the office that one holds.

I remember I was a young staffer here in 1989 when Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother, came to Ontario for a celebration of the 50th anniversary of her famous tour along with King George in 1939. On that particular day, everybody was out to see the Queen Mother on that occasion. Mr. Speaker, you may have been a member back then; I’m not sure. But she came here and delivered an address. It was one of the great occasions for this Legislature, to hear from the Queen Mum, whom Canadians, Ontarians and Peterborians have had great affection for.

It’s interesting that this throne speech talks about hope, and that’s very important as we move forward. Next Wednesday, I’m told, the Conference Board of Canada will release a report on the Ontario jobs situation. It indicates that unemployment has now peaked and that we expect that some 223,000 new jobs will be created in the province of Ontario in 2010, which will shave approximately 1.3 points off our unemployment rate—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise and make a few comments on the presentations made by the members from Ajax–Pickering and Davenport.

I want to thank them for their explanation, because I did have the privilege of being here when the throne speech was read, and when it was completed I couldn’t see anything positive that had been said, or very little positive said. What I was even more surprised at, as I was going home, was that on the radio in my car somebody was reporting the comments from the government side about the throne speech.

This throne speech was going to create a million jobs, from the report, and I said, “Well, that’s strange, because I didn’t hear that in the throne speech at all.” All I heard about jobs in the throne speech were things that the government has already done, which is not announcing where we’re going; it’s looking back at where we’ve been, where they have made announcements but not yet delivered on them. Obviously, they are expecting people to believe now that they’re going to deliver on it in the future.

It would seem to me that if these jobs were going to be created in that term of office from the previous throne speech, we wouldn’t be hearing about it again in this throne speech.

Another thing that I think was very important: The member from Ajax–Pickering was speaking about the discussion in the throne speech about changing the way hospitals are funded. I would be the first to agree that a change needs to be made on how hospitals are funded.

But, first of all, if we’re going to go with the money following the patient, going strictly on the competitive nature and getting it from the most economical places, the economies of scale will dictate that it will go to the large urban centres, and in fact those hospitals in small-town and rural Ontario will be seeing a decrease in funding as time goes on, because they will be looking at the big picture of how many are being done as opposed to how much each one is costing to get done. So I think a lot more work needs to be done before they implement that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Either the member for Ajax–Pickering or the member for Davenport has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I want to thank the members from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, Nickel Belt, Peterborough and Oxford for their comments.

While we said we do not want to be confrontational, it might just be interesting to note that when the NDP came to power in Saskatchewan, I just wanted to remind the member, because of her comments, they closed 52 rural hospitals. That’s quite a number.

In terms of what will actually help Ontario to get out of the recession and be really competitive internationally, it’s interesting to note that, yes, this throne speech is full of details. I’ve indicated in fact what some of those details are, and unless you do not wish to listen, it’s easy to see what they are. I don’t want to repeat them again, but there are so many details in this throne speech that it is beyond belief that you can’t even identify a few.

So I say to my honourable colleague, while the throne speech is still full of details, of course some of these details will have to be fleshed out. This is only natural. You don’t bring all the details into a throne speech. You have some details to be fleshed out later on in the budget, and that will happen two weeks from now. The honourable member knows what the process here in this House will be, so we don’t take this criticism too seriously.

I wish just to make one more comment, and that is, it is education that will help us, and it is this education Premier who has the vision for education in Ontario to make us competitive. But in addition, without an educated workforce, how else are you going to compete and produce these innovative products that are necessary in order to compete internationally? Someone has to bring these products from the universities, from research, into the marketplace. That’s important.

We have the plan, and it is clear what the throne speech—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a pleasure to speak about the non-content throne speech that we have before the House.

I’ve been watching with great interest over the years this Liberal government and how they’ve been conducting the administration of our province, and it has always confused me. I know the member from Beaches–East York used the term that they’re all absolute “true believers.” No matter what is in front of them, they do not see it. They are just true believers. I believe that there’s merit to that statement by the member from Beaches–East York. It has always puzzled me just how this Liberal administration can say one thing, do another thing, do the wrong thing, never get the right thing done, and they always get full support from their caucus.

It was interesting: During my little recess from the House—I enjoy reading and I enjoy learning new words. One of the words that I looked up—it was quite surprising to me, but the word “daltonism” is a real word. There is a word “daltonism.” Daltonism refers to a defective gene within people that prevents them from distinguishing between red and green. They cannot tell the difference between those two colours, and it’s based on this defective gene. And I thought: Did somebody make this up? No; there was a scientist—I believe his name was James Dalton—who found this defective gene within people that prevented them from seeing the difference between red and green.

I thought: That must be the answer to how the Liberal caucus acts and behaves. They are colour-blind. When they see red ink, they see green energy. When they see green energy, maybe they don’t see the red ink. I guess that’s what it is. They can’t distinguish that difference. It was pretty amazing that we could find—what is it?—70 members, 72 members who all have that defective gene all within one caucus. But sure enough, they are colour-blind. They cannot tell the difference between their actions and what is going on with it. They’re colour-blind: Is deficit surplus or is surplus deficit? Is debt wealth or is wealth debt?

They’re confused. I think that was very clear during the throne speech. They are confused. They do not know what it is that they’re actually doing or why they’re doing it—and of course, no content as well.

As I stated earlier, in here they’re very good at understating the obvious and overstating the abstract. As I mentioned earlier, in the throne speech they say that some companies have downsized—some companies. Well, hundreds and thousands of companies, with hundreds of thousands of people, are not “some.” Let’s not understate the reality of this.

Further on in the throne speech it says, “No place has escaped the great recession....” I would say that no place has, but I’ll also say that there is no jurisdiction in this country that has fallen further and faster during this great recession than here, our province of Ontario. We have lost ground in relation to all others significantly. We are now a have-not province. So let’s be honest and truthful within our discussions and our debate. Let’s not try to sugar-coat or understate those obvious failings.

I think that’s why we are critical. We’re expected to be critical of the throne speech, but our criticism has to also have merit. It has to have justification. It is justifiable. It is a meritorious argument to criticize a failure.

Now, do we go around and clap you on the back when you do something well? That’s not our job. That’s not what we’re paid for. It doesn’t happen too often when we have that opportunity anyway.

In this throne speech we have a lot of unaccountable, immeasurable thoughts. That’s what’s in it. The people of Ontario can’t hold the Liberal government to account on this throne speech because there are no measurable targets, there are no measurable objectives. It’s all fluff. Everybody can see that. We haven’t got any measure in there of how we are going to reduce—how much red tape and costly overregulation is this Liberal administration going to remove in order that our economy can grow?

There’s not even a mention of it, not even a mention that regulation and overregulation is a problem, even though it was just a year ago—two years ago, pardon me—that the Premier said, “We are going to remove one regulation for every one that we bring in.” That was another promise. Who knows what happened to that? He forgot, I guess. I’m going to be critical on that one as well.

I think it’s also important to expose when the government brings forth contradictory statements or legislation or statutes. We should identify that. There is no better example than the hype of the Ring of Fire. I want to see the north developed. I want to see wealth created in the north and I want to see that wealth shared and benefit the people in the north. That’s what I’d like to see. I know there are people on the Liberal side who would like to see that happen as well. Well, some, anyway.

But look back and see what legislation you brought out last year which will prevent the Ring of Fire from ever being developed. Bill 191, the Far North Act, excludes any and all development on a quarter-million square kilometres of northern Ontario. That means no roads, no ice roads, no bridges, no trains, no mines, no transmission lines—nothing. It’s an exclusive, empty park on a quarter-million square kilometres—50% of the north.

How are we going to develop the Ring of Fire when, on one hand, you’re saying, “We want to do it,” and on the other hand, “We’re not going to let anybody get there”? That’s a contradiction; that’s hypocrisy; or it’s something else, but it is not compatible. Those two ideas are not compatible with each other. So something needs to be done here. Where is it in the throne speech that they are going to fix that? Nowhere. We’re getting contradictions, and as I mentioned to the member from Davenport when he spoke—and he used some interesting terms.

He used the terms that we have to “end the individualism” and we have to “become co-operative.” I was listening to those words, and I’m sure the members opposite heard those words: “an end to individualism” and “the beginning of co-operative”? What? That sounds very socialistic in my books. Is that the intent of—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Are we over?

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Is that the intent of this throne speech? Is that just a socialist document to be brought forth under the guise of a throne speech?

I’ll be happy to finish off my comments at a later time. Thank you.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m very pleased to welcome the grade 7 class from Stonebridge Public School and teacher Meaghan Phillips. They’re here to surprise their classmate page Jullian Yapeter.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, my favourite page, Julia Louis, has more fans here—this is a daily occurrence. Today, it’s her sister Joanna and her mother, Josiefina. I’d like to welcome them here.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Lakewoods Public School will be joining us shortly to watch question period, and I hope they thoroughly enjoy it when they arrive.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome the outstanding students from Regina Mundi Catholic School in my riding who are here today and their teachers. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I am delighted to introduce to the Legislature the national president of the Lithuanian community, Ms. Joana Kuras-Lasys, who is inviting all of us to celebrate, when we raise the flag after question period, the 20th anniversary of Lithuanian independence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Cambridge and page Quinton Lowe, I’d like to welcome his mother, Liliane Chandonnet, and his grandfather Pon Hasheg in the public gallery today.

As well, on behalf of the member from Oxford and page Rachael Heleniak, seated in the Speaker’s gallery, is Rachael’s mother, Edith Heleniak. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I can say that if you’re ever looking for great meat, go to Norwich Packers. And thanks for the potato pancakes that I’m going to enjoy for lunch today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Acting Premier. On page 7 of the so-called Open Ontario plan, you applaud the Conservatives for creating a national regulator and say that it should be headquartered in Toronto. But the media are reporting that the national regulator is rejecting Canada’s worst government.

Is Premier McGuinty’s poor economic performance killing his ability to deliver on this throne speech promise?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, there is not yet a national securities regulator, and I would remind him of that. I would remind him that this government has supported that and will continue to do that.

I would remind him that 80% of Canada’s financial sector is located here in Toronto. I would remind him that that sector overwhelmingly supports the location of the securities regulator’s headquarters here in Toronto. I would ask the federal government not to take the federal regulator out of Toronto and out of Ontario. It only makes sense. This is one of the world’s leading financial sectors.

Our government, working with the Toronto Financial Services Alliance—Janet Ecker is very involved in that; you might be familiar with her—believe very strongly that we need a national security regulator, and it should be headquartered right here in Toronto. Stand up for your province, stand up for what’s right and don’t just toady to your federal—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you for that answer from the minister. It has only been a week, but already Premier McGuinty’s so-called “plan” has turned out to be nothing more than empty promises.

While Ontario used to be the economic engine of Confederation, the McGuinty Liberals have turned us into a have-not province whose performance no longer warrants placing the national securities regulator in Toronto.

Minister Duncan arrogantly said it would be a slap in the face to Toronto and the financial services community if the headquarters weren’t here. Did you ever consider it might be an indictment of the McGuinty Liberals and Canada’s worst economic performance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Number one: Ontario is the third-largest financial centre in North America, and it has grown every year under this government. Number two: more than 450,000 net new jobs in this province; a solid sector in this province.

I say to the member opposite, I say to the Conservative Party of Ontario: Stand up for Ontario; stand up for Toronto. Don’t let them move the financial securities regulator out of Toronto. Let’s keep building a better sector. Let’s build new jobs. Let’s support our province, to build a stronger Canada.

They just don’t get it. It’s about a better future for Ontario, not about selling out to your federal brethren in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’ll say one thing: The minister sure is full of hot air.

Ontario used to lead the nation. There was a time when Toronto would be the only choice for the headquarters of a national securities regulator. Ontario can lead again, but not under this arrogant, out-of-touch and out-of-ideas Premier and his McGuinty Liberals.

The McGuinty Liberals have turned Ontario into a have-not province, collecting welfare from the federal government for the first time in history. What made Canada’s worst government think the national regulator would ignore Canada’s worst economic performance when deciding where to locate its headquarters?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: So where does the member want it? Does he want that headquarters in Vancouver? Is that where you want it? Do you want it in Victoria? Do you want it in Edmonton? Is it Edmonton, or do you want it in Calgary? Is it Montreal where you want the headquarters; or is it Saint John, New Brunswick; or St. John’s, Newfoundland? Where would you put that headquarters, I ask you?

Today’s RBC report is clear and unequivocal: Ontario’s economy is growing again. It will exceed the national average because of the plans that this government has laid out.

The financial services sector is all about Toronto; it’s all about Ontario. We would welcome regional offices across the country, but its headquarters belongs right here in the financial capital.

You ought to stand up for Ontario and Toronto and not toady to your federal brethren in Ottawa who want to take it out of Ontario.

FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR

Mr. Norm Miller: Let me be very, very clear: The Ontario PC Party supports the national regulator being located in Toronto. We’re afraid this government is going to jeopardize that.

On to my next question, again to the Acting Premier: Premier McGuinty called the throne speech the Open Ontario plan, but Ontario families don’t use McGuinty-speak. For them, 24 words on deficit reduction don’t really count as a plan. It doesn’t get any better with your 28-word plan to make Toronto an elite financial centre.

Why would you tell Ontario families you have a plan to build Toronto into an elite financial centre when you don’t?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a plan; it’s clear and it’s unequivocal. We need a national securities regulator. I would welcome you to join us. I’m glad to hear you’ve changed your mind between your last question and this question and that you want the securities regulator here in Toronto. I’m glad you’re putting Ontario’s interests ahead of your federal brethren.

I want to remind the member that they added $48 billion to Ontario’s debt through one of the greatest growth periods in history. Their interest as a percentage of revenue was much higher than it is today. They left a hidden deficit, which this government cleaned up, and it’s the right thing to do.

I’ll remind him that the stimulus we spent last year is creating more than 200,000 jobs here in Ontario, according to the conference board, and today the Royal Bank says that Ontario is going to lead Canada in growth in the coming year. This economy is getting bigger, it’s getting better, and it’s—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I don’t think the finance minister and this government are in any place to talk about deficit and debt with their record.

The McGuinty Liberals’ 28-word plan just isn’t credible. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of financial advisers who manage income funds for Ontario seniors and families. CI Financial and Mackenzie Financial say they would advise Ontario families to set up their accounts in Alberta and avoid your greedy HST tax grab. Adam Felesky, whose firm manages $3 billion in funds, says, “Why wouldn’t you set up your fund in Alberta? We’re supposed to be low-cost.”

How can anyone trust the McGuinty Liberals to build an elite financial sector in Toronto when the financial sector is relocating funds to provinces that don’t have HST tax on management fees and mutual funds?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The mutual fund industry is one of those that hasn’t supported our jobs plan. You know what? They’re wrong. I think their clients ought to take their money out of there, because we have a strong economy here. We’re about building the financial services sector.

Let me just remind the member, who doesn’t want the securities commission to be located here, that this sector, in the last five years, has added 62,000, or a 3.3% increase, in the workforce in this area. I have had the opportunity to speak to all of our major banks, insurance companies and a whole variety of others, and they all believe that those securities commission headquarters should be right here in Toronto.

I’m glad the member changed his mind between the first question and the second question. I go along with what the Royal Bank said today: This economy is coming back. It’s coming back bigger, it’s coming back better, and it’s coming back stronger, in spite of your opposition to the—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: A week hasn’t even passed since the throne speech, and your latest plan is no more credible than previous McGuinty Liberal plans to hire 9,000 nurses, build 35,000 new long-term-care beds, shut down coal-fired generators and create permanent full-time jobs. You’re not just driving retirement investments to other provinces. Som Seif, president of Claymore Investments, which manages $3.2 billion in funds, says, “The US market is much more developed and not a single penny in taxes is charged.... What you will end up with is billions of dollars leaving Canada.”

How can anyone trust the McGuinty Liberals’ so-called plan when your greedy HST tax grab is hollowing out Ontario’s financial services sector?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I reject Claymore and anybody like that. I think Ontario and Canada are the best places in the world to invest. I don’t think I’d be following the advice of an American financial institution at this point in time.

There’s no doubt that there are challenges in our economy. I’m going to continue, and this Premier and this party are going to continue, to build the economy here in Ontario. We’re not going to tell the federal government to relocate the securities regulator out of Ontario, as that member and his party seem to want to do. We’re not going to play games with that kind of nonsense.

I would remind the member opposite about today’s Royal Bank report that says, “Although the HST will result in certain currently exempt products and services being taxed, moving to a value-added tax structure will make the ... system more economically efficient and will improve the competitiveness of Ontario.”

That’s what we’re about. We’re not about driving institutions out of this province. We’re—

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

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the Premier refused to tell the House what was on the table at a $5,000-a-plate dinner he had with developers and other Liberal supporters.

My question to the Acting Premier is a simple one: Don’t the people of Ontario have a right to know what was discussed at that dinner?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would remind the member opposite, and all of the members of this House, that what the Premier did state yesterday very clearly is that we are blessed to live in a province and in a country where we have the freedom to associate, where we have political parties that are funded by the people of our province. One of the major ways that parties raise funds is with fundraisers, and that is a fact of all political parties, whether you are in the Liberal, Progressive Conservative or New Democratic Party. They all receive donations; they all receive funds from the general public.

What the Premier said yesterday is that we do take the responsibility of making sure the Liberal Party of Ontario is well resourced so that we can continue to mount campaigns, so we can win elections, so we can continue to do the good work investing in hospitals, investing in schools, protecting our environment, investing in police—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A lot of people in this province don’t have $5,000 to set aside for private dinners with the Premier. If your local ER is closing, your daycare is closing, and your job and local resources are getting shipped out of the province, you actually have to struggle very hard to get the Premier of this province’s attention. But others have no problem at all getting that attention.

My question is: Don’t the people of Ontario who couldn’t afford a ticket at least deserve to know what was on the table and what was discussed at the Premier’s private fundraiser?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: As members of this assembly, we all enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of people in our ridings. We bring those issues to this House and they are debated. It is important for people in Ontario, as well, to appreciate that as members of a political party, we also look to raise funds within our community and within our province for our party so that we can run campaigns. The honourable member runs as a New Democratic Party member; she raises funds for her party in the very same ways that Liberals raise funds to support our members.

So it’s not inconsistent, and I think the honourable member might want to remember that their party survives in the very same way that our party does as well.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this is a government that refused to hold hearings on their unfair tax scheme. They ignore parents who are worried about losing local child care centres. They cover their ears when families raise concerns about ER closures. But some people are getting the government’s time and sympathetic ear. Why can’t the government simply provide the public with some basic information about this dinner?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’ve tried to make the point that all politicians in the province of Ontario have a responsibility to support their party.

I would say to the honourable member, if we want to talk about dinner parties and dollars, I have here an invitation. There’s an event on April 1 where the leader of the third party, Andrea Horwath, is inviting people to come to an event, and they only have to pay $1,800 a table to be at that event. So it goes to the point I have made, that as political parties, we raise money to support our party. The Liberal Party does it in Ontario, as do the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. That is part of the privilege of living in a democracy.

I would again remind her that on April—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I invite the Acting Premier to attend that fundraising event. It’s quite public. It’s an open invitation on Facebook, so anybody is welcome to attend and participate in that event.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question, in fact, is to the Acting Premier again. Yesterday, the Premier refused to answer some basic questions about a private meeting that he held with developers in Simcoe. The government has been facing a growing outcry about their plans for Simcoe and decisions to give developers what they want, even if it contradicts the government’s own growth plans in that area.

Can we clear the air once and for all today? What was discussed at that private meeting?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m going to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to respond, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Yesterday, the New Democratic Party was trying to suggest that something that didn’t happen happened. As you know, there was an independent, arm’s-length facilitator, who, after years of Innisfil and Barrie arguing over boundaries—and this happens very often. The facilitator put forward a recommendation for the boundaries and the government accepted that recommendation.

There are always going to be some people who are not happy when you have two municipalities, and we’ve all gone through this locally; one of them is not going to be happy with those boundaries because both would probably like to be able to grow in many of those cases.

Barrie is a booming community, a growing community. The facilitator made his report, recommended it, and it became legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: News reports actually say that the provincial development facilitator recommended that Barrie get 2,500 acres from Innisfil, but the government, for some reason, decided to give them over 5,500 acres. So, many people are asking very serious questions about the government’s plan for the Simcoe region and want to know who is driving that agenda.

Yesterday, the Premier refused to discuss a private meeting he had with developers in the area, and those developers refused to talk to reporters.

Again I’m asking: Can the government clear the air today and tell us where the dinner was held, who exactly was at the dinner and what matters were discussed there?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Let me put it in context for the member again. In 2005, the town of Innisfil asked the province to help resolve a long-standing dispute between the two communities. In 2006, the province referred the dispute to an independent facilitator to work with them. The facilitator made a recommendation on how to change the boundary; Barrie accepted it and Innisfil did not accept it.

In 2008-09, Minister Watson repeatedly asked Barrie and Innisfil officials to resolve the matter. On September 25, 2008, Minister Watson wrote Barrie’s mayor, and on March 9, 2009, he asked Barrie and Innisfil officials, “Would you please do it?”

Subsequent to that, there was a bill that was introduced in the House, and I think that bill took about seven months to go through this House. There were all kinds of hearings. People could have all kinds of representations. Finally, there was a vote on the bill.

You’re trying to make something out of nothing. This is exactly—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister seems to refer extensively to this report, yet, strangely, the government won’t release the facilitator’s report. People see this government making key decisions in Simcoe and wonder why exactly those decisions are being made.

Yesterday, the Premier was asked about a meeting he held with a group of people who have a lot at stake in that region. It wasn’t an open meeting. People couldn’t attend and watch and listen, but they certainly have a right to know whether public business was on the table at that meeting.

Once again, I’m asking this government to tell us where exactly the dinner was held, who was at that dinner and what the issues were that were being discussed there.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Listen, the New Democratic Party is trying to revolve this around the dispute between the two communities.

When we had the committee of the House—and those who are members of this House would know, especially members who live in the area—the committee even went up there. The committee went to Simcoe as part of the hearings to hear from everybody. There were all kinds of public hearings on this. Everybody had an opportunity—

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I know some members are happy with the results and some members are not happy, depending on the municipalities that are represented, but this was a dispute between two municipalities that an independent facilitator made a recommendation on, and that recommendation was a recommendation that the government accepted.

I don’t know why you continue to ask these kinds of questions when it was based on the facilitator’s recommendation to the government, and this went through the House—

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

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today, we learned that your government’s public sector reduction plan actually means that tax collectors are moving from the provincial Ministry of Revenue to the Canada Revenue Agency, complete with a six-month severance package. Apparently, they’ll continue to work in the same office, they’re not going to miss a day of work, and they’re being paid up to $45,000 to change their business cards.

My constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills know that there’s only one taxpayer. My question to the Acting Premier is this: Why are tax collectors getting hefty six-month severance packages simply for changing job titles?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Thanks to the member for the question. First of all, we are honouring provisions of a collective agreement that was in place. We have managed to protect, in the Durham region, some 1,250 jobs. We think it’s important to honour agreements that you sign.

We are delighted that the federal government is taking on those employees. This was part of what we think is an appropriate arrangement overall as we transition to the single harmonized tax. I remind the member opposite that we also harmonized the collection of corporate taxes, and we didn’t lose many jobs as a result of that.

In arriving at this arrangement with the federal government, we felt it appropriate to work with the bargaining unit and with our employees and honour the collective agreement that was in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: It’s an interesting answer, because the Minister of Revenue has been going around for months saying that one of the benefits of the HST is that it will reduce the provincial payroll.

Let’s get this straight: The HST tax-grab means tax collectors will be moved from the provincial to the federal government, but they are still being paid and given a hefty severance package. Could you explain to my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills—many of whom are working two part-time jobs to make ends meet, many of whom dream of making $45,000 a year but aren’t—why tax collectors are being handed that much when they aren’t even missing a single day of work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, I can: The Conservative government introduced that clause in the collective agreement. It’s an interesting position that he takes today, having had a Conservative government put that clause in the collective agreement and now saying that we shouldn’t honour it.

We think it’s important to work with our partners, particularly on something like that. I’m sorry the Conservative Party wouldn’t stand up and—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This will result in savings. These are 1,251 employees being transferred. It will result in savings year after year. This is one of the important benefits. This is why so many groups have supported the plan. This is why Conservatives support the plan. I think it’s important that we build on this and build a better future for Ontario.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday after question period, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing told reporters that the government decision to hand land over to Barrie was based on a facilitator’s report, which he then refused to share with the reporters. When the legislative committee of which I was a member travelled up to the Simcoe county hearing, we heard deputations from affected communities, but the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing refused to release that same report. Will the minister release that report if, in fact, the report was the basis for the decision you made?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The report the member makes reference to is a recommendation that was made by the facilitator. You have available to you the map the facilitator had, and that was how he reported to people. He said, “Here is what I would recommend, having heard both sides.”

This is a long-standing dispute between the two municipalities, and it’s a bitter dispute. It always is between municipalities. He made a recommendation, and you can look on the map and see what he recommended to the government of Ontario. Subsequent to that report, legislation was crafted, even with the previous minister trying hard to get the two municipalities themselves to resolve the matter.

I’ve had our staff check with the facilitator, and he has confirmed that’s exactly what happened. I don’t know what you’re getting at. I really don’t.

Mr. Michael Prue: Perhaps the minister should read his file, then, because the facilitator was a man by the name of Allan Wells. According to news reports from the Barrie Examiner at the time, the facilitator proposed turning control of 2,500 acres over to Barrie, and a year later, the government proposed legislation granting Barrie 5,500 acres—more than twice as much. It sure seems a big discrepancy to me that if the legislation is based on the facilitator’s decision, it went from 2,500 to 5,500.

Did the $5,000-a-plate dinner play a

part in the larger land transfer? That’s what we want to know.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would caution the honourable member of imputing any sort of motive.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I repeat to the member and to all members of the New Democratic Party who are trying to fashion something here—and I understand; I was in opposition. I remember what you do in opposition. I am telling the member that the two sides were disputing this. There was a lot of discussion that took place at committee. They made their representations to committee—their local members who had an interest in this, who would not be happy with the results and others who might be happy with it, according to what municipality they reside in.

I can tell you that our staff has talked to the facilitator, who said that what we proposed, and that became part of the legislation that this government proposed, was what he had recommended.

Now, we all recognize as well—and I think you do. You know the area well—that it’s a huge growing area at the present time, with far less developable land than most municipalities in Ontario. And yet it’s a growing—

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

JOB CREATION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. The 2009 budget announced infrastructure investment of $32.5 billion. The investment is for roads, schools, hospitals, recreation facilities and affordable housing. The investment means hundreds of thousands of jobs and huge economic growth, but some critics have been questioning the estimated job numbers. Minister, what evidence do you have to support the job estimates?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m happy to share with the member the Conference Board of Canada conclusions in their recent report released yesterday.

But first, I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was on TVOntario, said of this $32.5-billion investment in infrastructure that the member was referring to, “I don’t think that’s the right approach. It’s too much.”

This report proves that he was wrong and we were right to invest these dollars. From 2006 to 2010, every dollar we spend on public infrastructure added $1.11 to our GDP. We were right to invest this money in Ontario. The Leader of the Opposition was wrong.

Over the same period, 2006 to 2010, the report estimates a total of 822,335 person-years of employment. We were right; they were wrong. The job estimates that—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, thank you for verifying the details supporting the estimates, but I need to know two further things: What progress are you actually making in getting the money to where it’s needed to start the projects and create the jobs; and secondly, how can my constituents inform themselves where these projects are so they can take advantage of the job opportunities?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to let you and your constituents know that at ontario.ca/infrastruct ure they can track these projects going on right across the province. We’re open—it’s Open Ontario—so that we can watch these very important infrastructure projects that are creating jobs across this province develop.

We predicted that there would be 300,000 jobs created by this $32.5-billion investment; the Conference Board of Canada yesterday confirmed there’s more than that that’s going to be created, that our estimates were indeed conservative.

This is good news for Ontario. The conference board suggests that there would have been 70,000 workers out of work today had we listened to the Leader of the Opposition and not invested these dollars. This was good news for Ontario—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Ontario families can’t trust the McGuinty Liberals when they can’t even make it through the week without breaking the promises made in their throne speech. On Monday, you said the question facing Ontarians is whether health care is going to be there for our children. Well, by Wednesday, families and patients in Brockville learned that the answer is no. The McGuinty Liberals are cutting 17 front-line staff and 15 beds from the Brockville General Hospital, yet you pumped $15 million into Grace hospital the day before voting began in the Toronto Centre election. Are you punishing families in Brockville for how they voted?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me begin by just saying that the member opposite doesn’t need to read the question she’s given. She can actually put her own brain to work when it comes to question period. That question—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would just remind all members that we are here to represent our constituents. Yes, we may bring forward views that may be at odds with one another, but at the same time we owe it to each other, as much as possible, to be considerate. Comments like that are not helpful.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I apologize, Speaker.

When it comes to Brockville—we’ve made tremendous investments in health care right across this province. We’ve got almost 900,000 more people attached to primary care. We’ve got family health teams—150 health teams—up and running; 20 more are coming and another 30 beyond that. We’ve brought down wait times. We’ve tremendously improved the infrastructure of health care in this province.

We are asking hospitals to look very closely at where they are spending their money to ensure that we all get the very best value for the dollars we spend when it comes to health care. I know that the LHINs have been working very hard with the hospitals. The hospitals have come up with plans. Those are responsible plans. I encourage the member opposite to actually understand the work that—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’m actually asking this question on behalf of Steve Clark, our newly elected member from Leeds–Grenville. He hasn’t been sworn in yet, but I am asking this question on his behalf because he is already out at work asking his constituents about their concerns. They’re very disturbed by the cynicism and arrogance that is being shown by this government. They want me to ask you how cutting front-line staff and reducing beds equate to health care. Why are you saying that you’re committing to improving patient care when in Brockville you clearly are not?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very proud of the investments we’ve made in health care. We are committed to spending more next year than we spent this year, just as we have every year up till now.

I think it’s important to remind the member opposite that her party platform calls for a freeze in spending. We know what a freeze in spending means. I don’t think it’s appropriate that in some hospitals, in some communities, it’s okay to advocate for an increase, but across the province you want to say “freeze.” It doesn’t make sense. It’s irresponsible. I just would like to remind the member opposite that when her party has a platform of freezing spending, that means dramatic cuts across this province.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. On February 17, the Social Benefits Tribunal issued a ruling that was an indictment of the ministry guidelines that the McGuinty government is using to cut funding assistance for families of children with severe disabilities. The tribunal ruled that these arbitrary guidelines run contrary to the intent of the law. That was their ruling.

What is the minister’s plan for bringing the guidelines for the assistance for children with severe disabilities program into step with the Ontario Disability Support Program Act?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: In the privileged role that I have, I spend every opportunity to talk with families across the province about how we can better help them help their children and ensure that children with disabilities are better cared for and looked after in our community.

In each instance, we look to a holistic package of services that exist. We certainly take into account the advice that we receive. We work across ministries, between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and ourselves at the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. It is critically important that we look to always improve the service that we can deliver to kids in Ontario, and we do that every single day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Talk does not pay the bills for these families that are extremely put out in terms of the costs of caring for their children.

John Wood was forced to appeal to the tribunal after the ministry used its guidelines last April to reduce his ACSD funding to $25 from $430 a month for his daughter’s expensive life-and-death medical needs. The tribunal fully restored the funding retroactively, noting that the ministry’s income ceiling chart is a self-imposed guideline and is not the law. The law says that to qualify for funding, the child must have a severe disability and live at home. The parents must have extraordinary expenses and be the primary caregivers.

What is this minister doing to ensure that parents who qualify can actually receive ACSD funding in accordance with the law, without being trapped by their phony guidelines?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’ve been working, through my ministry, to set up a meeting with Mr. Wood to discuss his concerns specifically.

Hearing directly from parents about how we can move forward, in terms of ensuring our government’s commitment to continue to improve the services and supports for children and youth with special needs, is of utmost importance. That’s why we’ve increased spending in the program from $63 million to $90 million since we took office—a 42% increase.

Absolutely, there is more to do, and we look to continual improvement in the services that we provide children in this province. That’s why there’s a Ministry of Children and Youth Services. That’s why I feel privileged to be able to continue to do this work.

I look forward to speaking with Mr. Wood and other parents across the country, as we do on a daily basis, to help improve the services that we provide to our most vulnerable children.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, I believe that improving the education of our young people is the most important priority for the future of Ontario. In the recent throne speech, the government announced that it will improve post-secondary education by increasing the percentage of students who are attending post-secondary institutions.

Minister, we made a similar commitment in the government’s Reaching Higher plan. Can you update this House as to the progress that has been made since that commitment was made?

Hon. John Milloy: I very much appreciate the question, because members may not realize it but we’re actually at about the fifth anniversary right now of the Reaching Higher plan, one of the most significant investments in post-secondary education in over two generations.

There have been many successes through Reaching Higher. The biggest one is the fact that we have welcomed an additional 120,000 students into our colleges and universities, and an additional 60,000 apprentices. Just to put it in context, 120,000 new students is the equivalent of creating a new University of Toronto and a new Ryerson University together. That is what has been added to the system.

At the same time, our post-secondary education rate of participation is now 62%, one of the highest in the world. As we move forward, however, we know that we have to do even better, with experts—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Minister, I’m happy to hear that increasing post-secondary attendance is a key goal of our government. However, in order to increase post-secondary attendance to 70%, it will require more resources. This is an important goal, but we are still addressing the effects of the global economic recession.

What is the government’s plan to sustain this increase in enrolment, and how will we ensure that we maintain high standards at our post-secondary institutions?

Hon. John Milloy: As I was saying, 62% of Ontarians have some form of post-secondary educational credential right now. Our target is 70%, which is what most experts agree is what we need. I was very pleased that the speech from the throne committed us to welcoming an additional 20,000 new students to our colleges and universities this fall.

I’m pleased with the investments that we’ve made over the past number of years in terms of bricks and mortar, more support for students and more support for institutions. That’s going to be an important platform to build on when we welcome another 20,000 this fall, through the commitment that we made in the speech from the throne, and details that will be made available in the coming weeks that we’re looking forward to working with our colleges and universities and ensuring that we have one of the best post-secondary systems in the world.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is to the Acting Premier, I guess. Minister, as you may or may not be aware, there are some great concerns coming out of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Recently the MNR undertook a complete organizational restructuring, and before that, the MNR lost the forestry file. In fact, the new internal MNR structure no longer includes a fish and wildlife branch.

Anglers, hunters, trappers, outdoor groups and organizations are quite concerned about this. They see this as a continued erosion of the MNR away from its core responsibilities of fish and wildlife management. Minister, I must admit that I am just as concerned, as the ministry continues to lose the important traditional values that it has long identified with for the people in the province of Ontario.

Minister, can you and your government reassure the outdoors community that these major changes will not diminish the traditional fish and wildlife roles of the MNR?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have the opportunity to address the question. I know that the honourable member knows that, as a rural member and for other reasons, I am particularly interested in the operations of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

What I can say to the honourable member is that I am aware that there has been some administrative change in terms of the organization of the Ministry of Natural Resources. He has particularly identified the importance of the fish and wildlife branch, and I would agree with him that it is a very important function of government.

In terms of how the management of fish and wildlife resources is now ordered in the province with the Ministry of Natural Resources, I’m not particularly familiar with that. I am aware that the minister is certainly doing her very best to ensure that those functions of the ministry that—

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Acting Premier, here is what the executive director of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters had to say about the MNR structural changes:

“It is regrettable that the one branch anglers and hunters most identified with has been splintered. Obviously, we are concerned about the marginalization of fish and wildlife, and by extension, fishing and hunting, through the division of the fish and wildlife program.”

Minister, because of the elimination of the fish and wildlife branch, there have also been concerns expressed relating to the accounting of the SPA, or the special purpose account, monies from fishing and hunting licence revenues being properly spent on fish and wildlife programs.

Will you and your government promise to uphold the MNR’s traditional core functions of fish and wildlife management? Can you guarantee that the fish and wildlife SPA, special purpose account, revenues will be spent on fish and wildlife management, not on species at risk or your government’s biodiversity agenda?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have the opportunity, on behalf of the minister, to stress today that the only thing that has changed at the ministry in terms of the services is the names of the branches that lead the work. In terms of the resources that are devoted and dedicated to protecting our natural resources, fish and wildlife particularly, they remain intact.

I’m surprised that the Federation of Anglers and Hunters perhaps wouldn’t have that information. I’m delighted that you have provided the opportunity in the House today for me to make that clarification and also to state quite unequivocally that, as a government, we will continue to support the investments and the sound management of the fish and wildlife resources of the province of Ontario.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. A number of people in our constituency and across the north are concerned about the closure of the Xstrata smelter refinery in the city of Timmins. They have been writing you letters, and in those letters, they’ve been asking your government to intervene in some way in order to keep that facility open.

One of the suggestions is to follow the legislation that I put forward, which would make changes to

section 91 of the act in order to ensure that we get value added to the resources that we extract from the ground. What’s interesting is that in your response on page 2 of the letters that you’ve been sending back, you say, “It is important to note that no province in Canada has a law that dictates mandatory provincial processing.” Minister, that’s not true. The reality is, the province of Newfoundland has similar legislation to what I have put forward, and other provinces have varying measures in order to get to that particular point.

Are you prepared to clarify by rewriting letters to people to say that, in fact, those provisions do—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: In fact, I think the member does know that indeed no province has legislation which requires processing, and that does include Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that there are minerals coming from Voisey’s Bay that are being processed in Ontario at the Xstrata Falconbridge smelter. That is just a fact, and he does know that. We also know that a significant amount—in fact, three quarters—of the iron ore that comes into our steel plants in Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton comes from Labrador, Quebec, Minnesota and Michigan, I believe.

So while there is, I think, a clause in their legislation that allows them to invoke that, there is no legislation that requires processing to be taking place in the province. I think the member understands that.

Let me just state once again that we are obviously incredibly concerned about the impact the Xstrata decision is having on the workers, and it’s something that we want to continue to work closely with you—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What I understand is that you’re trying to confuse the issue. It’s quite simple: Other provinces want to add value to those minerals, and have different mechanisms in order to do so. The province of Newfoundland has what I’m proposing in

section 91: an ability to say to companies such as Xstrata, “You will not shut down your refinery and you will refine and smelt those materials here.”

For you to write a letter to constituents across northern Ontario to say that is not the fact, that no other province does that, is false. So I ask you again: Are you prepared to retract what you have said by way of follow-up letters to these people so that they clearly understand the facts for what they are and not what you’re making up?

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: “Making up”? He made it up. It’s a fact.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just say, “I withdraw.”

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I certainly understand very, very well, as does the Premier, what an incredibly difficult situation this is. The Premier met with Mick Davis, the global CEO of Xstrata, last week, and he asked some pretty tough questions. In fact, we made it clear that we would like nothing better than to have Xstrata change their mind on this decision.

But in terms of the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fact is, it’s a misconception that all materials from Voisey’s Bay have to be processed in Newfoundland, when we know that various parts are being shipped to Ontario for processing. We cannot close our borders without having a massive impact potentially on thousands of other workers in Ontario.

As I pointed out, in Newfoundland they do have a clause that they can choose to invoke, but they don’t invoke the clause in the case of iron ore—I mean, in the case of other minerals.

We’re going to continue to work with you. I was in Timmins last week, as you know, and we were able to make an announcement—

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

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, this past fall, Bill 177, the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act, passed third reading, and it recently received royal assent. My understanding of the bill is that it sets out to clarify the roles of school boards and trustees, because those roles were not well defined when significant structural changes in our educational system took place over a decade ago.

Further to discussions I’ve had with the two Peel region school boards representing my area, they seek assurances. We all know that much has changed in the last decade in our public education system, and it is important that board governance also sees positive change. Minister, could you tell the House what will be the next steps of implementing Bill 177?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I’m happy to have the opportunity to address the question. I’m sure that members in this assembly are hearing from their local school board trustees with questions that have arisen around how this bill is going to be implemented and what the next steps are.

First of all, with respect to Bill 177, we brought these changes into place, and we did have a great deal of consultation before the bill was passed into law. We have engaged the school community significantly, but there still remain questions. I want the people of Ontario to know that ministry officials are currently working on a number of next steps.

We have recently consulted with a provincial-interest regulation to create a framework within the ministry that will be able to intervene—

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

Mr. Charles Sousa: Minister, I understand that there is a provincial-interest regulation as part of Bill 177. I’ve heard that there are some concerns that the provincial-interest regulation will allow you to intervene at the board level solely on the basis of EQAO results.

We all expect boards to be managed with the utmost integrity. Moreover, we depend on them to put the best interests of their students first.

Minister, can you tell the House, will the government be able to intervene at the board level solely on the basis of test scores? How will it affect accountability? How does it support struggling boards? What is involved, Minister, in the public-interest regulation?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: With respect to the regulation, we are highly sensitive to a range of issues that can impact student achievement. But it is a notice to boards that student achievement is something that we are paying very close attention to. Our government has made it clear that student success is a priority. We want to improve student test scores. We want to increase graduation rates. We want to continue to build confidence in the public education system.

I can say that, with respect to the provincial-interest regulation, test scores will be one part of the consideration but not the only part of the consideration that we make when we consider what we might do and what tools we might implement to assist and support school boards as they look to improve student success in their boards.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, I’ve heard from a personal support worker in my riding who was told that the local community care access centre ran out of money in February and has not accepted any new clients, and will not accept any new clients until the new fiscal begins. Why are these workers being told that taking on new clients who need care simply isn’t in the budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I tell you, the work that is done in the community by our community care access centres is tremendous work. We have made excellent progress. We’ve increased funding dramatically for CCACs. We know that providing supports for people in their own homes is what we need to do. We need to continue to support CCACs. As I say, we’ve seen tremendous increases in their funding, and we will continue to increase support for CCACs.

The member opposite represents a party who has a policy of freezing health care spending. Freezing health care spending will have a devastating effect on our community care access centres. We remain committed to improving health care in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The minister’s words are not matching her actions. The CCAC workers have been told that no new clients can start until the new fiscal. These personal support workers have clients that need oxygen care, personal care, lift and wheelchair assistance, catheter care and much more. Without these workers, patients who are leaving hospitals will still suffer.

You know that providing post-hospital care for patients reduces the need for return trips to emergency rooms, meaning it is a preventive and cost-effective measure. Minister, where do you expect these patients to go?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think our record speaks for itself when it comes to supporting community care access centres. In this fiscal year, almost $2 billion has been spent in community care access centres; that’s an increase in funding of 56% since we took office.

Clearly, under the party opposite—they, in fact, cut home and community health care funding by $22 million and decreased nursing visits by 22%. The cuts in that sector were pretty profound under the Tory government. In stark contrast, we have 220,000 more people receiving home care now than in 2003.

Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. Are we committed to improving supports for people in their own homes? Absolutely. It’s part of our plan to reduce wait times in emergency rooms, to decrease the levels of—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. A year ago, AbitibiBowater asked the McGuinty Liberals to allow that company to sell off their power dams in northwestern and northeastern Ontario. New Democrats oppose any sell-off.

While other paper mills have closed because they cannot afford to pay the McGuinty government’s inflated industrial hydro bills, Abitibi’s power dams generate electricity at very low cost, which has helped sustain three paper mills in Thunder Bay, in Fort Frances and Iroquois Falls, and over 2,000 jobs. AbitibiBowater is now at it again trying to sell those power dams.

My question is this: Are the McGuinty Liberals going to allow AbitibiBowater to sell off those power dams and put thousands of jobs at risk in Thunder Bay, Fort Frances and Iroquois Falls?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the question from the member. I know he has been involved in these kinds of issues for a long time.

This government is investing big-time, through our agency partners, in expanding our grid to ensure that we can gain access to a lot of the huge economic development opportunities in the north, in particular in the energy sector.

We’re very committed to moving forward on projects in the north with regard to water hydro projects. We recognize it is one of the most economical ways to provide energy supply. When we work through these transmission expansions, we know it’s going to open doors for communities in the north, opportunities and jobs in the north, as we expand these hydro projects. Certainly, we will be keeping an eye on the issue the member is raising as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The supplementary question should be: Do you know where Iroquois Falls and Fort Frances are? Because the reality is, if you allow them to sell off those power dams, the cost of production will go up by $50 to $75 a tonne and that means the mill in Iroquois Falls, the mill in Fort Frances and the mill in Thunder Bay will be at risk of closure.

Our question is a very simple one: Are you going to block the sale of those dams? Because if you don’t, they will not be able to compete with your hydro rates and those people will lose their jobs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Again, I thank the member for the question. I say again that we’re very committed to ensuring that all kinds of energy supply opportunities are opened up to the north that currently don’t exist. We’re in the process now of the single largest transmission expansion in the history of this province. That is going to open up doors to the north and in some cases even the Far North when it comes to hydro opportunities.

I’ll certainly keep my eye on the issues that the member is raising. I’m pleased to do that. I appreciate the member raising that issue in this Legislature. We’ll certainly be keeping our eye on it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Early today, we heard an allegation that the report from the provincial facilitator on the Barrie-Innisfil boundaries contained one recommendation but that the legislation introduced contained much more land. There seems to be a discrepancy or misunderstanding. Can you please clarify for the Legislature how much land the facilitator recommended to be added to Barrie and how much land the legislation added to the city of Barrie boundary?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I don’t want to get anybody in NDP research in trouble. I think what has happened is, the NDP has made a mistake. They have mixed up hectares and acres: 2,200 hectares equals 5,600 acres. So what appears to have happened is that the NDP has mixed up acres and hectares, because to my total, 2,200 hectares equals 5,600 acres, and that is exactly what the facilitator recommended.

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He has it. They have it.

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Wellington–Halton Hills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Finance concerning the transfer of staff from the Ontario Ministry of Revenue to the Canada Revenue Agency. This matter will be debated on Tuesday, March 23 at 6 p.m.

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

The House recessed from 1135 to 1300.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. Margarett R. Best: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the Black History Month statement I made on February 17, 2010, my remark “including the late Leonard A. Braithwaite” should be read as “including Leonard A. Braithwaite.” I would point out that Mr. Braithwaite is in fact alive and well and is in the east members’ gallery today.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Paul Miller: Today, I’d like to introduce a special guest, Alice Hazelton, who is in the members’ gallery. Alice has worked for several years in the British Parliament. She’s here to learn about our parliamentary system, and we’re very happy to have her here.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence as I introduce a number of guests here today. These are women who supported the war effort for World War II in the Lakeview small arms complex, and they’re here with us today. Please join me in welcoming and celebrating—now, Olga Cutmore and Irene Baker are not here, but we do have Olive Purdy, Bernice Glowe, Violet Driscoll, Alma McCrindel, Kay Waldner Rylko, Irene Baker and Mary Hanson.

Joining them are Eileen and Marilyn Stanley on behalf of their mother, Anne Benden Stanley, as well as Donna Carr, Sharon Sbrocchi, Leo Sbrocchi, Magan Sbrocchi, Richard Rylko, Susie Rylko, Lynn Judge and Marlene Briand; as well, Jim Tovey, Mississauga’s man of the year and the founder of the Lakeview Foundation, and his wife, Lee Tovey. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Cambridge and page Quint